[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 31 (Thursday, February 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2902-S2903]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


             THE U.N. CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, this afternoon, in New York, Ambassador 
Madeleine Albright will sign the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the 
Child. This marks a small, but long overdue step toward improving the 
lot of the world's children. I urge the President to take a much 
larger, and equally overdue step, and submit the convention at once to 
the Senate for advice and consent to ratification.
  I have stood on the Senate floor many times over the past 6 years to 
discuss the importance of this convention and to urge its ratification. 
There are many arguments in favor of the convention, but they all boil 
down to one basic point--children in less-fortunate circumstances 
deserve the same rights and protections we demand for our own kids.
  In addition, whether we ratify it or not, the convention is a 
reminder that we ourselves have much to do to make sure that every 
American child enjoys the full benefits of the principles enshrined in 
this convention. It is a standing reproach to our own unsuccessful 
efforts to end the tragedy of infant mortality, the terror of child 
[[Page S2903]] abuse, the scourge of drugs, and the wasted potential of 
school dropouts.
  The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes, as does 
U.S. law, that children need special protections. It states that every 
child has the right to a name and nationality, stresses the importance 
of child survival measures, pledges the signatories to work to abolish 
traditional practices harmful to children's health, recognizes the 
importance of education, and prohibits sexual exploitation.
  Opponents of the convention argue that it would insert government 
into the parent-child relationship. They assert that it would take 
children away from parents. This simply is not true. The convention is 
explicit on the primacy of the parents in the life of the child. For 
example, article 5 states:

       States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights 
     and duties of parents . . . to provide, in a manner 
     consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, 
     appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the 
     child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.

  But, as a practical document, the convention also recognizes that 
there will be times when the parents are unable to fulfill their 
responsibilities. In these cases, the convention requires the State to 
step in, in accordance with the best interests of the child. This is 
already the practice in the United States. But, for the first time, the 
convention lays down commonsense guidelines to make sure that, in those 
extraordinary cases in which the State must intervene, its actions are 
in fact in the best interests of the child.
  So far, 176 nations have ratified the U.N. Convention on the Rights 
of the Child. The list of countries that have not is a rogue's gallery 
of international pariahs such as Libya and Iraq. It is an embarrassment 
to the United States to be on this list.
  But ratification is more than a matter of appearances. The lives of 
children are at stake. Until we ratify this convention, we will be 
unable to exert the leadership necessary to make a difference in the 
lives of the world's children. President Clinton has done the right 
thing by instructing Ambassador Albright to sign the convention. He 
should now submit it to the Senate, and we should ratify it without 
delay.


                          ____________________