[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 8, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1291-S1294]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CEDAW
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today is International Women's Day. To all
you women out there, and men who care about women, happy International
Women's Day.
I think it is very fitting on International Women's Day to discuss a
treaty this Senate should ratify, but has not ratified in over 20
years. This treaty, signed by President Carter, almost made it to the
Senate floor some 6 years ago when it was voted favorably out of the
Foreign Relations Committee. Unfortunately, it was never brought up.
The treaty is called CEDAW. It stands for the Convention on the
Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
This is a treaty that has been nicknamed the Magna Carta for women
because it essentially gives basic human rights to women all over the
world. That is why 165 nations, all of our allies and friends in the
world, have in fact ratified it. But we haven't ratified it. One might
say, well, who hasn't ratified it? I am sorry to say, we are standing
with such stalwarts of democracy as Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and
Somalia. We don't belong in that company. This country is, in fact, a
leader of human rights. It is really an embarrassment that we have not
brought that treaty to the Senate floor.
I wrote a resolution that calls on the Senate to ask the Foreign
Relations Committee to hold a hearing on CEDAW. It now has 25
cosponsors, including Republicans. It is very simple. It expresses the
sense of the Senate that the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations--that is a committee on which I serve--should hold hearings,
and the Senate should act on CEDAW, should take action on this
convention to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women. The
resolution goes through why this treaty is so important. It talks about
how important it is that CEDAW be enacted: because it would help give
women equal rights, equal opportunity, equal education; it would help
them get protection against violence. We know that happens all over the
world where women don't have equal rights. And it would give us the
clout, if you will, the portfolio to be stronger as a world leader.
The bottom line of this is that today I asked the Democratic
leadership to ask unanimous consent to bring this resolution that I
wrote to the floor. The resolution doesn't say ratify this convention.
It simply says to the Foreign Relations Committee, please hold
hearings.
It was objected to by the other side of the aisle because they don't
want to have this hearing. I will discuss that because it is with great
respect that I bring up these differences between the two sides of the
aisle. The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, with whom I
have a wonderful relationship, a very good working relationship, took
to the floor of the Senate today. He unequivocally stated--and when he
wants to be unequivocal, he can--that he will not hold hearings on the
Convention to Eliminate all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. And
he explained why. I totally respect his right to have this
[[Page S1292]]
view, but I will paraphrase the reasons he gave as to why he doesn't
want to hold hearings on this. I will offer another view.
First, he said he wasn't going to hold hearings because there are
radical groups behind this treaty.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a list of the
organizations that have endorsed the women's convention.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Organizations That Have Endorsed the Women's Convention (Partial List)
Action for Development
*American Association of Retired Persons
*American Association of University Women
*American Bar Association
American College of Nurse-Midwives
American Council for the United Nations University
American Federation of Teachers
*American Friends Service Committee
*American Jewish Committee
*American Nurses Association
American Veterans Committee
Americans for Democratic Action, Inc.
*Amnesty International USA
Association for Women in Development
Association for Women in Psychology
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith
*Baha'is of the United States
Black Women's Agenda
*B'nai B'rith International
Bread for the World
*Business and Professional Women/USA
BVM Network for Women's Issues
Catholics for A Free Choice
Center for Advancement of Public Policy
Center for Policy Alternatives
Center for Reproductive Law and Policy
Center for Women's Global Leadership
Center of Concern
Chicago Catholic Women
Church of the Brethren, Washington Office
*Church Women United
Coalition on Religion & Ecology
Coalition for Women in International Development
Columban Fathers' Justice & Peace Office
Commission on the Advancement of Women/InterAction
D.C. Statehood Solidarity Committee
Earthcommunity Center
Eighth Day Center for Justice
Episcopal Church
*Evangelical Lutheran Church of America
*Feminist Majority Foundation
Francois Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights
Friends of the U.N.
