[Senate Hearing 111-1143]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-1143
WOMEN'S RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS: U.S. RATIFICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON
THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN (CEDAW)
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
----------
NOVEMBER 18, 2010
----------
Serial No. J-111-114
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
WOMEN'S RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS: U.S. RATIFICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON
THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN (CEDAW)
S. Hrg. 111-1143
WOMEN'S RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS: U.S. RATIFICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON
THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN (CEDAW)
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 18, 2010
__________
Serial No. J-111-114
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-956 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JON KYL, Arizona
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JOHN CORNYN, Texas
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Matt Miner, Republican Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN CORNYN, Texas
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel
Brooke Bacak, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland,
prepared statement............................................. 109
Coburn, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma,
prepared statement............................................. 151
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Illinois....................................................... 1
prepared statement........................................... 162
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of
California, prepared statement................................. 183
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont,
prepared statement............................................. 234
Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Pennsylvania................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Bagenstos, Samuel R., Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC................................................. 6
Davis, Geena, Actor and Founder, The Geena Davis Institute on
Gender in Media, Marina Del Ray, California.................... 14
Frogh, Wazhma, Women's Rights Activist, Afghan Women's Network,
and Recipient of U.S. Department of State's International Women
of Courage Award, Afghanistan.................................. 12
Greenberger, Marcia D., Co-President, National Women's Law
Center, Washington, DC......................................... 17
Groves, Steven, Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow, Margaret
Thatcher Center for Freedom, The Heritage Foundation,
Washington, DC................................................. 16
Verveer, Ambassador Melanne, Ambassador-at-Large, Office of
Global Women's Issues, U.S. Department of State, Washington,
D.C............................................................ 5
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of Samuel R. Bagenstos to questions submitted by
Senator Coburn................................................. 27
Responses of Geena Davis to questions submitted by Senator Coburn 33
Responses of Marcia D. Greenberger to questions submitted by
Senator Coburn................................................. 35
Responses of Steven Groves to questions submitted by Senator
Coburn......................................................... 38
Responses of Melanne Verveer to questions submitted by Senators
Cardin and Coburn.............................................. 45
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Abou-Habib, Lina, Executive Director of the Collective for
Research and Training on Development, Toronto Ontario, Canada,
statement...................................................... 70
Afkhami, Mahnaz, Founder and President, Women's Learning
Partnership, and Former Minister for Women's Affairs, Iran,
Bethesda, Maryland, statement.................................. 72
Advocates for Youth, James Wagoner, President, Washington, DC,
statement...................................................... 74
American Association of University Women, Washington, DC,
statement...................................................... 76
AAUW Massachusetts, Catherine Schindewolf, Public Policy Chair,
and Elizabeth Fragola, President, Massachusetts, letter........ 78
American Bar Association, Stephen N. Zack, President, Washington,
DC, statement.................................................. 79
American Civil Liberties Union, Laura W. Murphy, Director,
Washington, DC, statement...................................... 82
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research,
Christina Hoff Sommers, Resident Scholar, Washington, DC,
statement...................................................... 87
American Jewish Committee, E. Robert Goodkind, President Emeritus
and Chair, and Richard T. Foltin, Director, Washington, DC,
November 16, 2010, joint letter................................ 92
American Psychological Association, Gwendolyn Puryear Keita,
Executive Director, Public Interest Directorate, Washington,
DC, statement.................................................. 93
Americans United for Life, William L. Sanders, Senior Vice
President and Senior Counsel, Washington, statement............ 97
Amnesty International USA, New York, New York, statement......... 99
Amnesty International USA, Alice Dahle, Coordinator for Iowa,
Cedar Rapids, Iowa, November 14, 2010, letter.................. 103
Aurat Foundation, Naeem Ahmed Mirza, Chief Operating Officer,
Islamabad, Pakistan, letter.................................... 104
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, a U.S. Senator from the State of California,
prepared statement............................................. 105
Break the Cycle, Juley Fulcher, Director of Policy Programs,
Washington, DC, November 16, 2010, letter...................... 107
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (CPEDV), Tara
Shabazz, Executive Director, Sacraments, California, letter.... 108
Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), Susan
Yoshihara, Vice President and Director of Research, New York,
New York, statement............................................ 111
Catholics for Choice, Jon O'Brien, President, Washington, DC,
November 18, 2010, letter...................................... 117
Center for International Human Rights at John Jay College of
Criminal Justice, Rebecca Landy, Assistant Director, New York,
New York, November 15, 2010, letter............................ 118
Center for International Law and Policy, Boston, Massachusetts,
statement...................................................... 119
Center for Reproductive Rights, New York, New York, statement.... 131
Center for Women's Global Leadership, New Brunswick, New Jersey,
joint statement................................................ 136
Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE), Serra Sippel,
President, Washington, DC, November 15, 2010, letter........... 140
Church Women United (CWU), Margurite Carter, National President,
Washington, DC, resolution..................................... 142
City and County of San Francisco, Emily M. Murase, Executive
Director, San Francisco, California, November 16, 2010, letter. 143
Citizens for Global Solutions, Washington, DC, statement......... 145
Coalition of Labor Union Women, Karen J. See, President,
Washington, DC, November 16, 2010, letter...................... 149
Davis, Geena, Actor and Founder, The Geena Davis Institute on
Gender in Media, Marina Del Ray, California, statement......... 153
Demos, Linda Tarr-Whelan, Distinguished Senior Fellow, New York,
New York, statement............................................ 155
de Langis, Theresa, Hooksett, New Hampshire, November 18, 2010,
letter......................................................... 158
de Montis, Malena, Founder and Board Member, Fodem-Cenzontle,
Managua, Nicaragua, statement.................................. 159
DeMuro, Karen Herman, President, Zonta Club of Oak Park, Oak
Park, Illinois, letter......................................... 161
Else, Sue, President, National Network to End Domestic Violence,
Washington, DC:
statement.................................................... 164
November 17, 2010, Letter.................................... 175
Equal Justice Society (EJS), Eva Paterson, President, San
Francisco, California, November 17, 2010, letter............... 176
Family Care International, New York, New York, statement......... 178
Family Watch International, Gilbert, Arizona, statement.......... 179
Federation of American Women's Clubs Overseas (FAWCO), Kathleen
Simon, President, statement.................................... 182
Fonte, John, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Washington, DC,
statement...................................................... 188
Fraser, Arvonne, former U.S. Ambassador, United Nations
Commission on the Status of Women, New York, New York,
statement...................................................... 199
General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist
Church, James E. Winkler, General Secretary, Washington, DC,
November 15, 2010, letter...................................... 200
Global Justice Ministry, Metroplitan Community Churches, Rev. Pat
Bumgardner, Chair, New York, New York, November 12, 2010,
letter......................................................... 201
Global Summit of Women, Irene Natividad, President, Washington,
DC, November 12, 2010, letter.................................. 202
Greenberger, Marcia D., Co-President, National Women's Law
Center, Washington, DC......................................... 203
Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization, Inc., Nancy Falchuk,
National President, New York, New York, statement and
attachments.................................................... 207
Henderson, Wade, President and CEO, Leadership Conference on
Civil and Human Rights, Washington, DC, statement.............. 210
Human Rights First, Tad Stahnke, Director of Policy and Programs,
Washington, DC, statement...................................... 213
Human Rights Watch, Washington, DC, statement.................... 215
Institute for Science and Human Values (ISHV), Paul Kurtz,
Chairman; Stu Jordan, President; and Jesse Christopherson,
Communications, Amherst, New York, November 17, 2010, letter... 219
International Center for Research on Women, (ICRW), Sarah Degnan
Kambou, President, Washington, DC, November 18, 2010, letter... 220
International Convocation Unitarian Universalist Women, Christine
Nielson, Vice President, Houston, Texas, November 18, 2010,
letter......................................................... 222
International Women's Health Coalition, New York, New York,
letter......................................................... 223
Iowa United Nations Association, Yashar Vasef, Executive
Director, Iowa City, Iowa, letter.............................. 224
IWRAW Asia Pacific, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, statement............ 225
JBI, Felice Gaer, Director, New York, New York, statement........ 227
Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), Josh Protas, Vice
President and Washington Director, Washington, DC, November 15,
2010, letter................................................... 230
Just Associates (JASS), Lisa VeneKlasen, Executive Director,
Washington, DC, November 15, 2010, letter...................... 231
Justice Now, Robin S. Levi, Human Rights Director, Statement..... 232
Legal Momentum, Rachael Pine, Acting President; Lisalyn R.
