[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2436-2437]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST 
                                 WOMEN

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, nearly two decades ago, President Carter 
submitted to the Senate the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms 
of Discrimination Against Women, known in shorthand as the ``Womens' 
Convention.''
  In the two decades since then, the Committee on Foreign Relations has 
acted on the Convention only once. In 1994, the Committee voted to 
report the treaty by a strong majority of 13 to 5. Unfortunately, the 
103rd Congress ended before the full Senate could act on the 
Convention.
  Since then, not one hearing has been held in the Committee on Foreign 
Relations. Not one.
  It is a great mystery to me that a treaty that calls for the 
international promotion of civil and human rights for women would not 
be considered by the Senate.
  Over 160 nations have become party to this treaty, which entered into 
force in 1981. To its great discredit, the United States stands outside 
this treaty with a just handful of other nations.
  There is hardly anything revolutionary about this treaty. It contains 
a specific set of obligations calling on member states to enact legal 
prohibitions on discrimination against women--prohibitions which, in 
large part, the United States has already enacted.
  In fact, if the United States becomes a party to the treaty, we would 
not need to make any changes to U.S. law in order to comply with the 
treaty.
  So what are the opponents of this treaty supposedly concerned about?
  In 1994, the five Senators who voted against the Convention in the 
Committee filed ``minority views.'' In it they expressed two concerns.
  First, the dissenting Senators expressed concern that, in ratifying 
the Convention, several nations had taken reservations to the treaty, 
and thereby ``cheapened the coin'' of the treaty and the human rights 
norms that it embodies.
  To this objection there are two answers. First, no treaty signed by 
dozens of nations will ever be perfect. It will be the product of 
numerous compromises, some of which will not always be acceptable.
  That's why the Senate thinks it so important that we retain the 
right, whenever possible, to offer reservations to treaties--to attempt 
to remedy, or if necessary, opt-out, of any bad deals agreed to by our 
negotiators.
  Second, this Senate has frequently entered reservations in ratifying 
human rights treaties in the 1980s and 1990s--such as the Convention on 
Torture, the Convention on Racial Discrimination, and the International 
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
  In unanimously approving each of these treaties, the Senate imposed 
numerous reservations and understandings on U.S. ratification. In 
approving the Race Convention, for example, the Senate added three 
reservations, one understanding, and one condition.
  Did we ``cheapen the coin'' of the Race Convention in doing so? The 
answer is no, because in entering these reservations we did not 
undermine the central purpose of the treaty--to require nations to 
outlaw racial discrimination.
  The second objection registered by the five senators who voted 
against the Convention in 1994 is that joining the treaty was not the 
``best use'' of our government's ``energies'' in promoting the human 
rights of women around the world.

[[Page 2437]]

  This is a rather remarkable objection. What this group of senators 
was saying, in short, is that we should reserve our resources--and only 
promote human rights for women at certain times and in certain places.
  I would hope that every senator would agree that we should promote 
equal rights for women at every opportunity--not when it suits us or 
when where it is the ``best use'' of our ``energies.'' Advancing human 
rights and human liberty--for women and for everyone else--is a never-
ending struggle.
  Of course, the United States has a powerful voice, and we do not need 
to be a party to this Convention in order to speak out on womens' 
rights. But we should join this Convention so we can be heard within 
the councils of the treaty.
  Now the Senator from California stepped forward with a simple 
resolution which calls on the Senate to have hearings on the treaty, 
and for the Senate to act on the Convention by March 8, International 
Womens' Day.
  Unfortunately, the effort to call up this resolution yesterday was 
objected to. So we are here on the floor today simply to try to raise 
the profile of this treaty. I hope that our colleagues are listening.
  I urge the other members--whether on the Foreign Relations Committee 
or not--to step forward and join with us in urging support for this 
treaty.

                          ____________________