99–115 PDF 

107TH CONGRESS EXEC. REPT. " SENATE ! 2d Session 107–9

CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF 

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2002.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. BIDEN, from the Committee on Foreign Relations,

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany Treaty Doc. 96–53]

The Committee on Foreign Relations to which was referred the 

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination 

Against Women, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly 

on December 18, 1979, and signed on behalf of the United States 

of America on July 17, 1980, having considered the same, reports 

favorably thereon and recommends that the Senate give its advice 

and consent to ratification thereof, subject to four reservations, five 

understandings, and two declarations as set forth in this report 

and the accompanying resolution of advice and consent to ratification.

CONTENTS

Page

I. Purpose ........................................................................................................... 2

II. Background .................................................................................................... 2

III. Entry Into Force ............................................................................................ 3

IV. Committee Action .......................................................................................... 4

V. Major Provisions ............................................................................................ 4

VI. Committee Comments ................................................................................... 5

VII. Summary of Provisions in the Resolution of Advice and Consent ............. 7

VIII. Text of Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification .......................... 11

IX. Minority Views of Senators Helms, Lugar, Hagel, Frist, Allen, 

Brownback, and Enzi ................................................................................. 14

X. Additional Views of Senators Helms, Brownback, and Enzi ...................... 20

XI. Additional Views of Senator Frist ................................................................ 24

XII. Additional Views of Senator Allen ............................................................... 26


E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
2

1S. Hrg. 100–1039 (1988); S. Hrg. 101–1119 (1990). 2See Exec. Rpt. 103–38 for a review of the Committee’s consideration of the Convention in 

1994. The hearing record is set forth in S. Hrg. 103–892 (1994). 

I. PURPOSE 

The purpose of the Convention is to achieve the elimination of 

discrimination against women. The Convention obligates States 

Parties to condemn discrimination against women, to take all appropriate measures to end discrimination in a range of areas, including the political and economic spheres. 

II. BACKGROUND 

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (hereafter ‘‘CEDAW,’’ ‘‘Women’s Convention,’’ or ‘‘Convention’’) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 18, 1979, and entered into force on September 

3, 1981. The Convention sets forth internationally accepted principles and measures to achieve equal rights for women throughout 

the world. As of August 1, 2002, 170 nations were party to the Convention. 

Women’s rights and the equality of men and women are addressed in general terms in various international instruments such 

as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, 

Social and Cultural Rights. A small number of treaties deal with 

certain specific rights and issues affecting women. None of these 

documents, however, are as comprehensive as the Convention. 

During the Carter Administration, the United States played an 

active role in the negotiating process leading to the Convention and 

strongly supported the concept of a comprehensive and effective 

international instrument to achieve the elimination of discrimination against women. The United States signed the Convention on 

July 17, 1980. President Carter submitted the Convention to the 

Senate on November 12, 1980, for its advice and consent to ratification. It has been pending before the Senate since then. 

Prior to the 107th Congress, the Committee held hearings on the 

Convention in 1988 and 1990.1 It did not proceed to a Committee 

vote on the Convention in 1988 and 1990 because neither the 

Reagan Administration nor the first Bush Administration indicated 

that they supported ratification. The Clinton Administration endorsed ratification of the Convention. In September 1994, the Committee held another hearing, and that same month ordered the 

Convention reported by a vote of 13-5.2 The full Senate did not act 

on the Convention during the remaining days of the 103rd Congress. Under Senate Rule XXX, the Convention was returned to the 

Committee. No action was taken in the Committee during the 

104th through 106th Congresses. 

Bush Administration position 

The Bush Administration has indicated that it supports the Convention, but that it is currently undertaking a review of the Convention to ascertain whether additional reservations, understandings, and declarations may be required in addition to those 

proposed by the Committee. The Administration has had considerable time to consider its position. The chronology of action on the 


E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
3

Convention in the past year—which demonstrates the time afforded the Administration by the Committee—deserves elaboration. 

By letter dated June 29, 2001, Chairman Biden invited the Secretary of State to submit the Administration’s priorities for treaties 

pending in the Senate during the 107th Congress (this letter reiterated an invitation first issued by then-Chairman Helms in March 

2001). In the letter, the Chairman indicated that he expected to 

convene hearings on the Convention in the coming year, and that 

the Department would be invited to testify. By letter dated February 7, 2002, the Department of State responded. The letter 

placed CEDAW in ‘‘category III’’—those treaties which the Administration ‘‘believes are generally desirable and should be approved.’’

In other words, the Administration indicated its support for U.S. 

ratification of the Convention. 

On that basis, Chairman Biden proceeded with plans for a hearing on the treaty. By letter dated March 7, he informed the Secretary of State that a hearing would be held after the Easter recess, and that a State Department representative would be invited 

to testify. In mid-April, a formal invitation was issued to the Under 

Secretary of State for Global Affairs to testify at a hearing scheduled for May 15. As the hearing date neared, the State Department 

indicated that it had not decided who would testify. The hearing 

was postponed, and a new invitation was issued to the Under Secretary for a hearing scheduled for June 12 (later rescheduled for 

June 13). At the end of May, the Department of State orally requested an additional delay, contending that the Justice Department had just commenced a review of the treaty. By letter dated 

June 4, 2002, the State Department formally requested a delay; the 

letter, however, reiterated the Administration’s support for ratification of the Convention. 

Subsequent communications have been received from the Departments of State and Justice on the Convention, in response to letters from Chairman Biden inquiring about the scope and timing of 

the Administration’s review of the Convention. Although these letters have been generally unresponsive—and have failed to reply to 

several direct questions posed—the letters have not renounced the 

Administration’s previous expressions of support for ratification of 

the Convention. The letters do indicate that the Administration is 

conducting a review of certain issues raised by the Convention and 

the CEDAW Committee (the advisory panel created by the Convention), and have urged that the Committee delay consideration of 

the Convention until this review is completed. 

Because of the limited time remaining in the 107th Congress, 

and because the Administration refused to provide any information 

about when its review would be completed, the Chairman decided 

to proceed with a hearing in mid-June, and the Committee vote in 

July. 

III. ENTRY INTO FORCE 

Pursuant to Article 27, the Convention entered into force on September 3, 1981 after the twentieth nation ratified or acceded to it. 