*Friends Committee on National Legislation
*General Federation of Women's Clubs
Global Commission to Fund the UN
Gray Panthers
Guatemala Human Rights Commission
Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of America
Health & Development Policy Project
Human Rights Advocates
Human Rights Watch/Women's Rights Division
The Humane Society
International Center for Research on Women
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission
International Human Rights Law Group
International Women's Health Coalition
International Women's Human Rights Law Clinic
International Women Judges Foundation
The J. Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human
Rights
Jewish Council for Public Affairs
*Jewish Women International
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights
*Leadership Conference of Women Religious
*League of Women Voters of the United States
Louisville Women-Church
Maryknoll Mission Association of the Faithful
Maryknoll Office of Global Concerns
Massachusetts Women-Church
Na'amat USA
*National Association of Commissions for Women
National Association of Social Workers
National Association of Women Lawyers
National Audubon Society
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Coalition of American Nuns
*National Council of Negro Women
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA
National Council of Women of the USA
*National Council of Women's Organizations
*National Education Association
National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council
National Women's Conference Committee
*NOW Legal Defense & Education Fund
NETWORK--A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
Older Women's League
Oxfam America
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
*Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Washington Office
Psychologists for Social Responsibility
Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights
San Francisco Bay Area Women's Ordination Conference
*Sierra Club
Sisterhood is Global Institute
Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace
Soka Gakkai International--USA
Society for International Development/Women in Development
*Soroptimist International of the Americas
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
*Unitarian Universalist Association, Washington Office
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee
United Church of Christ Office for Church and Society
*United Methodist Church
*United Nations Association of the United States of America
United States Committee for UNICEF
United States Committee for UNIFEM
Washington Office on Africa
Winrock International
Woman's National Democratic Club
Women Empowering Women of Indian Nations (WEWIN)
Women of Reform Judaism
Women for International Peace and Arbitration
Women for Meaningful Summits
Women Law and Development International
*Women's Action for New Directions/Women Legislators Lobby
Women's Environment and Development Organization
Women's Institute for Freedom of The Press
*Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Women's Legal Defense Fund
Women's Ordination Conference
World Citizen Foundation
*World Federalist Association
*YWCA of the U.S.A.
*Active National Membership Organizations.
Mrs. BOXER. With the Chair's indulgence, I will read to the Senate
just a few of these organizations. I want the Senate to decide if these
organizations are radical or in any way not in the mainstream of
thought. These are just some of the organizations that say, yes, the
United States should ratify this treaty to end all forms of
discrimination against women: the American Association of Retired
Persons; the American Association of University Women; the American
Jewish Committee; Amnesty International USA; the Bahais of the United
States; the Black Women's Agenda; the B'nai B'rith International;
Business and Professional Women USA; Chicago Catholic Women; Church of
the Brethren, Washington Office; Church Women United; Episcopal Church;
the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America; Hadassah; Human Rights
Watch; The Humane Society; Lawyers Committee for Human Rights;
Leadership Conference of Women Religious; National Association of
Commission for Women; National Coalition Against Domestic Violence; the
National Coalition of American Nuns; the National Council of Churches
of Christ in the USA; the National Council of Women's Organizations;
the Presbyterian Church, Washington Office; the Soroptimist
International of the Americas; the Union of American Hebrew
Congregations; the Unitarian Universalist Association, Washington
Office; the United Methodist Church; the Women's Legal Defense Fund;
and the YWCA of the United States of America.
I don't mind debating an issue on its merits, its demerits, its
flaws, its problems. But to come to the Senate floor and say the people
behind this convention to eliminate all forms of discrimination against
women are radicals is simply not a fact in evidence, unless you think
Hadassah is radical or the nuns are radical or all these churches and
organizations are radical. They are far from radical. They are
mainstream America. Mainstream America supports this, and we can't get
a hearing because our chairman believes these groups are radical.
I understand some tactics have been used to get the chairman's
attention to hold this hearing that he does not appreciate. And that is
his right. But I beg my chairman to look past that and understand that
these groups are in the mainstream of America. America should be in the
leadership and out front on this issue. So the first point he made, I
do not agree with, that radicals are behind this treaty.
Secondly, his other argument was that signing this international
treaty would interfere with our sovereignty; in other words, it would
interfere with us as lawmakers to do our job, would interfere with our
laws. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have thousands of
international treaties of which we are a part. They are all in this
book. I won't put this in the Record because it would cost too much to
print, but it is page after page with almost every civilized country.
We
[[Page S1293]]
have treaties with them on all kinds of things--on science, on military
aid, on human rights.