Jacobs, Vice President for Government Relations, Washington,
DC, November 16, 2010, letter.................................. 236
Liebowitz, Debra, Associate Professor of Political Science and
Women's Studies, Drew University, Madison, New Jersey,
statement...................................................... 237
Maloney, Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York, statement......................................... 241
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, Washington DC, letter...... 243
Melissa, statement............................................... 244
National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF),
Washington, DC, statement...................................... 246
National Association of Social Workers (NASW), Washington, DC,
statement...................................................... 250
National Committee on UN CEDAW, New York, New York, statement.... 251
National Congress of American Indians, Washington, DC, statement. 254
National Conference of Puerto Rican Women, Inc., (NACOPRW),
Washington, DC, statement...................................... 261
National Education Association, Washington, DC, November 18,
2010, letter................................................... 262
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, Washington, DC,
statement...................................................... 263
National Lawyers Guild, David Gespass, President, New York, New
York, November 16, 2010, letter................................ 269
National Organization for Women, Phoenix-Scottsdale Chapter,
Scottsdale, Arizona, November 16, 2010, letter................. 271
National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the U.S., Anthony
Vance, Director of External Affairs, Washington, DC, November
16, 2010, letter............................................... 272
9to5, National Association of Working Women, Linda Meric,
Executive Director, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, November 16, 2010,
letter......................................................... 273
Northeastern University School of Law, Dan Daielsen; Martha
Davis; Lucy Williams; Margaret Woo, Faculty Co-Directors,
Boston, Massachusetts, November 16, 2010, letter............... 274
O'Connor, Justice Sandra Day, Supreme Court of the U.S.,
Washington, DC, November 17, 2010, letter...................... 276
O'Neill, Terry, President, National Organization for Women and
NOW Foundation, Washington, DC, statement and attachment....... 277
Pathfinder International, Executive Team, Daniel Pellegrom,
President; Caroline Crosbie, Senior Vice President; Demet
Gural, Vice President, Programs; Erin Majernik, Vice President,
Resource Development; and Thomas Downing, Chief Financial
Officer, Field Office Heads, Susan White, Acting Country
Representative, Angola; Shabnam Shahnaz, Country
Representative, Bangledesh; Carlos Laudari, Director,
Pathfinder do Brasil; Carmen Pereira, Executive Coordinator,
Pathfinder do Brasil; Tanou Diallo, Country Representative,
Burundi; Alpha Mahmoud Barry, Chief of Party, Conakry Guinea;
Mohamed Abou Nar, Country Representative, Egypt; Tilahun Giday,
Country Representative, Ethiopia; Mengistu Asnake, Deputy
Country Representative, India; Darshana Vyas, Director,
Programs, India; Peter Eerens, Country Representative, Kenya;
Rita Badiani, Country Representative, Mozambique; Regina
Benevides, Chief of Party, Mozambique; Mohammad Murtala Mai,
Country Representative, Nigeria and Ghana; Jelilah Unia,
Project Director, Papua New Guinea; Mustafa Kudrati, Country
Representative, Tanzania; Ton Van Der Velden, Country
Representative, Vietnam; Linda Casey, Project Director,
Washington, DC; Waterford, Ireland, November 15, 2010, joint
statement...................................................... 287
Pennsylvania NOW, Inc., Joanne L. Tosti-Vasey, President,
Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, statement and attachments............ 289
Pitanguy, Jacqueline, Founder and Executive Director, CEPIA,
CidADANIA Estudo Pequisa, Brazil, statement.................... 315
Presbyterian Ministry at the United Nations, Rev. W. Mark Koenig,
Director, New York, New York, November 16, 2010, letter........ 316
Public Health Institute, Suzanne Petroni, Vice President,
Washington, DC, November 12, 2010, letter...................... 317
Rabkin, Jeremy, Professor of Law, George Mason University, School
of Law, Arlington, Virginia, statement......................... 318
Rachel Coalition, Suzanne Groisser, Esq., Coordinator of Legal
Services, Montclair, New Jersey, letter........................ 325
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Mark J. Pelavin,
Associate Director, Washington, DC, statement.................. 326
Roosevelt Institute, Anna Eleanor Roosevelt, Chair, New York, New
York, statement................................................ 328
Sakhi for South Asian Women, New York, New York, statement....... 330
Same Sky, Francine LeFrak, President and Founder, New York, New
York, letter................................................... 331
Sanctuary for Families, Dorchen Leidholdt, Center for Battered
Women's Legal Service, New York, New York, statement........... 332
Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Mary Kay Henry,
President, Washington, DC, statement........................... 334
Sheffield, Jill, Founder and President, Women Deliver, New York,
New York, statement............................................ 336
Smeal, Eleanor, President, Feminist Majority Foundation,
Arlington, Virginia, statement................................. 338
United Church of Christ, (Justice and Witness Ministries), Rev.
Lois M. Powell, Executive for Administration and Women's
Justice, Cleveland, Ohio, November 15, 2010, letter............ 340
United Nations Association of the United States of America, Ellen
J. Fisher, President, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, statement............ 342
United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), Arlington,
Virginia:
Carol M. Poteat-Buchanan, November 17, 2010, letter.......... 343
Southern California Chapter; CeCe Sloan, President; Kim
Salter, Vice President; Lucy V. Parker, Board Member;
Patricia Bracho, Board Member; and Maggie Forster Schmitz,
National Board Member, November 17, 2010, joint letter..... 344
Unitarian Universalist Church of Annapolis, Betty McGarvie
Crowley, Chair; Christine Nielsen; and Phyllis Marsh,
Annapolis, Maryland, November 18, 2010, joint letter........... 345
Unitarian Universalist United Nations Office, Bruce Knotts,
Executive Director, New York, New York, statement.............. 347
United Families International, Gilbert, Arizona, statement....... 349
U.S. International Council on Disabilities, Marca Bristo,
President, Washington, DC, November 18, 2010, letter........... 363
U.S. Women Connect, Alice Dahle, Iowa State Coordinator,
statement...................................................... 365
U.S. Women and Cuba Collaboration, womenandcuba.org, statement... 368
Van Buren, Jane A., Executive Director, Women Helping Battered
Women, Inc., Burlington, Vermont, statement.................... 369
Women Donors Network, Donna P. Hall, President and Chief
Executive Officer, San Francisco, California, statement........ 374
WomenNC, Beth Dehahan, Executive Director, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina, November 14, 2010, letter............................ 376
Women Thrive Worldwide, Ritu Sharma, President, Washington, DC,
November 15, 2010, letter...................................... 377
Women's City Club of New York, Ruth E. Acker, President, and
Marjorie Ives, Chair, Women's Issues Committee, New York, New
York, November 15, 2010, letter................................ 378
Women's Intercultural Network, Julianne Cartwright Traylor,
Member, Global Adivsory Council, San Francisco, California,
statement...................................................... 379
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Jane Addams,
First International President, Boston, Massachusetts, statement 381
Women's Media Center, New York, New York, statement.............. 382
Women's Missionary Society, African Methodist Episcopal Church,
Shirley Hopkins Davis, President, Washington, DC, statement.... 383
Woman's National Democratic Club, Washington, DC, statement...... 385
Wright, Wendy, President, Concerned Women for America,
Washington, DC, statement...................................... 386
Yacoobi, Sakena, Founder and Executive Director, Afghan Institute
of Learning, statement......................................... 393
Zonta Club of LaSalle-Peru Area, Ann Maxwell-Weisbrod, President,
LaSalle, Illinois, statement................................... 396
Zonta Club of Madison Wisconsin, Tamara Hagen, President,
Madison, Wisconsin, statement.................................. 397
Zonta Club of Oak Park, Susan Barton, Stickney, Illinois,
November 15, 2010, letter...................................... 399
Zonta International, Dianne K. Curtis, President, Oak Brook,
Illinois, statement............................................ 400
Zonta International, District 6, Yvonne Vollman Chalfant,
Governor, Kankakee, Illinois, statement........................ 402
WOMEN'S RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS: U.S. RATIFICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON
THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN (CEDAW)
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J.
Durbin, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin and Specter.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Chairman Durbin. I want to apologize to those that have to
wait in the hallway. We are checking on the availability of
another room to see if we can accommodate this amazing turnout.
And I do apologize in advance if we are unable to do that.
I also know that Senator Boxer was at a Democratic Caucus
meeting, which I just left, and so she may not be here.
My name is Senator Dick Durbin--it is not actually
``Senator.'' It is just Dick Durbin. And I am from Illinois,
and I am the Chair of the Human Rights and the Law
Subcommittee, which will please come to order.
The title of today's hearing is ``Women's Rights Are Human
Rights: U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,'' known as CEDAW.
I am going to make a brief opening statement. Senator Coburn
will make an opening statement if and when he is here. And then
I am going to recognize Senator Boxer if she has arrived at
that moment.
Last December, this Subcommittee held the first-ever
Congressional hearing on U.S. compliance with our human rights
treaty obligations. Today we focus on a treaty that the United
States has not yet ratified--CEDAW. This is the first Senate
hearing on CEDAW in 8 years, and this is the first time the
Judiciary Committee has ever held a hearing on whether to
ratify a human rights treaty. This is usually the province of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and I would like to say
on the record that I have spoken to Senator Kerry, who is
totally supportive of our efforts.
CEDAW is the only treaty to focus primarily on the human
rights of women. It addresses issues like violence against
women, sex trafficking, the right to vote, and access to
education. Why do we need it? Because human rights of women and
girls are violated at an alarming rate all over the world. One
example: Violence against women is at epidemic levels. In South
Asia, countless women and girls have been burned with acid,
including Afghan girls attacked by the Taliban for the simple
act of attending elementary school. And literally hundreds of
thousands of women have been raped in the Democratic Republic
of Congo and other conflict situations.
I might say that I have personally visited the Democratic
Republic of Congo twice. I returned to Goma after several
years. They were shocked to see me come a second time. They
said, ``no one ever comes back.'' And I went back to see an
amazing effort at hospitals to serve women who are the victims
of the cruelest abuses imaginable. It is a strange, awful
situation in that country and many others in the developing
world.
This Subcommittee explored this horrible phenomenon in 2008
with a hearing on rape as a weapon of war. CEDAW is not a cure-
all for these atrocities, but it has had a real impact in
improving the lives of women and girls around the world.
Some examples: CEDAW led to the passage of laws prohibiting
violence against women in Afghanistan, Ghana, Mexico, and
Sierra Leone. It led to women being granted the right to vote
in Kuwait. And it helped give women the right to inherit
property in Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. CEDAW has been
ratified by 186 of 193 countries. Sadly, the United States is
one of only seven countries in the world that has failed to
ratify CEDAW, along with Iran, Somalia, and Sudan.
CEDAW was transmitted to the Senate 30 years ago. Twice, in
1994 and 2002, a bipartisan majority in the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee reported the treaty to the Senate floor,
but the Senate has never voted on this treaty. Under Presidents
Reagan, Bush--George H.W. Bush--and Clinton, the United States
ratified similar agreements on genocide, torture, and race. It
is time, I believe, to renew this proud bipartisan tradition
and join the rest of the world in demonstrating our commitment
to women's rights.