If the United States ratifies the Convention, it will become a party 

on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit of the instrument 

of ratification. 


E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
4

IV. COMMITTEE ACTION 

On June 13, 2002, the Committee conducted a hearing on the 

Convention; the hearing was chaired by Senator Boxer. Testimony 

was received from five members of the House of Representatives 

(Representatives Jo Ann Davis, Carolyn Maloney, Juanita 

Millender-McDonald, Constance Morella, and Lynn Woolsey), and 

six witnesses from the private sector. The private sector witnesses 

included senior State Department officials from the last three presidential administrations who were involved with human rights or 

UN matters. 

On July 30, 2002, the Committee considered the Convention, and 

ordered it favorably reported by a vote of 12–7, with the recommendation that the Senate give its advice and consent to the 

ratification of the Convention, subject to 4 reservations, 5 understandings, and 2 declarations set forth in the resolution of advice 

and consent to ratification. Ayes: Senators Biden, Sarbanes, Dodd, 

Kerry, Feingold, Wellstone, Boxer, Torricelli, Nelson, Rockefeller, 

Smith, and Chafee. Nays: Senators Helms, Lugar, Hagel, Frist, 

Allen, Brownback, and Enzi. 

V. MAJOR PROVISIONS 

The Convention contains the most specific obligations adopted to 

date by the international community in the area of gender discrimination. Current U.S. law is largely consistent with the provisions 

of the Convention because the U.S. Constitution and federal law 

provide strong guarantees of equal protection as well as effective 

protections against discriminatory conduct. 

Through its broad definition of the term ‘‘discrimination against 

women’’ in Article 1, the Convention seeks to promote equal rights 

and freedoms for women, regardless of marital status, in all fields 

including political, economic, educational, social, cultural, and civil. 

Article 2 sets forth the fundamental obligation of States Parties 

to pursue a policy of eliminating discrimination against women by 

embodying the principle of equality of men and women in their national constitutions or other appropriate legislation, adopting legislation and other measures prohibiting discrimination against 

women, establishing legal protections for women, ensuring that no 

public authorities or institutions discriminate against women, and 

taking steps to eliminate measures or practices that constitute discrimination against women. Article 3 requires States Parties to 

take ‘‘in all fields . . . all appropriate measures’’ including legislation to ensure the full development and enhancement of women. 

The Convention, in article 4, also permits ‘‘temporary special measures’’ to accelerate de facto equality between men and women. 

Articles 5 through 16 outline specific steps that the parties must 

undertake in a variety of fields. These include providing equal 

rights for women in political and public life, equal access to education, non-discrimination in employment and pay, guarantees of 

job security in the event of marriage and maternity, and access to 

adequate health care facilities. The Convention underlines the 

equal responsibilities of men with women in the context of family 

life and stresses the social services needed—especially child care 

facilities—for combining family obligations with work responsibilities and participation in public life. 


E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
5

Articles 17 through 22 establish a framework under the treaty 

for reviewing the implementation by States Parties. Article 17 establishes the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination 

Against Women, consisting of 23 experts of high moral standing 

and competence. These experts are selected from among nationals 

of States Parties, but serve in their personal capacity. The Committee generally meets once a year to receive and review reports 

from the Parties regarding implementation. Although the Committee can make recommendations, it has no competence under the 

Convention to consider complaints or petitions from individuals or 

governments, and no power to enforce its recommendations. 

VI. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 

The Convention is a landmark treaty, designed to advance the 

rights of women around the world. It builds on the principles of 

nondiscrimination found in earlier international documents, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Because of its comprehensive nature, the Convention has become an important instrument in the struggle for equal rights for women around the 

globe. 

The treatment of women in Afghanistan under Taliban rule 

serves as a reminder that the struggle for women’s rights is far 

from complete. Although women in the United States enjoy equal 

opportunity and equal protection of the law, these rights are not 

universally guaranteed elsewhere. The Convention provides an important means to advance these rights. 

The Committee believes that U.S. ratification of CEDAW will 

serve several important purposes. 

First, it will reaffirm the commitment of the United States before 

the eyes of the world to the principle of equality between men and 

women and to the promotion and protection of women’s rights at 

home and abroad. The United States has long been a leader in advancing women’s rights. But, as witnesses with recent experience 

in international diplomatic conferences testified before the Committee, women from other countries are discouraged by the failure 

of the United States to join the Convention. This failure undercuts 

the effectiveness of our message in promoting women’s rights. 

Second, ratification will enhance the ability of the United States 

to press for women’s rights globally. To be sure, as the world’s leading nation, the United States already has a powerful voice, and can 

speak out for such rights whether or not it is a party to the Convention. But U.S. ratification will give our diplomats a tool—a 

means to press other governments to fulfill their obligations under 

the Convention. If we are a party, when U.S. diplomats raise women’s rights and are confronted with rebuttals from foreign officials 

that the United States is seeking to advance ‘‘Western values’’

which have no applicability in their land, U.S. diplomats can reply 

with a strong rejoinder: your government adhered to the Convention freely, and it is required to keep its international commitments. 

Third, ratification will further empower women in foreign nations who seek to use CEDAW to press for women’s rights in their 

respective countries. With the United States adding its voice in 

promoting adherence to CEDAW obligations, women in many counVerDate Mar 21 2002 00:00 Sep 10, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107 txed01 PsN: PFRM67

E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
6

3 UN Development Program, Arab Human Development Report 2002, at 3 (2002).

tries will be further encouraged to press vigorously for fulfillment 

of CEDAW obligations. This argument was made forcefully to the 

Committee in a letter, dated June 12, 2002, to Senator Boxer by 

the then-Afghan Minister for Women’s Affairs, Dr. Sima Samar 

(Dr. Simar is now Chairman of the Human Rights Commission in 

Afghanistan). She stated as follows:

I understand that the U.S. Senate is now considering 

whether the United States should join 169 other countries 

in ratifying [the Convention]. I believe it will be important 

for me and other Afghan women if you do take this step. 

We will then be able to tell our countrymen that the 

United States, where women already have full legal rights, 

has just seen the need to ratify this treaty. This treaty will 

then truly be the international measure of the rights that 

any country should guarantee to its women. We will be 

able to refer to its terms and guidelines in public debates 

over what our laws should say. Your advisers to many of 

our leaders here will be able to cite its provisions in their 

recommendations. And perhaps we women will achieve full 

human rights for the first time in a generation.

