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 

NATION AGAINST WOMEN (CEDAW) CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMI-
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

71–956 PDF 2012

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 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

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 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

JOSEPH ZOGBY, Chief Counsel 

BROOKE BACAK, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III) 

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 
Page

IV 

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 

De ̃mos, 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 
Page

V 

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 
Page

VI 

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 
Page

VII 

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 

(1) 

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. 
2 

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 cureall 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. 
3 

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 
4 

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. 
5 

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 obliga-
6 

tions 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 
7 

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 
8 

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 prohib-
9 

iting 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 elimi-
10 

nate 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? 
11 

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 
12 

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. 
13 

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 unimagi-
14 

nable 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 Globewinning 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. 
15 

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. 
16 

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 
17 

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 
18 

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, 
19 

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 enforce-
20 

ment 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 
21 

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. 
22 

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. 
23 

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. 
24 

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 
25 

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 
26 

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 winwin 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.] 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 
348 
349 
350 
351 
352 
353 
354 
355 
356 
357 
358 
359 
360 
361 
362 
363 
364 
365 
366 
367 
368 
369 
370 
371 
372 
373 
374 
375 
376 
377 
378 
379 
380 
381 
382 
383 
384 
385 
386 
387 
388 
389 
390 
391 
392 
393 
394 
395 
396 
397 
398 
399 
400 
401 
402 

Æ