Let us be clear. The United States does not need to ratify
CEDAW to protect our own women and girls. Women have fought a
long and difficult struggle for equal rights in America, with
many victories along the way, and just to name a few: The 19th
Amendment giving women the right to vote in 1920; Title IX
prohibiting discrimination in education in 1972; the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act of 1978; the Violence Against Women Act in
1994; the election of the first woman as speaker of the House
in 2007; and the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,
the first bill signed into law by President Obama.
Of course, the struggle for women's rights continues, and
every year millions of American women and girls are subjected
to domestic violence, rape, and human trafficking. And women
who work full-time still only earn 77 cents for every dollar
that a man is paid. That is why it is unfortunate that
yesterday we failed to muster the 60 votes needed to proceed to
the Paycheck Fairness Act.
But the robust women's rights protections in U.S. law in
many ways exceed the requirements of CEDAW. Even opponents of
CEDAW acknowledge that ratifying CEDAW would not change U.S.
law in any way. So why should we worry about it? Why even have
a hearing on it?
Throughout history, we have tried to be a leader in the
world to advance human rights. But many times we have lost our
credibility when other countries have challenged us. Retired
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor sent us a letter
yesterday, and I would like to quote it. She said: ``The
Senate's failure to ratify CEDAW gives other countries a retort
when U.S. officials raise issues about the treatment of women,
and thus our non-ratification may hamper the effectiveness of
the United States in achieving increased protection for women
worldwide.''
Justice O'Connor is right. We need to ratify CEDAW so that
we can more effectively lead the fight for women's rights in
corners of the globe where women and girls are subjected to the
most extreme forms of violence and degradation simply for
exercising their fundamental human rights.
CEDAW is about giving women all over the world the chance
to enjoy the same freedoms and opportunities that American
women have struggled long and hard to achieve. Women have been
waiting for 30 years. The United States Senate should ratify
this treaty without further delay.
[Applause.]
Chairman Durbin. I would like to invite those who do not
have seats to take any empty chairs, including those at the
podium. I do not want people standing. So many are waiting
outside, and I know it is a hardship and a great sacrifice. So
anyone who would like to take a seat, please be my guest.
We are going to put in the record Senator Boxer's statement
and Senator Feinstein's statement, as well as Senator Leahy's,
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Congresswoman
Carolyn Maloney's statement.
[The statements appears as a submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Senator Specter, would you like to make an
opening statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I begin by
thanking you for convening this very important hearing. This
Convention has been ratified by 186 of the 193 countries
involved, and it is a very important statement of international
policy to respect the rights of women and to advance the cause
of women.
I note from the briefing materials that countries as
diverse as Bangladesh, Mexico, Kenya, Kuwait, and Afghanistan
have expanded rights and protection for women in education,
voting, legal protections against violence, and property
rights, all by leveraging the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
We have taken steps to consider the Convention twice by the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which passed it in 1994 and
the year 2002, but it has not been brought to the floor. And it
is my hope that this hearing and other public attention will
put some pressure to bring the matter to the floor.
We passed the Lilly Ledbetter legislation during this
session of Congress. Regrettably, we did not move ahead on the
Paycheck Fairness Act yesterday. We have a requirement, as you
may know, for 60 Senators to be in agreement before a bill is
taken up, and some people--we were two votes short, and among
those who voted no were some pretty big surprises, at least to
me, and that has been caused by the gridlock which we have in
Congress, which is well known worldwide, where there is a
tremendous amount of obstructionism going on in the U.S. Senate
today. Regrettably, this Convention is not at the top of the
list. At the top of the list at the moment is the START Treaty,
which is a serious matter of national defense. But that stopped
the legislation on the Paycheck Fairness Act, and we have to
persevere and move ahead.
This is a very busy time for the Senate, regrettably, and I
wanted to come by to lend my voice in support. Regrettably, I
cannot stay long myself. But I thank you and I thank our
distinguished array of witnesses for coming in today.
Chairman Durbin. Senator Specter, thank you, not only for
today but for your service to Pennsylvania and to America. You
have been an extraordinarily strong voice on so many issues,
and it is always great to be on your team. So thank you very
much for being here.
I also want to give personal thanks to Senator Patrick
Leahy. As I mentioned, this is the first hearing on CEDAW in
eight years, and I asked if the Judiciary Committee could hold
it, and he said he would be more than happy to accommodate me,
as did Senator Kerry.
I also note that Senator Boxer is not here at this moment,
but for the record, Senator Boxer chairs a critically important
subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee, the
subcommittee on International Operations, Human Rights,
Democracy, and Global Women's Issues. This is a subcommittee of
her own creation and it reflects her important priorities.
I am going to invite our first witness to the table here,
Melanne Verveer. I will not tell you when Melanne and I first
met, but it was in college so it goes back a few years.
Ambassador Verveer serves as the first-ever ambassador-at-large
for global women's issues at the State Department. President
Obama created this position, which speaks volumes about the
Administration's commitment to women's rights. Melanne is one
of our nation's most prominent leaders on women's rights. She
previously served as Chair and co-CEO of Vital Voices Global
Partnership, which she co-founded. And prior to this,
Ambassador Verveer served as an assistant to the President and
chief of staff to the First Lady in the Clinton administration.
Ambassador Verveer received her B.A. and M.A. from the highly
regarded Georgetown University where, I am pleased to say, we
were classmates.
Ambassador Verveer, thank you for being here today, and the
floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR MELANNE VERVEER, AMBASSADOR-AT-LARGE,
OFFICE OF GLOBAL WOMEN'S ISSUES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ambassador Verveer. Thank you so much, Chairman Durbin.
Thank you for your leadership and for your extremely powerful
statement just minutes ago and for this opportunity for all of
us to come and talk about the importance of the Women's Treaty.
I am very pleased to be here today with my colleague from
the Department of Justice, Sam Bagenstos, and I also want to
mention the heroic work of one of the witnesses who will follow
us: Wazhma Frogh, who is here from Afghanistan. I know
firsthand of her courage, and there is no one in this room who
knows more personally what this treaty represents and the good
that it has done in her own country.
I want to talk today about the Women's Treaty and what is
represents and why U.S. ratification is critical to our efforts
to promote and defend the rights of women across the globe. And
I hope that my full statement can be put in the record.
Chairman Durbin. Without objection.
Ambassador Verveer. Women's equality has rightly been
called the ``moral imperative of the 21st century.'' Gender
inequality and violations of women's human rights--including
the use of rape as a tool of war, acid attacks, female
infanticide, female genital mutilation, so-called honor
killings, the trafficking of women and girls into modern-day
slavery, and so much more--is nothing short of a humanitarian
tragedy of enormous proportions around the globe. In far too
many places, women are still prevented from participating fully
in parliaments, village councils, peace negotiations. Their
work is circumscribed or prevented altogether. The majority of
the world's illiterate are women, and the HIV/AIDS pandemic has
a woman's face, and the number of infections that grow are
often those among adolescent girls who are victims of sexual
violence.
Where women cannot participate fully and equally in their
societies, democracy is a contradiction in terms, economic
prosperity is hampered, and stability is at risk. Standing up
against this inequality and oppression and standing with the
women of the world is what ratifying the Women's Treaty is
about.
In my time in the State Department, I have been privileged
to visit many countries and meet with women from all walks of
life. And one question I am asked wherever I go anywhere in the
world is: Why has not the United States of America ratified
CEDAW?
The U.S. ratification of this treaty matters because the
moral leadership of our country on human rights matters. The
United States has long stood for the principles of equal
justice, the rule of law, respect for women, the defense of
human dignity, and women around the world look to us as a moral
leader on human rights. And yet, when it comes to this treaty,
we are one of a handful, as you said, among Iran, Somalia, and
Sudan--states with some of the worst human rights records in
the world. We are the only industrialized democracy in the
world that has not ratified the Women's Treaty, and some
governments, in fact, use that fact that we have not done so as
a pretext for not living up to their own obligations under it.
Importantly, ratification will also advance U.S. foreign policy
and national security interests.
President Obama's National Security Strategy recognizes
that ``countries are more peaceful and prosperous when women
are accorded full and equal rights and opportunity.'' And as
Secretary Clinton has said, ``the subjugation of women is a
threat to the national security of the United States. It is...a
threat to the common security of our world, because the
suffering and denial of the rights of women and the instability
of nations go hand in hand.'' Ratification of this treaty is
not only in the interest of oppressed women around the world;
it is in our interest as well.
Around the world, as you said, women are using the Women's
Treaty as an instrument for empowerment and progress, and there
are many accounts--there are a few in my testimony, examples of
how countries are holding--how rights advocates for women's
rights are holding their countries' commitments to the treaty
to bring constitutions, laws, and policies in line with its
principles of non-discrimination. And I have seen firsthand its
positive influence.
U.S. ratification will send a powerful and unequivocal
message about our commitment to equality for women across the
globe. It will lend much-needed validation and support to
advocates fighting the brutal oppression of women and girls
everywhere who seek to replicate in their own countries the
strong protections against discrimination that you have listed
earlier that we have here in the United States. And it will
signal that the United States stands with the women of the
world in their struggle for human rights.
So for all of these reasons, we urge the Senate to move
forward with ratification at the earliest possible opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Verveer appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Madam Ambassador.
Our next witness, Samuel Bagenstos, serves as the Principal
Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division
of the Justice Department. He is currently on leave as a
professor from the University of Michigan Law School. He
previously taught at Harvard, Washington University in St.
Louis, and UCLA, and served as law clerk to Supreme Court
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He is a graduate of the University
of North Carolina with a law degree from Harvard. This is his
second appearance before the Subcommittee. Mr. Bagenstos
testified last year at our hearing on mental illness in U.S.
prisons and jails.