During the last decade of the Cold War, the Helsinki Final Act—

a document in which Soviet Bloc states committed to protect 

human rights—served to embolden advocates throughout Eastern 

and Central Europe, who used the document to press their Communist governments for protection of civil liberties. So, too, 

CEDAW can serve as a tool which will allow women and women’s 

rights advocates around the world to seek an end to discrimination 

against women. 

Fourth, the advancement of women promotes stability and economic growth for societies as a whole. A recent UN-sponsored 

study of the Arab world (a study conducted by Arab scholars) concluded that an important reason for economic underdevelopment in 

the region was the lack of empowerment of women. Commenting 

on the lack of equal opportunity in both the political and economic 

spheres, the report noted that ‘‘[s]ociety as a whole suffers when a 

huge proportion of its productive potential is stifled, resulting in 

lower family incomes and standards of living.’’ 3 Secretary of State 

Powell stated the case well. Speaking on International Women’s 

Day earlier this year, he said: 

Women’s issues affect not only women; they have profound implications for all humankind. Women’s issues are 

human rights issues. They are health and education 

issues. They are development issues. They are ingredients 

of good government and sound economic practice. They go 

to the heart of what makes for successful, stable societies 

and global growth. Women’s issues affect the future of 

families, societies and economies, of countries and of continents. We, as a world community, can not even begin to 

tackle the array of problems and challenges confronting us 

without the full and equal participation of women in all aspects of life . . . It is not just popular opinion, but plain 

fact: countries that treat women with dignity, that afford 


E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
7

4 Remarks of Secretary Powell at a reception to mark International Women’s Day (Mar. 7, 

2002).

women a choice in how they live their lives, that give them 

equal access to essential services, give them an equal opportunity to contribute to public life—these are the countries that are the most stable, valuable and capable of 

meeting the challenges of the new century.4

Most fundamentally, the Convention’s promise of providing equal 

rights to women addresses a question of basic fairness which 

women have been asking for centuries: why should rights be denied 

to half the population simply because of their gender? The Convention provides a response: women’s rights are human rights, which 

should be accorded on a universal basis. 

VII. SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS IN THE RESOLUTION OF 

ADVICE AND CONSENT 

In transmitting the treaty to the Senate in 1980, the Carter Administration indicated that the treaty raised several issues with regard to whether U.S. domestic law conformed to the terms of the 

treaty, and noted that the United States had the option of changing 

U.S. law or submitting reservations to the treaty. The Administration recommended, among other things, a reservation relating to 

federalism, and a declaration that the substantive provisions of the 

treaty are not self-executing. The Carter Administration did not, 

however, make any specific recommendations as to appropriate language for implementing legislation or reservations. (Exec. R, 96th 

Cong., 2d Sess., Nov. 1980, at pp. VIII-IX). 

In the 103rd Congress, the Clinton Administration undertook a 

thorough review of the Convention, and recommended that the 

Senate include nine conditions (four reservations, three understandings, and two declarations) in the resolution of advice and 

consent. The resolution approved by the Committee includes these 

provisions in the resolution. The resolution includes two other conditions: an understanding first proposed by Senator Helms in 1994 

related to abortion, and an understanding proposed by Senator 

Biden this year related to the CEDAW Committee. 

The provisions of the resolution are summarized below. 

RESERVATIONS

1. Private Conduct 

The Convention’s definition of discrimination in Article 1 covers 

activities of private organizations, associations and individuals as 

well as those of federal and state governments. When read in conjunction with obligations under other articles of the Convention 

(Articles 2, 3 and 5), the effect of this definition is to reach into 

areas that are not regulated by the federal government. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not apply to private employers with fewer than 15 employees, religious institutions, or tax-exempt private clubs. Similarly, Title IX of the Education Act Amendments of 1972 does not apply to private institutions that receive no federal funds. This reservation therefore 

makes clear that the United States does not accept any obligation 


E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
8

under the Convention to regulate private conduct except as mandated by the Constitution and U.S. law. 

2. Combat Assignments 

Article 2 obligates States Parties to pursue ‘‘by all appropriate 

means . . . a policy of eliminating discrimination against women.’’

Although women can serve in all non-combat positions in the U.S. 

armed forces, and attend all the military academies without restriction, the Defense Department and the military services have 

policies which preclude women from serving in units and positions 

that have missions which require routine engagement in direct 

combat. This reservation clarifies that the United States does not 

accept an obligation under the Convention to put women in all 

combat positions. 

3. Comparable Worth 

Article 11(1)(d) of the Convention provides women with the right 

to ‘‘equal remuneration, including benefits, and to equal treatment 

in respect of work of equal value, as well as equality of treatment 

in the evaluation of the quality of work.’’ This provision reflects a 

potentially broad definition of the concept of equal pay for women. 

Pay equity is an established principle in U.S. law and practice. 

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)(1)) mandates equal 

pay for men and women performing jobs of equal skill, effort and 

responsibility under similar working conditions unless the pay differential is justified by one of four exceptions. The United States 

has not, however, adopted the concept of comparable worth. Although the Convention does not use the term ‘‘comparable worth,’’

the proposed reservation makes it clear that the United States does 

not accept an obligation under the Convention to adopt the doctrine 

of comparable worth. 

4. Paid Maternity Leave 

Article 11(2)(b) requires States Parties to take appropriate measures to ‘‘introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits without loss of former employment, seniority or social 

allowances.’’ Although current U.S. law and practice provide for 

maternity and parental leave benefits in many employment situations, and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 provides certain employees unpaid leave in certain circumstances, including 

the birth or adoption of a child, federal law does not require employers to provide paid leave or leave with comparable social benefits in connection with pregnancy or childbirth. Similarly, although 

the Family and Medical Leave Act provides a qualified employee 

pre-existing benefits for the duration of the leave at the level and 

under the same conditions as provided prior to commencement of 

the leave and provides such employees the right to return to his 

or her job or to an equivalent job, no federal law requires employers to hold vacant the position of a woman who has taken maternity leave or to reinstate her without loss of seniority or allowances. This reservation therefore states that the United States does 

not accept an obligation under Article 11 to introduce maternity 

leave with pay or with comparable social benefits without loss of 

former employment, seniority or social allowances. 