I will give you a couple that we signed on human rights. We are a
party to a number of human rights treaties. One in particular is the
U.N. Convention Against Torture, and other cruel, inhumane, and
degrading treatment or punishment. We ratified that in 1990. The
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was ratified in
1992. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination, ratified in 1994.
So to say that these treaties will interfere with us just doesn't
make any sense. Again, it is just not a fact in evidence.
The third reason my chairman says he doesn't want to hold a hearing
is that he believes the whole purpose of this convention is to grant
women the right to choose. In other words, in his opinion, this whole
thing is about abortion rights. I want to say again how off the mark I
think that suggestion is. When the committee voted this convention out
for ratification 6 years ago, there was a big debate on this matter.
What the committee did--by the way, I will support it overwhelmingly--
it said this treaty and this convention is abortion neutral. It
specifically said it ``does not create or reflect an international
right to abortion or sanction abortion as a means of family planning.''
It goes on, ``We don't endorse it as a means of family planning,'' et
cetera. The understanding states that ``nothing in the convention
reflects or creates a right to abortion'' and that ``in no case should
abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.''
So these issues that the chairman of the committee has raised, in my
opinion, are straw men, or straw people, or straw women. They are not
fact. The fact is, when we voted out this convention 6 years ago, we
specifically stated it had nothing to do with abortion. The fact is
that 165 nations have passed this, and we are standing with the most
retrograde, rogue states in our opposition to it. There are thousands
and thousands of treaties that do not interfere with our rights of
sovereignty. The fact is that it has nothing to do with abortion. The
most mainstream groups--and I have read some of them to you, and they
are all that way--are behind this treaty and are working very hard to
get it done.
Now, 21 years ago, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a treaty. Twenty
years ago, President Carter signed the treaty. So it is really long
overdue. I don't want to stand with Iran, Sudan, Somalia, and North
Korea, as the rare nations who have not ratified this. I think it is a
disgrace that we are not a party to this treaty. We know since 1981,
when it entered into force, it has had a positive impact on the
countries that have signed it. One such example is constitutional
reform in Brazil, which brought significant guarantees of women's human
rights, and CEDAW provides the framework for articulating these rights.
There are many other wonderful things that have happened worldwide as
a result of this treaty. Other nations have copied word for word from
the treaty the kinds of rights they are going to give women in their
nations. We have an important book, ``Bringing Equality Home,'' which
shows how many good things have happened because of that.
You might say, Senator Boxer, why does America have to act if these
good things are happening? The fact is, we have to act because we
should be proud that all of the things in this treaty we already do in
our country. So we should be a leader, not a follower, on this. And we
need that portfolio because when there is a case of a country that is
not doing right by its women--and let me give you a case in point.
There was a case in Kuwait where women were struggling to get the right
to vote. It was a big brouhaha, and everybody thought, my goodness, we
came to their assistance in the gulf war, they are going to follow suit
and women will get the right to vote. Guess what happened. They did
not. We were pressing them so hard, but I bet they turned to our
negotiator and said, ``Wait a minute, why should we listen to you, you
aren't even a party to the CEDAW treaty.'' It takes away our ability to
lead for equal rights for women because we have not yet ratified.
I am very hopeful that Senator Helms will have a change of heart on
this, although I believe he does hold strong views. But today I learned
that Congressman Gilman, who is the Republican chair of the committee
called the House International Relations Committee, has agreed to hold
hearings on this treaty.
The fact is, it is our business, our work, our job. We are the ones
who should be doing it. Although I am very pleased that the House is
going to have the hearing--and I hope I can get over there and testify.
But I think we should have our own hearings. After all, we have 25
Members of the Senate who were on this. I will read you the list of
Senators who have gone on this, asking for hearings on this: Senators
Murray, Mikulski, Collins, Snowe, Robb, Wellstone, Biden, Lautenberg,
Kennedy, Sarbanes, Cleland, Bob Graham, Jack Reed, Lincoln, Feinstein,
Landrieu, Feingold, Durbin, Daschle, Leahy, Dodd, Bingaman, Torricelli,
Kerry, and Specter.