Thank you again for joining us and please proceed.
STATEMENT OF SAMUEL R. BAGENSTOS, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Bagenstos. Thank you, Chairman Durbin. It is a
privilege and pleasure to be here today to testify in support
of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women, or the Women's Treaty. The United
States ratification of that treaty, as Ambassador Verveer said,
would ensure that our nation's unequivocal commitment to
advancing the rights of women around the world is communicated
forcefully. We know that when women are denied access to their
basic rights, families, communities, and entire nations suffer.
The Women's Treaty will provide an important framework through
which the United States can work with other governments, the
international community, and individuals around the world to
advance and promote the rights of women.
Our Nation is already a global leader in the field of
women's rights, and our existing laws and practices are broadly
consistent with the requirements of the Women's Treaty. The
Constitution itself prohibits sex-based classifications unless
they have an ``exceedingly persuasive justification,'' the
Court has said, a standard that the courts have applied to
ensure that governmental classifications based on sex are not
predicated on stereotypical or archaic ideas about the role
women should play in our society. And numerous statutes that
are discussed in my written testimony protect women against sex
discrimination and violence.
The Department of Justice is the primary enforcement agency
for many of these statutes. In our enforcement, we have
achieved significant gains for women and girls at home, at
school, and in the workplace.
One of the key goals of the Women's Treaty is to end
violence against women. Congress and the Administration and
this Committee have shared that goal. Since the enactment of
the Violence Against Women Act in 1994, the Justice Department
has prosecuted 2,600 cases typically involving the most
aggressive and violent abusers who cross state lines to pursue
their victims. The Department has also used stronger cyber
stalking laws and the latest technology to prosecute cases that
would be difficult for states to pursue. And we have awarded
over $4 billion in grants to law enforcement and victim
services for victims of domestic violence.
Article 6 of the Women's Treaty specifically addresses the
evils of human trafficking--evils that are well known by this
Subcommittee. In 2000, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
established new penalties for perpetrators of sex trafficking;
it provides for immigration and other benefits for victims, and
it penalizes foreign countries that fail to address
trafficking. In each of the past two fiscal years, the Civil
Rights Division of the Department of Justice and the U.S.
Attorneys' Offices have brought record numbers of human
trafficking prosecutions. We have secured significant sentences
against traffickers who have held victims, the overwhelming
majority of whom are female, in servitude for forced labor or
commercial sex.
Article 10 of the treaty addresses discrimination on the
basis of sex in education, and it emphasizes the importance of
access by girls and women to equal educational opportunities.
The Justice Department, together with the Department of
Education, enforces a number of laws that seek to ensure that
women and girls have an equal opportunity at every level of
education and are free from harassment at school. These laws
include Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the
basis for a successful challenge to the male-only admissions
policy at the Virginia Military Institute. It includes Title IX
of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits
discrimination in federally funded education programs on the
basis of sex and which we have applied in numerous lawsuits
involving the denial of equal opportunities for female students
to participate in athletics, in cases involving sexual
harassment in school, and others.
Just last month, the Department of Education released new
guidance advising schools across the country of their
responsibilities under Title IX to protect every student
against harassment.
Our employment discrimination laws also are broadly
consistent with Article 11 of the Women's Treaty. Title VII of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits sex discrimination,
including pregnancy discrimination and sexual harassment. In
the Department of Justice, we recently filed a lawsuit against
Massachusetts to challenge its use of a physical fitness test
that disproportionately excluded female applicants for entry-
level correctional officer jobs without effectively predicting
job performance.
The Department also enforces the Fair Housing Act and the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act which prohibits sex discrimination
in housing and lending, and we have brought numerous cases
alleging sexual harassment in housing. These cases have
resulted in the payment of millions of dollars in damages to
female tenants as well as orders permanently barring sexual
harassers from managing rental properties.
President Obama has made a commitment to promoting the
rights of women and girls, and the first bill he signed upon
taking office, as you pointed out, Chairman, was the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which I had the privilege of testifying
in support of in a different capacity. That law restored basic
protections against pay discrimination for women.
To further address the wage gap, the President established
a National Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force; he established the
White House Council on Women and Girls, which advises the
administration on issues such as equal pay, family leave, child
care, violence against women, and women's health care.
In all of these ways, the United States has an extensive
system of legal protections that protect women from
discrimination and violence, and we are strongly committed to
the vigorous enforcement and implementation of these laws at
home, which are broadly consistent with the Women's Treaty.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak with
you today, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bagenstos appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Let me ask this panel a couple of
questions, which are likely to be raised by my colleagues who
may not be here today and some critics of this endeavor.
The first is: Do the protections under the laws of the
Constitution and the statutes of the United States exceed any
protections included in CEDAW?
Mr. Bagenstos. I think there are significant respects in
which they do. The United States laws, as I have described to
some extent here, and to a much greater extent in our written
testimony, protect women and girls against discrimination and
violence in a wide variety of settings which touch on many
issues that are not addressed specifically in the Convention,
in the Women's Treaty that we are talking about today. So,
absolutely, our laws prohibiting sex discrimination are
something we can be very proud of and something that should
give us great confidence in ratifying this treaty.
Chairman Durbin. As I understand it, there is a CEDAW
Committee which comes forward with recommendations, and I
assume in the course of debate there will be those who say,
well, why should we allow this Committee to stand in judgment
of the United States if our laws are already adequate? Why do
we need to have some other panel, maybe not even composed of
American citizens, standing in judgment of our conduct?
Mr. Bagenstos. Well, I think there are a couple of
important points there. First of all, the CEDAW Committee is a
committee that has purely advisory responsibilities. It can
make suggestions and recommendations that are not binding on
states. So it does not have the authority to issue binding
pronouncements on the United States.
I will say the process of having acceded to a treaty like
the Women's Treaty will be a very positive process. It will
give us an opportunity in fora like the CEDAW Committee to tell
the story of America and the great protections that we provide
against discrimination for all people, and it will be a
platform for the United States to exercise and show its moral
leadership and not something that we should be afraid of.
Chairman Durbin. Ambassador, go ahead.
Ambassador Verveer. Senator, if I might, it is often raised
by some who oppose the treaty that the work of the Committee is
going to present us with a host of obstacles that we do not
want to accede to. And I just want to reiterate that the
committee's power only has the power that we cede to it. It
merely is in the position to make suggestions and
recommendations.
If you look at what the Committee has done in some
instances, we may not have agreed with much of it. But it does
not bind us, and I think that is a very important point to
underscore.
Chairman Durbin. Can you think of any other treaties
through which we are subjected to this sort of review of our
conduct against our promise and what impact it has had on
American laws?
Ambassador Verveer. You know, we have had an experience
that has been a very positive experience with the treaties that
we have ratified, certainly the human rights treaties, and
America has stood tall in all of those instances, and we have
not been overburdened by them. And this seems to be held to a
different standard for reasons that we all sit here some 30
years later.
Chairman Durbin. So let me ask you this question. You say
that you have traveled around the world and met with other
representatives, and that you have often been asked why CEDAW
has spent 30 years sitting in the Senate, which I guess is just
a short period of time by Senate standards but not by most
human standards.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Durbin. Is it not true that most countries of the
world, including even those that have failed to ratify this
treaty, women in those countries would gladly welcome an
opportunity to immigrate and live under our standards and laws?
So do they think less of the way we treat women and girls? Or
does it eliminate our authority or reduce our authority in
addressing issues overseas?
Ambassador Verveer. I think it takes a powerful tool away
from us that we could hold onto. When most of the world
ratifies a treaty that is about the elimination of
discrimination, that is a powerful statement. And it is true
many countries do not live up to that treaty, but we know how
effectively that lever is for rights advocates to seize and to
use effectively to bring about the kind of consistent
application of the principles of the treaty to their own lives.
We cannot say that we stand with them in terms of the treaty
itself because we do not have that tool.
You know, I have been thinking about this in terms of the
Helsinki Accords and how many of the countries that adopted
that those many years ago who did not comply with its
provisions, and it was used very effectively by the dissidents,
by the community who cared about freedom and all of the things
associated with those accords to be a constant prod, to be in
the bully pulpit, to make a difference on those strong human
rights issues at the time.
We cannot do that with this treaty because we have not
signed on to it even though you are right. Our laws are in
compliance in ways that are a shining beacon for the world, but
that shine is somehow not as bright as it could be because for
some reason we do not stand with most of the world on this
treaty.
Chairman Durbin. Mr. Bagenstos, would ratifying CEDAW force
us to change any existing laws or create any new ones in the
United States?
Mr. Bagenstos. No. The treaty itself is not self--
executing. We would rely on our existing domestic laws to carry
out the treaty, and it would not be judicially enforceable. And
so the answer to that would be no.
Chairman Durbin. You have undoubtedly followed the
questioning of Supreme Court nominees. At least the last four
that I can recall usually faced some question from the other
side of the aisle about the impact of international law on
America's decisions in our courts. To take it from the critics'
point of view, does this subject us to being held to an
international law standard different than our own?
Mr. Bagenstos. In the United States courts, it would not do
that because it is not self-executing. So it would not be
enforceable by the judiciary.
Chairman Durbin. Could you explain that term, ``self-
executing? ''
Mr. Bagenstos. Yes, and I am sure that the Department of
State would also probably be happy to discuss this, but the
concept of a non-self-executing treaty means that, as a matter
of domestic law, it is not enforceable in the United States
courts. It is not something that would require a change in our
domestic law. Our existing domestic law would be sufficient to
carry out this treaty.
Chairman Durbin. I am going to ask you a delicate question
but an important one that will be a part of this political
debate. Is there anything in the CEDAW treaty which would
require us to change any laws, existing laws, relative to women
when it comes to their reproductive rights or rights to
marriage?