E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
9

UNDERSTANDINGS

1. Federal-State Implementation 

Articles 2(d) and 24 taken together would require the federal 

government to ensure that state and local governments comply 

with the Convention. Many of the specific areas covered by the 

Convention (such as education) are within the purview of state and 

local governments, rather than the federal government. Although 

U.S. law does not proscribe the federal government from committing its constituent units to the goal of non-discrimination, U.S. law 

does provide limitations on the federal role in some areas. To reflect this situation, this understanding makes clear that the United 

States will carry out its obligations under the Convention in a 

manner consistent with the federal nature of its form of government. This understanding is identical to one approved by the Senate in its resolution of advice and consent to ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. 

2. Freedom of Speech, Expression and Association 

The Convention contains provisions requiring regulation of private conduct in a manner which is beyond the power of the government. For example, Article 5 obligates the parties to modify practices which are based on ‘‘the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes.’’ The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to disseminate such ‘‘ideas.’’ Article 7 requires parties to take measures to ensure that women 

have the right, on equal terms with men, to participate in non-governmental organizations and associations concerned with the public 

and political life of the country. Such an obligation could extend beyond the scope of the government’s authority or implicates rights 

of association protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, this 

understanding clarifies that the United States does not accept any 

obligation under the Convention to restrict freedom of speech, expression and association to the extent that they are protected by 

the Constitution and U.S. laws. 

3. Free Health Care Services 

Article 12, paragraph 1, obligates States Parties to take all appropriate measures to ensure equal access for women to health 

care services ‘‘including those related to family planning.’’ Article 

12, paragraph 2, requires Parties to ensure to women ‘‘appropriate 

services in connection with pregnancy, confinement and the postnatal period, granting free services where necessary.’’ Paragraph 1 

mandates equality of access to family planning services, but does 

not require the affirmative provision of such services generally or 

of any specific services (such as contraceptive devices). Similarly, 

paragraph 2 does not require the provision of any particular services, but allows each State Party to decide which services are ‘‘appropriate’’ and whether and when it is ‘‘necessary’’ to make services 

freely available. This understanding reflects this reading of Article 

12. 

4. Abortion 

As noted in the discussion of the third understanding, Article 12 

contains certain obligations with regard to health care services and 


E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
10

5Letter from Secretary Powell to Senator Biden, July 8, 2002 (‘‘State Parties have always retained the discretion on whether to implement any recommendations made by the Committee.’’) 

services in connection with pregnancy. In 1994, the Committee approved an understanding, sponsored by Senator Helms, which 

states that ‘‘nothing in this Convention shall be construed to reflect 

or create any right to abortion and in no case should abortion be 

promoted as a method of family planning.’’ The Committee again 

recommends inclusion of this understanding, as it reflects the plain 

meaning of the text of the treaty, which does contain the word 

abortion. 

5. CEDAW Committee 

Article 17 of the Convention creates the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (hereafter the ‘‘CEDAW 

Committee’’), made up of 23 experts appointed by nations party to 

the Convention. These experts act in their personal capacity to consider reports submitted by parties under Article 18 (Article 18 requires parties to submit reports periodically on measures they have 

taken to give effect to the Convention). The Committee is required 

to report annually to the UN General Assembly, and, under Article 

21, may ‘‘make suggestions and general recommendations based on 

the examination of the reports and information received’’ from the 

parties. As the State Department concedes, the CEDAW Committee 

has no authority to compel parties to follow its recommendations.5

The understanding reiterates that point. 

DECLARATIONS

1. Non-Self-Executing 

Existing U.S. law provides extensive protections against genderbased discrimination and remedies sufficient to satisfy most of the 

requirements of the Convention. In addition, federal, state and 

local laws provide a comprehensive basis for challenging discriminatory statutes, regulations and other governmental actions, as 

well as certain forms of discriminatory conduct by private actors, 

in court. In view of this, there is no need to establish additional 

legal causes of action in order to enforce the requirements of the 

Convention. This declaration therefore states that the provisions of 

the Convention are not-self-executing. 

The intent of such a declaration is two-fold: to indicate that the 

Convention will be implemented pursuant to Constitutional and 

statutory law, and to clarify that it will not create a new or independently enforceable private right of action in United States 

courts. The Senate has approved a similar declaration in giving advice and consent to other human rights treaties, such as the Convention Against Torture, the Covenant on Civil and Political 

Rights, and the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. 

2. Dispute Settlement 

Article 29(1) provides that any dispute between States Parties 

concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, 

which is not settled by negotiation, shall at the request of one of 

them be submitted to arbitration. If the parties to the dispute are 

unable to agree to the organization of such arbitration within six 


E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
11

months, any such party may refer the dispute to the International 

Court of Justice. Article 29(2) provides that a State Party may declare at the time of ratification that it does not consider itself 

bound by the provisions of Article 29(1). This declaration states 

that the United States does not consider itself bound by Article 

29(1) and that the specific consent of the United States to the jurisdiction of the Court is required on a case-by-case basis. 

VIII. TEXT OF RESOLUTION OF ADVICE AND CONSENT TO 

RATIFICATION 

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein),

SECTION 1. ADVICE AND CONSENT TO RATIFICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN, SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS, UNDERSTANDINGS AND DECLARATIONS.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against 

Women, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 18, 1979, and signed on behalf of the United States of 

America on July 17, 1980 (Treaty Doc. 96–53), subject to the reservations in section 2, the understandings in section 3, and the declarations in section 4.

SECTION 2. RESERVATIONS.

The advice and consent of the Senate is subject to the following 

reservations, which shall be included in the instrument of ratification: 

(1) The Constitution and laws of the United States establish 

extensive protections against discrimination, reaching all forms 

of governmental activity as well as significant areas of nongovernmental activity. However, individual privacy and freedom from governmental interference in private conduct are 

also recognized as among the fundamental values of our free 

and democratic society. The United States understands that by 

its terms the Convention requires broad regulation of private 

conduct, in particular under Articles 2, 3 and 5. The United 

States does not accept any obligation under the Convention to 

enact legislation or to take any other action with respect to private conduct except as mandated by the Constitution and laws 

of the United States. 

(2) Under current U.S. law and practice, women are permitted to volunteer for military service without restriction, and 

women in fact serve in all U.S. armed services, including in 

combat positions. However, the United States does not accept 

an obligation under the Convention to assign women to all 

military units and positions which may require engagement in 

direct combat. 

