[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 20 (Thursday, February 4, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E139-E140]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        EXECUTIVE ORDER 13107 IMPLEMENTING HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, February 4, 1999

  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I submit to the Record the following 
thoughts of John and Carol Loeffler, on President Clinton's Executive 
Order (EO) 13107.

       Date: 12/15/98
       Assertion: Last weeks, President Clinton signed an 
     Executive Order setting up a new bureaucracy to implement 
     international human rights treaties. This is yet another end 
     run around Senate approval of controversial UN treaties.
       Factoids: The Executive Order 13107, entitled 
     ``Implementation of Human Rights Treaties,'' at first glance 
     appears to be an administrative tool to carry out the 
     implementation of international treaties within the U.S. 
     governmental agencies. However, there are some phrases within 
     the order that should raise a red flag to anyone who is 
     concerned that our national sovereignty and constitutional 
     rights could be eroded by various UN treaties.
       For example, the introductory paragraph specifically cites 
     the implementation of three treaties which have already been 
     ratified by the Senate; that is, the International Covenant 
     on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture 
     and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 
     Punishment, and the Convention on the Elimination of All 
     Forms of Racial Discrimination. There are provisions in these 
     treaties that have been argued to undermine our own Bill or 
     Rights, but this is only the tip of the iceberg.
       The order goes even further by including ``other relevant 
     treaties concerned with the protection and promotion of human 
     rights to which the United States is now or may become a 
     party in the future.'' This sweeping statement seems to 
     indicate that the administration intends to enforce human 
     rights treaties that have not yet been ratified by the 
     Senate.
       If so, there are a number of controversial UN treaties that 
     have not been ratified because they also could potentially 
     nullify rights granted to us under the Constitution. Treaties 
     such as the UN Covenant on the Rights of the Child, which 
     officaily designates the state as the guardian of children's 
     best interest, insuring that the state knows better than 
     parents what materials are appropriate and what associations 
     are beneficial. It is also responsible for protecting the 
     child when parental beliefs conflict with the rights of the 
     child. Politically incorrect beliefs such as spanking or 
     religious indoctrination could be grounds for placing 
     children into foster care.
       Another controversial treaty is the Convention of the 
     Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. 
     This treaty has been criticized in part because it forces 
     countries which sign it to allow abortion rights to women, 
     whether or not there is national legislation prohibiting 
     abortion.

[[Page E140]]

       It doesn't take much imagination to project what agencies 
     like the Department of Education or the Department of Health 
     and Human Services could do with directives such as these.
       The agency Clinton has set up with the issue of this 
     Executive Order has been directed to monitor agencies, 
     coordinate responses to human rights complaints, review 
     proposed legislation for violations, and monitor the actions 
     of states, commonwealths, and territories of the United 
     States, as well as Native American tribes. It would appear 
     that no local governments will escape the scrutiny of this 
     new political bureaucracy.

     

                          ____________________