Mr. Bagenstos. Well, certainly when the Foreign Relations
Committee, as you know, in 2002 reported this treaty out
favorably, it included a proposed package of reservations,
understandings, and declarations, which the Committee
determined were necessary in order to ensure that no American
law would have to be changed.
We are currently in the administration in a review process,
an interagency review process of those 2002 reservations,
understandings, and declarations, which is approaching its
final stages, and we are trying to assess whether those are
needed. We are happy to work with the Senate to develop an
appropriate package of the reservations, understandings, and
declarations that would enable the United States to sign on to
this treaty and ensure that we would not need to change any
existing law in order to do it.
Chairman Durbin. My last question. Ambassador Verveer, have
you seen in other countries situations where CEDAW or its
impact has really changed the lives of women and young girls?
Ambassador Verveer. Absolutely, Senator. It is utilized
over and over. My formal testimony goes into several examples.
You have alluded to some yourself. I know that Wazhma, I am
sure, will talk about the experience in Afghanistan where it
was used effectively to help pass the law to eliminate violence
against women. It is true of anti-trafficking laws. It has been
true of family law reforms. And it has been true of domestic
violence laws.
It is a powerful tool, and I hope that the United States
can finally put it in our human rights arsenal as well.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you very much for your testimony,
Ambassador Verveer and Mr. Bagenstos. We appreciate your return
to this Committee. You are always welcome.
Mr. Bagenstos. Thank you.
Chairman Durbin. We thank you for being here.
We are now going to call before us the second panel. We are
honored to welcome this distinguished panel. Each witness will
have five minutes for an opening statement, and complete
statements will be included in the record.
If I could ask the witnesses on this panel to please remain
at their seats and stand if they would, please, for the
customary swearing-in of our public witnesses. If the witnesses
would please raise their right hands? Do you solemnly swear
that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Ms. Davis. I do.
Ms. Frogh. I do.
Ms. Greenberger. I do.
Mr. Groves. I do.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you. Let the record indicate that
all four witnesses answered in the affirmative.
I might say that the oath that I just administered was the
sum and substance of my appearance in a movie last week, so I
have trained for this job.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Durbin. Our first witness is Wazhma Frogh, one of
the leading women's rights activists in Afghanistan. Ms. Frogh
is the recipient of the State Department's International Women
of Courage Award. She began advocating for women's rights at
the age of 17 in Afghan refugee camps in Peshawar, Pakistan,
and she never stopped. Ms. Frogh currently serves as the policy
and advocacy specialist for the Afghan Women's Network, a
coalition of 65 Afghan women's organizations. Previously, she
was Afghanistan's country director for global rights. Ms. Frogh
has a master's in law from the University of Warwick in
international development and human rights.
We are very honored to have you with us today, as we are
with all of our panel witnesses. We thank you for traveling all
the way from Afghanistan. Please proceed with your testimony.
As I mentioned before, your entire written testimony will be
made part of the record, so please proceed.
STATEMENT OF WAZHMA FROGH, WOMEN'S RIGHTS ACTIVIST, AFGHAN
WOMEN'S NETWORK, AND RECIPIENT OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE'S
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN OF COURAGE AWARD, AFGHANISTAN
Ms. Frogh. Thank you. Chairman Durbin and other members of
the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you
today on CEDAW and to describe Afghan women's experiences using
the Convention to enhance women's rights. I need to say that my
statements are only the struggles of civil society and women's
rights organizations and do not represent the position of the
Afghan Government.
Growing up in Afghanistan, I noticed when I was around 10
years old that my brothers were allowed to eat meat, but the
girls were not. My grandmother believed that eating meat would
make girls strong and they would question and disobey the
family's men. She advised my mother that the only way to guard
the family's honor was to keep the girls under control.
Similarly, girls were not allowed to play in the family's
garden. They had only to clean it. But I broke that rule to
play with my male cousins. Then my grandfather broke my toys
into pieces as an illustration of my own fate if I should break
family rules again. Those early experiences made me determined
to improve the situation for girls and women in my country.
The story of Afghan women is the story of survival. During
the Taliban, women were not allowed to work or get out of their
homes. The Taliban burned down girls' schools, assaulted with
acid burnings, and even cut women's parts of bodies.
Yet we survived that era, most of us vanishing into our
homes, leaving our jobs and education, others living in poverty
as refugees in neighboring countries. Emerging from those dark
days, we have fought hard to get back our basic rights.
Essential to that struggle has been the international
women's treaty known as CEDAW, the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The
rights we yearn for in my country are taken for granted by most
American women and girls, and for them CEDAW might be an
abstract thing. But the U.S. Senate is about to consider
whether to ratify CEDAW, and I would like to assure you that
the U.S. ratification of this treaty would be an enormous help
and a great triumph for the women of Afghanistan. Let me tell
you why.
CEDAW has been a banner, a torch we have held high, as we
have made our journey toward basic rights. Afghan women have
been mobilized under Afghan Women's Network which is the
organization I represent here. It is a network of over 65
women's organizations and over 3,000 members throughout the
country.
In 2004, while Afghanistan was developing its constitution,
we in the network looked up to CEDAW's materials and framework
as the world's consensus of what women's equality looks like in
policy and the law. We used its terms to advocate for the
adoption of Article 22 in our constitution, which for the first
time states that Afghan women and men are equal before the law.
Another major success of our network was the adoption of
the first-ever elimination of violence against women law
(EVAW). In a country where violence against women is everyday
reality, this enactment was not easy. The law made rape a crime
for the first time in Afghanistan and nullified forced
marriages and early marriages without the consent of girls,
punishing the perpetrators with imprisonment. This approach was
guided by CEDAW's Article 16, which makes the state responsible
for eliminating discrimination around issues of marriage and
family matters.
Women in Afghanistan have been deprived of the right to own
land and other assets, but this law of elimination of violence
against women is changing that fact. An example is Hamida.
After her husband was killed, her in-laws threw her out of her
home, with her eight children. Our network gave Hamida shelter
and discovered that she owned her husband's home as part of her
informal marriage contract. Our lawyers used the EVAW law, the
elimination of violence against women law, to successfully go
to court, and today Hamida lives with her children in her own
home and has a job as a cook. Ten years ago, I could not even
imagine that we could use our laws to help Afghan women.
These are only a few of our many achievements using the
terms of CEDAW. They have created a foundation and a base for
women's rights that we have never had before. More than 48
countries are present in Afghanistan, with obvious and hidden
political motives, so only an international instrument with a
universal and common agenda for women's rights could work for
us. We believe that women's rights enshrined in CEDAW are
universal and should be defended for all women around the
world. Therefore, we always expected the United States as a
bastion of freedom and a global leader on women's rights to
ratify CEDAW as a further demonstration of its commitment to
women's rights.
U.S. ratification of CEDAW is of huge international
significance. Even in Afghanistan, thousands of miles away,
conservative elements use this fact that America has not
ratified CEDAW to attack us. They ask us, ``why hasn't the
United States ratified CEDAW? '' Today we do not have an
answer. Perhaps one day soon, if the Senate ratifies CEDAW, we
can answer them back.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Frogh appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you so much, not only for being here
and your testimony, but also for the fact that you have
dedicated your life to this struggle. And for many of us, it is
almost unimaginable what you have gone through, and I thank you
for being here today to tell us that story. It means a lot.
Our next witness is Geena Davis, originally from
Massachusetts, which she told me today, an Academy Award-and
Golden Globe-winning actress. I think it says ``actor.'' I am
never quite sure when I watch the Oscars----
Ms. Davis. Well, you know, the definition in the
dictionary----
Chairman Durbin. You want to put the microphone on.
Ms. Davis. Sorry. This is just a little side discussion,
but----
Chairman Durbin. This is a gender discussion.
Ms. Davis. A gender discussion, yes. The dictionary
definition of ``actor'' is a person who acts. So we do not
actually need ``actress.'' It is going to sound soon as quaint
as ``doctoress'' or ``poetess'' or ``authoress.''
Chairman Durbin. ``Senatress,'' yes.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Durbin. Well, thank you very much.
Ms. Davis is well known for her ground-breaking portrayals
of women in movies and television shows including ``Thelma and
Louise,'' where she should not be held responsible for reckless
driving; ``A League of Their Own,'' where she played a woman
baseball star; and ``Commander In Chief,'' where she played our
nation's first woman president. Ms. Davis is a long-time
advocate for women. She founded the Geena Davis Institute on
Gender in Media, which aims to reduce gender stereotyping in
media. Ms. Davis has also partnered with UNIFEM to change the
way media portrays women and girls. She has also worked with
the Women's Sports Foundation for more than a decade,
supporting Title IX and girls' participation in sports.
I thank you for being here today and coming earlier for a
little press conference. Please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF GEENA DAVIS, ACTOR AND FOUNDER, THE GEENA DAVIS
INSTITUTE ON GENDER IN MEDIA, MARINA DEL RAY, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Davis. My pleasure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am
honored for this opportunity to testify today on the Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women. The United States was instrumental in formulating this
treaty, as with so many other human rights treaties. The
Women's Treaty is at once symbolic and practical, reflecting
fundamental American values about human rights and freedom from
discrimination.
I came by my passion for this issue as a mother and through
my work with some very inspiring organizations, as the Chairman
said. I have spent most of my adult life advocating for women
and girls on the board of the White House Project, for 10 years
as a trustee of the Women's Sports Foundation. I have also been
appointed a commissioner on the California Commission on the
Status of Women. Six years ago, I founded my research institute
on gender in children's media and, finally, as I need hardly
point out, I was the first woman President of the United
States.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Davis. So I have some authority on this issue.
My partnership with U.N. Women, formerly UNIFEM, is very
important to me to help the voices of women to be heard and to
encourage more coverage of and focus on issues important to
women across the globe.