(3) U.S. law provides strong protections against gender discrimination in the area of remuneration, including the right to 

equal pay for equal work in jobs that are substantially similar. 

However, the United States does not accept any obligation 

under this Convention to enact legislation establishing the doctrine of comparable worth as that term is understood in U.S. 

practice. 


E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
12

(4) Current U.S. law contains substantial provisions for maternity leave in many employment situations but does not require paid maternity leave. Therefore, the United States does 

not accept an obligation under Article 11(2)(b) to introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits without loss of former employment, seniority or social allowances.

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDINGS.

The advice and consent of the Senate is subject to the following 

understandings, which shall be included in the instrument of ratification: 

(1) The United States understands that this Convention 

shall be implemented by the Federal Government to the extent 

that it exercises jurisdiction over the matters covered therein, 

and otherwise by the State and local governments. To the extent that State and local governments exercise jurisdiction over 

such matters, the Federal Government shall, as necessary, 

take appropriate measures to ensure the fulfillment of this 

Convention. 

(2) The Constitution and laws of the United States contain 

extensive protections of individual freedom of speech, expression, and association. Accordingly, the United States does not 

accept any obligation under this Convention, in particular 

under Articles 5, 7, 8 and 13, to restrict those rights, through 

the adoption of legislation or any other measures, to the extent 

that they are protected by the Constitution and laws of the 

United States. 

(3) The United States understands that Article 12 permits 

States Parties to determine which health care services are appropriate in connection with family planning, pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period, as well as when the provision of free services is necessary, and does not mandate the 

provision of particular services on a cost-free basis. 

(4) Nothing in this Convention shall be construed to reflect 

or create any right to abortion and in no case should abortion 

be promoted as a method of family planning. 

(5) The United States understands that the Committee on 

the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women was established under Article 17 ‘‘for the purpose of considering the 

progress made in the implementation’’ of the Convention. The 

United States understands that the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, as set forth in Article 

21, reports annually to the General Assembly on it activities, 

and ‘‘may make suggestions and general recommendations 

based on the examination of reports and information received 

from the States Parties.’’ Accordingly, the United States understands that the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women has no authority to compel actions by 

States Parties.

SECTION 4. DECLARATIONS.

The advice and consent of the Senate is subject to the following 

declarations: 


E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
13

(1) The United States declares that, for purposes of its domestic law, the provisions of the Convention are non-self-executing. 

(2) With reference to Article 29(2), the United States declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions 

of Article 29(1). The specific consent of the United States to the 

jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice concerning 

disputes over the interpretation or application of this Convention is required on a case-by-case basis. 


E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
(14)

IX. MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATORS HELMS, LUGAR, HAGEL, 

FRIST, ALLEN, BROWNBACK, AND ENZI 

BACKGROUND

In 1994, Senators Helms, Kassebaum, Brown, Coverdell and 

Gregg filed Minority Views expressing their concern about the substance of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (‘‘the Convention’’) when it was reported by this Committee (see Exec. Rept. 103–38, p. 53).

In 2002, the Convention’s substance continues to generate concern for the minority, as set out below. The minority registers an 

additional concern over the majority’s haste in ordering the Convention to be reported before receiving Executive Branch views. 

PROCEDURE

No hearings on the Convention were held between September 27, 

1994 and June 13, 2002. On the latter date, the majority held a 

hearing on the Convention with private witnesses. The majority declined the Executive Branch’s request to postpone hearings on the 

Convention until an Executive Branch review of the Convention 

has been concluded. The majority also opted against inviting U.S. 

Department of State witnesses eventually proffered by the Executive Branch for the June 13, 2002, hearing.

On July 8, 2002, Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote to Senator 

Biden, Committee Chairman, and noted that the Convention raises 

a number of issues that must be addressed before the Senate provides its advice and consent. Secretary Powell wrote that it is necessary for the Executive Branch to determine what reservations, 

understandings and declarations may be required as part of the 

ratification process. Secretary Powell also wrote that ‘‘a careful review is appropriate and necessary’’ and that the Departments of 

State and Justice were conducting a review ‘‘as expeditiously as 

possible.’’

On July 15, 2002, Senator Helms wrote to the Chairman to request that Committee action on the Convention be deferred until 

the Senator’s return to Washington.

On July 19, 2002, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Condoleeza Rice wrote to The Honorable Joseph Pitts, 

a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and set forth the 

importance of Executive Branch review of the Convention prior to 

Senate action.

On July 26, 2002, Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Daniel J. Bryant wrote to the Chairman, referencing Secretary Powell’s July 8 letter, to request that the Chairman await 

completion of the Administration’s review [of the Convention] ‘‘before commencing a committee vote on CEDAW.’’ In the alternative, 


E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
15

Assistant Attorney General Bryant urged Committee members to 

vote against ordering the Convention reported until completion of 

the review.

The full texts of the Powell and Bryant letters are included as 

attachments to this section.

On July 30, 2002, the majority took up the Convention at the 

Committee’s Business Meeting and ordered it reported by a vote of 

12–7. The State Department-Justice Department review of the 

Convention had not been completed at the time of the vote, and the 

minority understands that, as of the date of filing of this Report, 

the Executive Branch review had not been completed.

The minority’s strong preference was to defer Committee action 

on the Convention until after completion of the Executive Branch 

review and Senator Helms’ return. Instead, the majority ordered 

the Convention reported without hearing Executive Branch witnesses, and without an updated Executive Branch legal analysis reflecting domestic and international legal developments since 1994 

which could affect the Convention’s application in the United 

States.

The Convention is the most ambitious multilateral convention on 

women ever undertaken by the international community. The minority feels that the current Administration’s legal analysis, together with the Administration’s views about whether a package of 

reservations, understandings and declarations can be crafted that 

would permit United States adherence to the Convention, would 

have been—and remain—critical to a thorough understanding of 

the Convention’s potential impact on the American people and their 

institutions.

The minority recommends that the Senate defer action on the 

Convention until the Administration’s analysis and views are available. 