We have many Republicans and many Democrats. I honestly think that if
everyone knows about this resolution--and I will work hard on that--we
will get some more. We now have a quarter of the Senate on record
asking for hearings on CEDAW. My view is, since it was voted out
favorably 6 years ago by the committee on a bipartisan vote of 13-5, we
ought to do it again and get it moving and bring it down here for
debate.
Women deserve equal rights, voting rights, human rights. They deserve
to be protected from violence, either in their own homes or walking
down the street. They should be protected against institutional
violence. We have seen things that go on in Africa with operations that
are forced upon women. It is very important that for us to lead in the
world, we must be a leader on this treaty.
Again, I say to my friends on the other side who oppose this, I
respect your right to oppose it. But, my goodness, what about having a
hearing on it so we can listen to both sides? I think women in this
country are waking up to this fact. There are so many issues we deal
with every day. The women in my State are dealing with making it home
in time to greet their children coming home from school or who are in
day care. Their husbands are also working and putting dinner on the
table and planning all the things they plan for their families. They
are balancing their lives with their jobs. Do you know what? They care
about this.
I have had meetings with many women who care about this because we
are on this Earth right now and we have to try to make it a better
world. We can't stop every evil, that is for sure; we know that. But we
can stand for equal rights and human rights for people all over the
world. We can stand up and say in certain countries women are treated
like second-class citizens and, in some cases, not even third-, fourth-
, or fifth-class citizens; they are treated like property. They have no
respect. I just believe this great Nation of ours has come a long way
to have the equality we have. Sometimes I look at the young women here
and I think: Do you really know what it was like before women had
equality?
Do you know what it was like when I went to get a job on Wall Street
after graduating from college and was told: Women don't work here? The
most shocking thing about it was that I said OK. And I packed up my bag
and left. I didn't even argue with them. It was a given. There were
only certain jobs for women.
I had to study to pass my test as a stockbroker on my own without the
benefit of anyone. Once I got my licensing back, I said: Now, can I
please be a stockbroker, and bring commission to this brokerage house,
by the way? Well, all right, but just do it quietly. We want to make it
look like you are a secretary. Those were tough days. It wasn't that
long ago. I know I am old, but I am not that old. We faced that kind of
discrimination.
Women could not vote until 1920. People look around here and say: Why
aren't there more women? Believe me. I say that every day. But the
bottom line is we didn't get to vote until 1920. We weren't used to
power--not even the power to vote until the 1920s. We are learning how
to deal with it now. But it takes time. Why shouldn't the world learn
from our experience? What
[[Page S1294]]
we know to be a fact and evident is that women are equal. By the way,
it doesn't mean we are better. We are equal. We are equally good in
some cases and equally bad in some cases--not better. But we know that
and we respect that in this country, although I would still like to see
the equal rights amendment be part of the Constitution. But basically
we know that. We should take that knowledge and that commitment, and
make sure the women of the world have a chance at life. I think we can
do it through this treaty. I would think we would be proud to do it
across the party line.
I think this is going to become an issue in this election because
there is no reason why we shouldn't at least hold a hearing and debate
these issues.
The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee was down here today.
He was eloquent in his opposition. Now I am on the floor and he is not
here. I hope I have been a little eloquent on why we should pass the
treaty. Why not bring that debate inside the Foreign Relations
Committee where it belongs? Why not hear from Senators on both sides
who care about this one way or the other? Why not vote it out? Why not
come to the floor and have a good debate on these issues, and perhaps
elevate the Senate? We get into our petty quarrels. Sometimes we take
up issues that are, frankly, not as important as others. This one would
be one that I think would make us all proud, wherever we come out on
this matter and on this question. But in terms of the arguments against
it, I hope I have put the other side out on the table.
Good people are behind this treaty--good, mainstream American groups.
The treaty is a Magna Carta for women. We ought to be proud of it. We
ought to stand with the countries in the world that are civilized, that
give their women equal rights and fair rights. We ought to stand with
them. It is time we do it.
It is International Women's Day. I will end where I started with
happy International Women's Day. I hope when we think about this
perhaps in the next few days and weeks and months, we will factor in a
very important treaty--the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women--on the floor of the Senate for a high-
level debate and a vote.
Thank you very much Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________