Now, I was amazed when I first learned that the United
States is one of only seven countries that have not ratified
CEDAW, putting us in the company, as you have heard, of Iran,
Somalia, and Sudan. America is a longstanding global leader in
human rights. It is critically urgent now for the United States
to stand with the 186 countries that have ratified the treaty
rather than with the company we are currently keeping. That is
an image of America we cannot allow to continue for one more
day.
Because I am privileged enough to live in this country, I
can encourage my three young children to engage in any type of
interests or activities or sports that they may want to pursue.
What I need is for my two sons and my daughter to see a world
where the same possibilities and opportunities our children
enjoy in the United States are available in the rest of the
world--a world where women and girls are valued equally to men
and boys and have the freedom to pursue and achieve their
dreams.
The Women's Treaty has forwarded this vision to many
countries throughout the world. It is fundamentally about the
importance of freedom from violence and discrimination for
women around the world. It is about making sure girls are just
as valued as boys.
What is the urgency of ratifying CEDAW now, right now, this
year? It is urgent because, as Nobel Prize-winning economist
Amartya Sen tells us, there are more than 100 million missing
women in developing countries who die of cumulative neglect
because they are continually treated differently than men,
especially in health care, medical attention, access to food,
et cetera. It is urgent because every year at least another 2
million girls die worldwide because of inequality and neglect.
It is urgent because the lives of so many women and girls are
at stake. It is urgent because the United States cannot stand
with Iran, Somalia, and Sudan any longer. Let us instead stand
as leader, example, and inspiration to the rest of the world.
Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for this opportunity to
testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Davis appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you. I will have a few questions
after all the witnesses have testified.
Our next witness is Steven Groves. He is the Bernard and
Barbara Lomas Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for
Freedom at the Heritage Foundation. Prior to joining the
Heritage Foundation, Mr. Groves was senior counsel to the U.S.
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Earlier he was
an associate with the law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner and an
assistant attorney general for the State of Florida. He
received his B.A. from Florida State University and his law
degree from Ohio Northern University.
Mr. Groves, thank you for being here and please proceed
with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN GROVES, BERNARD AND BARBARA LOMAS FELLOW,
MARGARET THATCHER CENTER FOR FREEDOM, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Groves. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for allowing
me to come and testify about this treaty today, and although I
do feel just a slight bit outnumbered here, I do appreciate the
opportunity to come and play devil's advocate.
Last week, on November 9, State Department legal adviser
Harold Koh explained to the U.N. Human Rights Council why the
United States was not yet a party to CEDAW and other human
rights treaties. Mr. Koh said, ``Under our Constitution, treaty
ratification requires not just executive approval, but also the
consent of our Senate, which requires a super majority two-
thirds vote. That is why the United States has often pursued a
practice of `compliance before ratification' in contrast to the
practice of `ratification before compliance' that some other
nations may pursue.'' And that, I submit today, is indeed the
main obstacle to U.S. membership in CEDAW. The United States
will never be in full compliance with CEDAW and, therefore,
would be making a mistake if it ever ratified the treaty.
The reason why the United States will never be in full
compliance with CEDAW is not due to our nation's record on
women's rights, which I submit compares very well to the
records of other nations. The reason why the U.S. will never be
in full compliance is because our laws and our social,
political, and cultural norms will never conform to the views
of the committee that has been empowered to determine whether
member states are in compliance.
The CEDAW committee, rather than performing the technical
advisory function for which it was designed, has transformed
itself over time into a quasi-judicial entity that hands down
definitive rulings, or at least rulings that it deems to be
definitive, on compliance with the provisions of the treaty.
The result of this transformation is a committee that regularly
instructs CEDAW members to engage in social engineering on a
grand scale.
For instance, Article 5 of CEDAW compels members of the
treaty to ``modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct
of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of .
. . all . . . practices which are based on . . . stereotyped
roles for men and women.'' The CEDAW Committee has cited this
article over the years to oblige member states to seek the
modification of the roles of men and women as husbands and
wives, as mothers and fathers, and as caregivers and
breadwinners.
The committee appears to have particular contempt for the
role of women as mothers--a role that is, of course, common
normative behavior in the United States. In 1999, for example,
the committee criticized Ireland for ``the persistence of the
emphasis on the role of women as mothers and caregivers that
tends to perpetuate sex role stereotypes and constitutes a
serious impediment to the full implementation of the
Convention.''
In 2000, as you may know, the committee issued its now
famous admonition to Belarus in which it referred to Mothers'
Day as a stereotypical symbol that encouraged traditional
roles.
Other issues, like prostitution, have been treated by the
committee not as a crime that should be discouraged but,
rather, as a reality that must be tolerated. In 2001, for
example, a Guinean representative told the committee that
prostitution was a ``social scourge'' in Guinea that had been
rejected and condemned by its society. Undaunted, the committee
ignored Guinea's views and instead urged the government not to
``penaliz[e] women who provide sexual services.''
In 1999, the Committee told the Chinese delegation that it
was ``concerned that prostitution...is illegal in China'' and
directed China to decriminalize it.
The CEDAW Committee has rendered opinions on several other
controversial legal and moral issues that fall outside of
existing U.S. law and practice, including the use of gender
quotas to achieve de facto equality and directing governments
to ease their restrictions on abortion. These actions by the
CEDAW committee beg the question, Mr. Chairman: Why would the
United States join a treaty in which it would be consistently
held to be in violation? The United States should only ratify
those treaties that advance U.S. national interests, and it
does not advance our interests, I submit, to submit ourselves
to scrutiny by a committee of so-called gender experts that has
repeatedly demonstrated its divergence with American legal,
social, and cultural norms.
Instead of seeking membership in CEDAW, the U.S. would be
better served by continually reviewing its implementation of
existing laws barring gender discrimination in all spheres of
American life. I submit that Congress and American civil
society are far better positioned than the CEDAW committee to
conduct those reviews.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Groves appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you very much. I will have a few.
Our final witness, Marcia Greenberger, is in my written
testimony here--and I would agree with it--an icon--how about
that?--of the women's rights movement. How about that? Ms.
Greenberger is founder and co-president of the National Women's
Law Center. When she started the center over 35 years ago, she
became the first full-time women's rights advocate in
Washington, D.C., right out of high school. Ms. Greenberger is
widely recognized as an expert on women and the law. For
decades she has been involved with landmark legislation and
litigation establishing legal protections for women. She has
received too many awards for me to list. There is not an
important hearing relative to human rights or civil rights that
Marcia Greenberger is not in the room for or sitting at the
table for.
That says a lot about you, Marcia.
Ms. Greenberger received her B.A. and J.D. from the
University of Pennsylvania, and I now give you the floor.
STATEMENT OF MARCIA D. GREENBERGER, CO-PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
WOMEN'S LAW CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Greenberger. Thank you very much for this opportunity
to testify and for that overly generous introduction, which I
must admit my mother would love and probably I could count on
her, at least, as taking as accurate.
It is a great privilege to be able to testify at this
important hearing about CEDAW, the Women's Treaty, which
affirms principles of equality for women and, as has been
discussed, those are the principles that embody American law
and values. The National Women's Law Center is proud to be a
part of the over 160-member CEDAW Task Force, working under the
auspices of the Leadership Conference for Civil and Human
Rights, which strongly urges the Senate to ratify CEDAW. And it
is a sign of the importance of the Women's Treaty that so many
leaders of this extraordinary coalition are in this room today.
The Leadership Conference testimony that it has submitted, I
believe, describes the breadth and the impressive nature of
this coalition.
By ratifying CEDAW, almost every other country in the world
has affirmed the importance of progress for women and girls,
and that the United States has not is deeply unfortunate. It
fails to reflect our country's proud tradition of leadership on
women's rights, and it pained me enormously to hear Ambassador
Verveer, who is such an icon herself on behalf of women's
rights around the world, to be asked repeatedly, as she does
her important work, why the United States has not ratified
CEDAW. Our failure to ratify has denied women and girls around
the world U.S. leadership on the implementation of CEDAW, and
it has denied women and girls in our own country the benefits
of important lessons about effective strategies used in other
countries. Simply put, U.S. ratification of the Women's Treaty
will strengthen our longstanding role as a global leader
standing up for women's rights and human rights.
And our leadership is sorely needed. Of the 1.3 billion
people living in poverty around the world, 70 percent are
women. An estimated 5,000 women a year are killed in the name
of honor for being a victim of rape or for talking to a man who
is not a relative. Rape is used as a routine weapon of war in
too many conflicts. Women and girls are crying out for the
United States' assistance in the context of CEDAW and through
the mechanism that CEDAW creates. This is not the time for the
United States to be absent from such an important forum.
CEDAW calls upon ratifying nations to take ``all
appropriate measures,'' and that is something that is
determined by each country for itself, to end discrimination
against women and girls in education, employment, to prevent
violence against women and trafficking, to promote women's
health, to support parents seeking to balance work and family,
to lift women out of poverty. These values are strongly
supported by the American public, and U.S. law, as I believe
all have said, is consistent with the principles set out in
CEDAW.
Of course, in the United States improvement is always
needed. No one would disagree. But even though we have much to
be proud of and room for improvement, we, like every other
nation in the world, therefore, will be in a position because
of that very fact for the women and girls in our country to
benefit from the ratification of CEDAW.
It will be a demonstration to our own women and girls that
the United States officially stands behind their advancement at
home, and at the same time, we have extraordinary successes in
opening up opportunities for women and girls that can provide
valuable lessons for other countries, and we will be able to
bring those lessons to this forum.