SUBSTANCE

As the Carter Administration indicated in 1980 when it submitted the Convention to the Senate for advice and consent, important issues concerning division of Federal-State powers are presented by several of its provisions. The Convention has also generated vigorous debate about the implications of U.S. compliance 

with regard to important social issues such as abortion on demand 

(including restrictions on Federal funding), comparable worth salary laws, women in the military, same-sex marriage, health care, 

single-sex education and potential government intrusion into areas 

traditionally within the scope of family privacy. That debate perforce must continue, given that these issues have not, unfortunately, been laid to rest by Committee action on the Convention.

As stated above, in 1994 the minority of Committee members 

voting against reporting the Convention included Senators Helms, 

Kassebaum, Brown, Coverdell and Gregg. The 1994 minority felt 

that the Convention represented yet another set of unenforceable 

international standards that would further dilute—not strengthen—international human rights standards for women around the 

world. The 1994 minority also noted that many parties to the ConVerDate Mar 21 2002 00:00 Sep 10, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107 txed01 PsN: PFRM67

E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
16

1 Concluding Observations on the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against 

Women: Algeria, 27/01/99, paragraphs 77–78. 

vention had abysmal human rights records, especially for women. 

Some were even designated by the U.S. Department of State as 

state sponsors of terrorism.

The minority in 1994 noted that the United States has the 

strongest record on opportunities and rights for women in the 

world, and that ratification of the Convention, rather than improving that record, would raise divisive social issues such as those 

noted above. Moreover, the 1994 minority felt that the Convention’s 

definition of ‘‘discrimination against women’’ is so broad that it 

would apply to private organizations and areas of personal conduct 

not covered by U.S. law.

In 2002, the minority feels that the Convention raises a number 

of complex and important issues which should have been explored 

further in one or more hearings with the current Administration’s 

witnesses, and—assuming an Administration desire to go forward 

with the Convention following its review—which should be addressed in an appropriate resolution of ratification.

JESSE HELMS. RICHARD G. 

LUGAR. CHUCK HAGEL. BILL

FRIST. GEORGE ALLEN. SAM

BROWNBACK. MICHAEL B. 

ENZI.

[The letters referred to above follow:]

THE SECRETARY OF STATE, 

Washington, July 8, 2002. 

Hon. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Chairman, 

Committee on Foreign Relations, 

U.S. Senate.

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for your letters of June 17 to Attorney General Ashcroft and me regarding the Foreign Relations Committee’s June 1 hearing concerning the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). 

This replies to both letters.

Addressing the issues confronting women—from suffrage to gender-based violence—is a priority of this Administration. We are committed to ensuring that promotion of the rights of women is fully integrated into American foreign policy. Our 

recent actions in Afghanistan underscore this commitment to promote the rights of 

girls and women who suffered under the draconian Taliban rule, including in education, employment, healthcare, and other areas. It is for these and other reasons 

that the Administration supports CEDAW’s general goal of eradicating invidious 

discrimination against women across the globe.

The vagueness of the text of CEDAW and the record of the official U.N. body that 

reviews and comments on the implementation of the Convention, on the other hand, 

raise a number of issues that must be addressed before the United States Senate 

provides its advice and consent. We believe consideration of these issues is particularly necessary to determine what reservations, understandings and declarations 

may be required as part of the ratification process.

As you are aware, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against 

Women prepares reports and recommendations to State Parties. Portions of some 

of these reports and recommendations have addressed serious problems in useful 

and positive ways, such as women and girls who are victims of terrorism (Algeria) 1


E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
17

2 Concluding Observations on the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against 

Women: Myanmar, 28/01/2000, paragraphs 119–120. 3 Concluding Observations on the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against 

Women: Belarus, 31/0–1/2000, paragraph 361. 4 Concluding Observations on the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against 

Women: China, 03/02/99, paragraphs 288–289. 5 Concluding Observations on the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against 

Women: Croatia, 14/05/98, paragraphs 109, 117.

and trafficking in women and girls (Burma). 2 However, other reports and recommendations have raised troubling questions in their substance and analysis, such 

as the Committee’s reports on Belarus (addressing Mother’s Day), 3 China (legalized 

prostitution), 4 and Croatia (abortion). 5

State Parties have always retained the discretion on whether to implement any 

recommendations made by the Committee. The existence of this body of reports, 

however, has led us to review both the treaty and the Committee’s comments to understand the basis, practical effect, and any possible implications of the reports. We 

are also examining those aspects of the treaty that address areas of law that have 

traditionally been left to the individual States. The complexity of this treaty raises 

additional important issues, and we are examining those as well.

In mid-April, when the Administration learned that the Committee had set a 

hearing date for consideration of CEDAW, the Departments of State and Justice 

began a review of this Convention to assess the need for reservations, understandings, and declarations different from or in addition to those reported out by 

the Committee in Exec. Rept. 103–38 in October, 1994. Given the passage of time 

since the last Senate hearing and the breadth of the issues touched upon by the 

Convention, we believe that a careful review is appropriate and necessary. This review is proceeding as expeditiously as possible.

Although the Administration supports CEDAW’s general goals, it believes that 

eighteen other treaties are either in urgent need of Senate approval or of a very 

high priority. In addition to the seventeen treaties listed in higher categories on the 

treaty priority list that are still pending, the Moscow Treaty on the reduction of 

strategic arms, which was transmitted to the Senate in June, is among our most 

pressing national security needs and foreign policy interests. At the same time as 

the Administration is carrying out its review of CEDAW, we hope we can work with 

the Committee on these high priority treaties. Once our review of CEDAW is complete, we look forward to presenting our views to your Committee.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for recently guiding the two 

Protocols to the Rights of the Child Convention through the advice and consent 

process at the U.S. Senate. This is a good example of successful cooperation between 

your Committee and the Administration to advance treaties that are high priorities 

for our Nation’s foreign policy. 

Sincerely, 

COLIN L. POWELL, 

Secretary of State.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Washington, July 26, 2002. 

Hon. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Chairman, 

Committee on Foreign Relations, 

U.S. Senate.

Dear Chairman Biden:

I write in response to your letters of June 17 and July 11, 2002 concerning the 

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women 

(CEDAW), upon which the Foreign Relations Committee is considering voting in the 

near future. While the Department of State typically takes the lead in responding 

to correspondence from the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations, at your insistence I am responding directly on behalf of the Department of Justice.

As indicated in Secretary Powell’s July 8 letter to you, the Administration is currently reviewing CEDAW to determine what reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) may be required in addition to those reported out by the ComVerDate Mar 21 2002 00:00 Sep 10, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107 txed01 PsN: PFRM67

E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
18

1 Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against 

Women: Belarus, 31/01/2000, paragraph 361.

2 Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against 

Women: China, 03/02/99, paragraphs 288–289. 3Fact Sheet No. 22, Discrimination Against Women: The Convention And The Committee, 

available at [www.unhcr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs22.htm].

mittee in Exec. Rept. 103–38 in October 1994. While this review is not yet complete, 

the Administration is certain that the 1994 RUDs are insufficient to address the 

various concerns raised by CEDAW. For example, the 1994 RUDs do not address 

the controversial interpretations advanced by the official U.N. implementation committee after those RUDs were issued. Among other things, that committee questioned the celebration of Mother’s Day in a January 2000 report to Belarus:

The Committee is concerned by the continuing prevalence of sex-role stereotypes and by the reintroduction of such symbols as a Mother’s Day and a 

Mother’s Award, which it sees as encouraging women’s traditional roles. 1

And in a March 1999 report to China, it called for legalized prostitution:

The Committee is concerned that prostitution, which is often a result of 

poverty and economic deprivation, is illegal in China. . . . The Committee 

recommends decriminalization of prostitution. 2

These are but two examples of the instances in which this committee has exploited CEDAW’S vague text to advance positions contrary to American law and 

sensibilities.

Nor does your recent draft resolution of ratification address these concerns. It 

does not, for example, address whether other interpretive bodies, whether foreign, 

international, or, indeed, domestic, could adopt similarly bizarre interpretations of 

CEDAW’s vague text, or what deference, if any, these bodies would accord the official U.N. implementation committee. (As we have recently witnessed in the Pledge 

of Allegiance case, there are, regrettably, judges who will engage in aggressively 

counterintuitive interpretations of legal texts.) The implementation committee, 

moreover, has now begun ‘‘[t]he process of interpreting the substantive articles of 

the Convention’’ and to ‘‘formally . . . interpret the rights guaranteed in the Convention.’’ 3 Your draft resolution, however, does not address the effect of these formal 

interpretations on domestic and international law. These concerns remain, regardless of whether, in the words of your draft resolution, the implementation committee 

has the ‘‘authority to compel actions by State parties.’’

It is crucial, therefore, that we fully understand the implications of these rulings 

on parties that join CEDAW after they have been issued, as well as the consequences of any rulings that might issue after a state becomes party to the treaty. 

In addition, we must fully understand the numerous other issues raised by CEDAW, 

such as its implications on current U.S. constitutional and statutory law and areas 

of law traditionally regulated by the States. The complexity of this treaty raises 

many other important issues that are not addressed in your draft resolution, which 

we are examining as well.

This is not the first Administration, nor the first Senate, to recognize the magnitude of the issues raised by CEDAW. As you know, this treaty has been before 

the United States Senate for twenty-two years. During this time period, it has been 

before a Democratic Senate with a Democratic President (President Carter), a Republican Senate with a Republican President (President Reagan), a Democratic Senate with a Republican President (President Reagan), a Democratic Senate with another Republican President (President George H.W. Bush), a Democratic Senate 

with a Democratic President (President Clinton), and a Republican Senate with a 

Democratic President (President Clinton). In other words, regardless of which party 

controlled either the Senate or the Presidency, the Senate has declined to act on 

this treaty for twenty-two years. In this context, it would be imprudent to act with 

undue haste before we have had an opportunity to conduct a full and fair review 

of this treaty, particularly in light of the recent actions taken by the U.N. implementation committee (and the future actions that it has announced its intention to 

take).

As Secretary Powell explained in his July 8 letter to you, the Administration is 

in the process of conducting a review of CEDAW in order to determine the scope 

of the additional RUDs that may be required to address these issues, and will share 

our views with you once our review is complete. The Administration is conducting 

this review thoroughly and expeditiously. Any vote at this time, however, would be 

premature, particularly in light of the more than thirty other treaties currently beVerDate Mar 21 2002 00:00 Sep 10, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107 txed01 PsN: PFRM67

E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
19

fore the committee that are higher priorities for our national security and foreign 

policy. Accordingly, we respectfully request that you await completion of the Administration’s review before commencing a committee vote on CEDAW. Should you decline to do so, we respectfully urge members of the committee to vote against sending CEDAW to the full Senate until our review is complete.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

DANIEL J. BRYANT, 

Assistant Attorney General.

cc: The Honorable Jesse Helms, Ranking Minority Member, 

The Honorable Richard Lugar. 


E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
(20)

X. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS HELMS, BROWNBACK, 

AND ENZI 

This Foreign Relations Committee Report should not be relied on 

by any U.S. federal, state, or local authority, including courts, as 

Senate legislative history for the United Nations Convention on the 

Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

This Report is not reliable for the following reasons.

First, it does not reflect the views of the present Administration. 

The majority declined to honor requests from the Departments of 

State and Justice, and from Senator Helms, to defer action on the 

Convention until the Administration’s views could be presented to 

the Committee.

Second, the draft resolution of ratification included in this Report 

is not supported by the Executive Branch. At the time of the Committee’s action on this Report, the Executive Branch had informed 

the Committee that an indispensable review was underway of alternative measures necessary in any CEDAW resolution of ratification. Yet the majority declined to defer action on CEDAW until 

that review had been completed and the results made available to 

the Committee. As a result, the Committee has recommended ratification of a treaty without knowledge or identification of the protective measures necessary to avoid a potentially massive disruption of well-settled U.S. domestic law. Such an act is an unfortunate failure to fulfill Committee responsibilities to the Senate and 

the nation.

Third, this Report was approved without benefit of the testimony 

of a single Bush Administration witness. The majority declined to 

accept the Executive Branch witnesses offered for the June 13, 

2002, hearing, and further declined to defer action on CEDAW to 

provide an opportunity for a Bush Administration witness to appear after that date. The Committee thus declined to consider the 

most relevant and expert testimony available on the subject.