I want to say one other quick word about the issue that the
United States somehow would be giving up its ability to decide
what is appropriate and what are those appropriate measures and
somehow lose any of our own sovereignty. With ratification, our
officials would be the ones responsible for deciding what is
appropriate to advance CEDAW's goals. The Supreme Court has
made clear no treaty can override our Constitution. No
decisions of any international court or body would be binding
on the United States as a result of CEDAW. There are 10,000
treaties currently in force in the United States, including
multiple human rights treaties. They have not compromised
United States' status as a sovereign nation. Neither would
CEDAW.
In closing, CEDAW stands for the fundamental proposition
that women's rights are human rights. It is long overdue for
the United States to bring its vision to this crucial effort to
secure equality and justice for women and girls around the
world and here at home.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Greenberger appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Marcia Greenberger.
Let me ask a few questions. First, to Ms. Frogh, it was
about 15 years ago when Hillary Clinton, as First Lady,
returned from a trip to Asia and spoke at a dinner in Chicago.
And she said something that stuck with me to this day. She
said: ``As you travel around the world and you see many nations
confronted with terrible challenges--poverty and ignorance and
discrimination,'' she said, ``if I could only ask one question
to determine whether that nation had a chance to solve its
problems, it would be this: How do you treat your women? ''
And I thought about that as I traveled all over Asia and
primarily in Africa and found it to be a very important seminal
question, because if women are educated and part of the society
and part of the leadership and have opportunity, it is always a
much different story than those countries where that is not the
case.
Your testimony, Ms. Frogh, tells me you have not only lived
this, but you could probably even better ask or answer that
question. So tell me how you view it in terms of your life
experience and what you have witnessed around the world about
the role of women.
Ms. Frogh. Thank you. I definitely agree with that question
because for us especially in Afghanistan, what we see is that
the way women are treated, the way women have challenges, or if
their challenges are addressed, it actually addresses the
societal level issues. So women's rights is a societal welfare
issue as well.
For example, in a country, if girls' faces are burned while
going to school, what does it tell about the kind of government
it is? For example, if in a country a woman's nose is cut off,
what does it tell you about the kind of government that it has?
So women's rights is a determining factor of the social
stability and the way governments work, which starts from the
law enforcement and justice. And we have seen that changing as
well in Afghanistan. Particularly in the last nine years, we
have struggled to use these international obligations--the
terms, the frameworks--because we did not have any other back-
up before. So we use these international human rights treaties,
we use CEDAW's terms, for example, to advocate for rights. When
we were developing our first elimination of violence against
women law, we took a lot of lessons.
Of course, understanding that every country has its own
context; every country has its own social structures. You
cannot take it all for granted. But what we did is that we
tried to understand what are the basic and very crucial aspects
of CEDAW that could help the women of Afghanistan. There might
be things that might be much more different in the United
States and many other parts of the world. It was different for
us as well.
So the context has to be understood, but then CEDAW
provided us with sort of a framework that we could use to lobby
for women's rights.
Chairman Durbin. Mr. Groves, have you had an opportunity to
travel around the world?
Mr. Groves. Not to Afghanistan, Mr. Chairman, but to China,
Japan, and Europe, South America, Central America, but not in
those conditions.
Chairman Durbin. Would you agree with the premise of First
Lady Clinton, now Secretary of State, that the status and
opportunity and rights of women in a country are a good
indicator of that country's chances to advance socially?
Mr. Groves. Although I do not often agree with Secretary
Clinton, I fully agree with that sentiment and that statement.
America has experienced its greatest years since women's
suffrage and the women's rights movement during the 1960s, and
I am surrounded by strong women. So I agree with her.
Chairman Durbin. I promise not to tell the Heritage
Foundation what you said.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Groves. We have very strong women there as well,
Senator.
Chairman Durbin. But when you listen to Ms. Frogh tell the
story about how this particular treaty really had an impact on
her life and the life of women around her and still conclude
that the United States should not ratify this treaty, do you
feel conflicted?
Mr. Groves. On the surface, yes, but more importantly, I am
not conflicted when I see what really has to be done on the
ground is what Ms. Frogh does, and that is what needs to be
supported, women's civil society, funding micro finance,
supporting the civil and political rights of women in
Afghanistan, where true empowerment comes from. U.S. membership
in it is only a commitment to the rest of the world of how our
government will treat women within the United States. It does
not have much to do or anything to do with how women are
treated in Afghanistan, though CEDAW can provide a great
framework for developing countries and countries where there is
not a tradition of respecting women's rights.
So I am not saying that this cannot be an important tool in
many countries around the world. I just do not know in the
balance of things and the cost/benefit analysis and when you
are gauging the advancement of American interests whether U.S.
membership is the right step.
Chairman Durbin. Are you troubled or embarrassed by the
company we are keeping with your point of view?
Mr. Groves. Again, I know at first blush it is an
interesting argument that we are somehow standing with Iran,
Sudan, and Somalia by not being a party to the treaty. But I
have never understood the argument, to be honest, Senator,
because I thought that if we were joining with the treaty, are
we then standing with Saudi Arabia, China, and Egypt, who,
respectively, do not allow women to drive, engage in female
infanticide, and engage in widespread or allow female genital
mutilation. So to be honest, I have never understood the
argument that we are standing with those bad guys if we are not
a party and somehow not standing with some very disreputable
countries if we were.
Chairman Durbin. I guess the response is at least those
countries which have fallen far short of the mark are willing
to be judged on the international stage and the United States
is not.
I would like to ask you, Ms. Davis, you talked about the
issue of stereotypes in movies and media of women. And Mr.
Groves raised the question about the role of the committee
here, the CEDAW committee, critical of some nations, Ireland in
particular in his reference, for stereotyping certain women in
negative roles as mothers and the like.
What is your thought on that as you kind of reflect on what
you have done?
Ms. Davis. Right, well, as I said, what I mainly focus on
is gender images in the first media that children consume, the
reflection of society that we are showing to children, and for
the most part our research shows that it is a world bereft of
female presence, and the few female characters that are there
are, as you said, often stereotyped in a very negative way,
being hyper-sexualized, having no occupations or aspirations,
and very one-dimensional characters.
There is nothing to say that female characters that are
playing what we would call traditional roles, like mothers or
wives, are in any way negative. When we are talking about
stereotyping, we are talking about negative stereotyping,
images that send a bad message to women and girls.
For example, we know that the more hours of television a
girl watches, the more limited she believes her options are in
life. So there is definitely a message coming through--and the
more hours that a boy watches, the more sexist his views
become. So there is definitely a message that is coming through
very strongly that is negative toward women, which has nothing
to do with their maternal role in society.
Chairman Durbin. Which you have been able to combine with
your professional role.
Ms. Davis. Right, which I do, and so many women do. My
concern about all of these issues is primarily based on being a
mother and wanting my daughter and my sons to see boys and
girls sharing the sandbox equally.
Chairman Durbin. Mr. Groves, you have spent many more years
practicing law than I ever did and undoubtedly know more about
it. But I want to go into one particular point that you made
here. When you referred to the CEDAW committee as a quasi-
judicial committee, if I express an opinion here as a senator,
or on the floor, about the conduct of someone or some
organization, whether it is an organization I belong to or one
I do not belong to, it certainly does not have the force of
law. I cannot say that I am upset about the recruiting
practices of a certain organization on the floor and expect
tomorrow to have the U.S. Marshals show up and arrest somebody.
I am entitled to my point of view, but it carries with it no
authority to exercise any jurisdiction or rights over that
organization. So I am hardly a judge and jury. I express my
point of view.
Not true when it comes to a court. If a court issues an
order, particularly in a criminal setting, it is going to be
enforced by our government.
So do you believe that the CEDAW committee is closer to
Durbin expressing his point of view on the Senate floor or
closer to a court of law that expresses an opinion to be
enforced by a government?
Mr. Groves. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would put them somewhere
in between. When you sign on to a human rights treaty like
CEDAW, you are making an international political commitment to
enforce the commitments within that treaty, to pass laws and to
enforce those laws, and then every four years you are called to
account for whether you are complying with your commitment. And
the judges and juries, but not the U.S. Marshals, but the
judges and juries are sitting in Geneva and New York, and they
decide by making recommendations and statements whether you are
in compliance with the treaty. And the main point of my oral
testimony was they are so often of an opinion that is outside
of the American mainstream, and so the question would be: Why
do we become part of such a treaty if we know ahead of time
that we are going to be in violation of it every four years?
Chairman Durbin. So let us use one of your examples:
Belarus, the alleged condemnation by the CEDAW committee of
Mothers' Day as a stereotype. So after that alleged
condemnation, or recommendation, by the CEDAW committee, of the
186 nations in the world, how many eliminated and banned
Mothers' Day?
Mr. Groves. I doubt any of them did, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Durbin. Right. So----
Mr. Groves. Well, they are in violation of their treaty
obligations, I suppose.
Chairman Durbin. Really? It strikes me that there are only
recommendations and observations to be followed. They do not
have the force of law in any country that has ratified the
treaty, because clearly in this case, even when they allegedly
took exception to Belarus' position, Belarus did not change the
practice. And I assume Belarus is still a signatory to the
treaty.
So in what way do the recommendations of the CEDAW
committee change the laws of any country that signs the treaty?
Mr. Groves. Well, of course, they have no force. They do
not have----
Chairman Durbin. That is the point. That is the point. That
is why it is not a court. That is why it is not judicial. And
to say otherwise, you have got to give me some evidence.
Mr. Groves. That is why I said ``quasi-judicial,'' Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Durbin. Well, I think it is quasi-true, what you
have said.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Durbin. Ms. Greenberger, you have addressed----
Mr. Groves. I quasi-agree with you.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Durbin. In your opening testimony--comment on this
question about the force of law or power that the CEDAW
committee has over signatory nations.
Ms. Greenberger. When Mr. Groves used the word
``recommendation,'' I do not think anybody thinks a
recommendation is close to a force of law. I have made plenty
of recommendations as a mother myself over the years, and I
think any mother or father sees the difference between a rule
and a recommendation. And, in fact, the CEDAW committee itself
does not even talk about compliance. It makes suggestions. And
what we have to go back to also is this key phrase of ``all
appropriate measures.'' ``Appropriate measures'' is an
important phrase which tailors what a country decides it will
do based on its own facts and circumstances.
I have to say, in looking at the extraordinary testimony of
Ms. Frogh sitting next to me, how important it is for the
United States to be a force. They are working with CEDAW to
assist women in Afghanistan, and women in other parts of the
world are using that very tool. The U.S. must not withhold our
support for that useful tool. But also in looking at what has
happened with CEDAW and with the CEDAW committee, there is
example after example of support and respect for mothers.
Support for mothers who should be able to inherit property from
their husbands so that they can stay in the family house with
their children. That is the essence of supporting mothers.
Support for mothers who need to earn a living for their
children. That is the essence of respecting mothers. Support
for mothers' ability to have custody of their children.
Especially that, I know. I myself have traveled not in
Afghanistan, but in other parts of the world where widows have
come and talked to me about how terrible their situation is
when they lose custody of their own children if their husband
dies.
These are extraordinary and heart-wrenching situations that
CEDAW addresses explicitly on behalf of mothers.
Chairman Durbin. I might ask Mr. Groves this question. You
cited a number of U.S. laws and treaties that the United States
has ratified as reason that it is not necessary to join CEDAW.
And you testified that you are concerned that ratifying CEDAW
would have unforeseen or negative domestic ramifications. Let
me ask you, from the viewpoint of your organization, the
Heritage Foundation, isn't it true that you opposed the Lilly
Ledbetter law?
Mr. Groves. I do not know, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Durbin. You did. The foundation did.
Mr. Groves. If we did, then I think we should take that up
with whoever our employment person is.
Chairman Durbin. Yes, I think so, too. You personally
opposed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, did you not?
Mr. Groves. Do I personally oppose it?
Chairman Durbin. Yes.
Mr. Groves. I have written a paper regarding the
ratification of that treaty.
Chairman Durbin. That was in April of 2010.
Mr. Groves. Yes, sir.
Chairman Durbin. And you opposed the Convention on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Mr. Groves. I wrote a paper about how the committee for
that treaty has been using that improperly, making
recommendations that are well outside of anything to do with
racial discrimination in the United States. And, again, these
are treaties that we did enter into. They are treaties that I
think have a dubious impact on our domestic life.
Chairman Durbin. That was in April of 2008. You have also
opposed the Convention on the Rights of the Child?
Mr. Groves. I have not written about that treaty.
Chairman Durbin. This was quoted by Joseph Abrams, ``Boxer
seeks to ratify U.N. treaty that may erode U.S. rights,''
FoxNews.com, February 25, 2009. Does that ring a bell?
Mr. Groves. I speak to a lot of reporters, but I am sure it
is accurate.
Chairman Durbin. So the point I am getting to is that you
have consistently opposed the treaties that expand the rights
of individuals discriminated against: those who are disabled,
victims of racial discrimination, and children. And you are
telling us we should not ratify this treaty because it might
violate some of the rights existing in the United States for
each of these groups. I am finding it hard to follow your
logic. Also, in many of these cases--and you just cited one--
these treaties have non-judicial committees making
recommendations regularly. If I remember, President Reagan
signed treaties that had such committees making recommendations
and felt the United States was strong enough to weather
recommendations that we might not agree with.
So there is an inconsistency here. You are consistently
against treaties that expand the rights of those who are
disadvantaged and discriminated against. And you seem to favor
those treaties if they have committees and recommendations that
do not go to a social agenda or social issue. I do not want to
put words in your mouth, but is that basically where you come
down?
Mr. Groves. No, Mr. Chairman. I believe you have put words
in my mouth. I consistently oppose treaties mainly because I do
not think that those treaties will have any impact in advancing
the cause of racial minorities, women, children, in the United
States.
Chairman Durbin. But Ms. Frogh just testified about the
impact of this treaty in her country of----
Mr. Groves. I am talking about the United States, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Durbin. But if we have a good set of laws and a
good Constitution for the rights of women finally and it does
not hurt us, they cannot change our laws, why would we not want
to establish at least a minimal standard for human rights as it
relates to women in other countries around the world?
Mr. Groves. I think the analysis you have to do, Mr.
Chairman, is the analysis you do for every treaty, whether it
is a human rights treaty or arms control treaty: whether the
treaty advances U.S. national interests. You may believe that
this treaty does. I would disagree with you.
When you are getting into that analysis, you do a cost/
benefit analysis. These are not costless treaties to be part
of. We are obligated politically, internationally, to implement
their provisions.
Chairman Durbin. Do you believe that if in developing
countries around the world young girls are forced into marriage
at an early age, are denied an opportunity for education, that
that has anything to do with the national interests of the
United States and our national security?
Mr. Groves. Of course, the plight of women in countries
around the world is something that all Americans care a great
deal about, and the ratification of CEDAW in those countries
may indeed have an impact. I am testifying only about whether
the United States needs to be a party of it, and in our
analysis, whether it advances U.S. interests.
Chairman Durbin. Well, we clearly disagree because I think
if we are going to show leadership in the world and encourage
other countries to live up to our standards--standards which
often we do not live up to, but standards to which we aspire--
it is hypocritical for us to be standing back on the sidelines
and saying that this does not help the United States, we are
not for it. It does help the United States. It helps us to be a
leader in human rights and to encourage good conduct around the
world to give women and children, those with disabilities, and
people who are victims of racial discrimination good treatment.
I think that is good not just for them, it is good for us. And
I think that is where we may disagree.
Anyone on the panel have a closing statement or a comment
that you would like to make? I do not want to close out without
giving you that chance, because many of you made a great
sacrifice to be here. Ms. Davis.
Ms. Davis. Well, I was just going to say that another
aspect of a benefit for the United States and a reason that it
is of national interest is that countries where women are
empowered are more stable, more prosperous, and more peaceful.
And all of those elements in foreign countries is of tremendous
benefit to the United States. When countries are more peaceful
and stable and prosperous, it certainly helps America.
Chairman Durbin. Ms. Frogh.
[No response.]
Chairman Durbin. Ms. Greenberger.
Ms. Greenberger. I would only add that I think it is in the
national interest, our national interest, to ratify CEDAW
certainly for all the reasons that have been described so that
we can give our leadership in this important forum in order to
empower women who so sorely need our help in every forum where
we can operate. But also the kind of self-examination that
CEDAW envisions has helped and is so much allied with the
tradition of the United States and how we operate here at home,
and it has benefited men as well as women, girls and boys,
families. We know in situations where there have been problems
about violence and with attention to problems of women feeling
as if they could not be on the streets because of a well-
founded fear of violence, the simple fact of putting enhanced
street lights to make a situation more safe for women has made
it more safe for everyone. We know if there is a lack of equal
pay what a cost that has on the woman, of course, but also on
her children, on her spouse, on all of the family members who
more and more we know need to depend upon the wages of both
male and female wage earners.
This is a situation that cries out for U.S. ratification.
It is a win-win for us in strengthening our own country, both
because of the good we can do abroad and also because it is in
our proud tradition to keep striving to do better and better
here at home.
Chairman Durbin. Mr. Groves.
Mr. Groves. Only to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for
allowing me to testify today, and from what it sounds like, the
administration may be pushing forward on both this treaty and
the Disabilities Convention next year. So I hope to continue
this debate in 2011.
Chairman Durbin. And I genuinely thank you for being here
because it is not fun to be the only one in a room or one of
the few holding a certain position, and it took some political
courage on your part to come. I thank you very much for your
testimony. I hope my questions were not too harsh.
Mr. Groves. They were great, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you. Thank you very much. And thanks
to all the members of the panel. And we are going to hold the
record open for other Members who might have questions for the
members of the panel.
I do want to tell you that I think we have broken a record
in the Judiciary Committee, certainly in this Subcommittee. We
received more than 100 written statements from members and
organizations supporting CEDAW, which will all be made part of
the record. It is an indication that this is an issue that will
not go away until we address it honestly and squarely. And I
hope we do it soon. I apologize that more Colleagues were not
here. This is a tough week, with the new Congress and
organization, but I did not want the year to be finished
without bringing this issue forward so that all of the interest
shown today can be channeled into more energy and effort to do
something to ratify this treaty as soon as possible.
This Subcommittee will stand adjourned.
[Applause.]
[Whereupon, at 3:56 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submission for the record
follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.251
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.252
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.253
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.254
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.255
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.256
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.257
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.258
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.259
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.260
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.261
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.262
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.263
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.264
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.265
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.266
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.267
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.268
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.269
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.270
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.271
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.272
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.273
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.274
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.275
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.276
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.277
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.278
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.279
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.280
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.281
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.282
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.283
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.284
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.285
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.286
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.287
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.288
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.289
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.290
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.291
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.292
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.293
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.294
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.295
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.296
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.297
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.298
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.299
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.300
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.301
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.302
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.303
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.304
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.305
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.306
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.307
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.308
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.309
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.310
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.311
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.312
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.313
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.314
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.315
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.316
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.317
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.318
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.319
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.320
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.321
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.322
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.323
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.324
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.325
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.326
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.327
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.328
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.329
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.330
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.331
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.332
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.333
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.334
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.335
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.336
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.337
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.338
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.339
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.340
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.341
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.342
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.343
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.344
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.345
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.346
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.347
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.348
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.349
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.350
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.351
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.352
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.353
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.354
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.355
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.356
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.357
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.358
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.359
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.360
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.361
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.362
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.363
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.364
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.365
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.366
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.367
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.368
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.369
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.370
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.371
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.372
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.373
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.374
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.375
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1956.376