Fourth, neither the draft resolution of ratification included in 

this Report nor the explanation of CEDAW’s provisions reflects the 

state of relevant U.S. law on the date of the Committee’s vote to 

report CEDAW. Eight years of U.S. federal and state jurisprudence 

were not taken into account in preparation of the draft resolution 

of ratification. Precipitous action by the Senate, as recommended 

by the majority, will lead to unnecessary litigation in the United 

States of unknown proportions because the majority has no knowledge of the present vulnerability of U.S. domestic law to unintentional displacement. Even worse, the majority refused to wait for 

the Administration’s legal review to be completed and presented, 

thus turning its back on the only mechanism available to predict 

the severity of CEDAW’s disruptive impact and the protective 

measures necessary to avoid it.


E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
21

When CEDAW was reported by the Committee in 1994, Senators 

Helms, Kassebaum, Brown, Coverdell, and Gregg filed Minority 

Views.

While recognizing the unfortunate prevalence of violence and 

human rights abuse against women around the world, and a 

shared desire to eliminate discrimination against women, the indicated Senators expressed concerns that CEDAW and treaties like 

it lead to dilution of moral suasion undergirding existing covenants 

on fundamental human rights, which, to be effective, are necessarily restricted in scope. The Senators also registered concern 

over CEDAW as an example of a disturbing trend among executive 

branch officials and non-governmental organizations to devote resources, energy, and political will to the ratification of multilateral 

treaties rather than to promotion of the norms represented by 

those treaties in the countries where they are under attack.

In 2002, it is apparent that nothing has occurred since 1994 to 

justify changing the views described above. On the contrary much 

has occurred since 1994 to underscore the wisdom of those views.

Today, as in 1994, many Senators in the minority and several in 

the majority agree that nowhere are women better protected from 

discrimination than in the United States. CEDAW proponents 

often argue that U.S. ratification of CEDAW is essential to ensuring its protections outside our borders. This is a non sequitur, and 

an argument not borne out by experience with other multilateral 

agreements. Moreover, it conflicts with the constitutional standard 

for Senate action, namely, whether the contemplated action is good 

for the American people.

Insofar as the level of our country’s commitment to the protection 

of human rights abroad is concerned, we feel it is enough to note 

that as these lines were being drafted American forces were deployed in combat conditions in Afghanistan. It is through their personal heroism and sacrifice, not a multilateral treaty, that Afghan 

women have been relieved of the burden of an oppressive, antiwoman government whose equally lawless predecessor signed 

CEDAW in 1980.

CEDAW proponents who lump the United States with oppressive 

dictatorships which have not ratified this treaty rob themselves of 

credibility by ignoring the fact that in ratifying CEDAW our country would find itself in the company of regimes like North Korea. 

They and their ilk have embraced CEDAW as a fig leaf for many 

years.

CEDAW plainly represents a disturbing international trend exalting international law over constitutionally-based domestic law 

and local self-government. This trend gathered momentum during 

the Clinton Administration. It is illustrated by the Kyoto Protocol 

to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 

the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the 

Rome Statute Establishing a Permanent International Criminal 

Court. All of these instruments were opened for signature after the


E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
22

Senate acted on CEDAW in 1994. The trend is in conflict with U.S. 

constitutional traditions of self-government. To undermine these 

traditions is to undermine the foundation of American federalism, 

which cost many years to establish and thousands of lives in a fratricidal civil war.

Ratification of CEDAW will help lawyers and other pro-abortion 

advocates reach the goal of enshrining unrestricted access to abortion in the United States. Recently a lawsuit entitled Center for Reproductive Law and Policy (CRLP) vs. Bush was filed in the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of New York (2001 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10903). (N.B. In 2002, CRLP opposed the efforts 

of a Pennsylvania man to prevent abortion of the unborn child he 

fathered with a Pennsylvania woman.)

Although the New York case was dismissed, it illustrates proabortion strategy. Plaintiff CRLP stated in its complaint that ‘‘[i]n 

order to prepare for the eventuality that [Roe v. Wade] may be 

overruled by the United States Supreme Court and that, consequently, the United States Constitution no longer protects women’s right to choose abortion, CRLP has worked and will continue 

to work to guarantee that the right to abortion be protected as an 

internationally recognized human right . . . [under] customary international law . . . Customary international law also preempts inconsistent state statutes and policies (emphasis added). Thus, by working to establish the right of abortion as a human right in customary international law, CRLP fulfills its mission of protecting 

women’s access to abortion [in the United States] from interference 

or prohibition by the States.’’ (Complaint, paragraphs 76, 78).

Julia Ernst, a plaintiff in this case, has written about CEDAW: 

‘‘Commentators are calling upon the United States judiciary to utilize international law as a guide to interpreting the U.S. Constitution (emphasis added), and domestic courts are increasingly taking 

international human rights law into account in their decisions. The 

United States should not deprive itself of the opportunity to participate in the formulation of these international legal principles. One 

of these opportunities entails participation in [CEDAW].’’ (emphasis 

added) (3 Mich. J. Gender & L.299, 317).

The CRLP case and views of one of its plaintiffs leave no doubt 

that despite assurances from CEDAW backers that the treaty is 

‘‘neutral’’ on abortion, CEDAW proponents are not. Abortion activists will work to use CEDAW to neutralize the democratic will of 

federal and state legislators. The treaty will also be used to erode 

other traditional prerogatives of the states by intruding in issues 

like marriage and child-rearing.

Ratification of CEDAW will invite meddling in all of these areas 

by the CEDAW-established compliance ‘‘Committee.’’ The Committee, which is composed in part of gender activists sent by dictatorships which oppress women, has issued bizarre recommendations against Mothers Day in Belarus and in favor of legalization 

of prostitution in China. Using such recommendations, CEDAW


E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
23

backers will press federal and state judges to adopt completely unforeseen and unintended interpretations of the treaty in order to 

force changes in well-settled U.S. law and policy.

Finally, the minority opposes assumption by the United States of 

yet another financial burden on behalf of a growing United Nations 

bureaucracy.

The Senate should decline to proceed to consideration of 

CEDAW.

JESSE HELMS. SAM BROWNBACK. 

MICHAEL B. ENZI. 


E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
(24)

XI. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR FRIST

I agree with my colleagues that there is no nation more committed to upholding the human dignity of women than the United 

States. And like my colleagues and the Administration, I am committed to furthering the rights of women both at home and abroad. 

But I cannot support ratification of this Treaty as reported by this 

Committee.

Many issues with respect to this Treaty remain unaddressed. 

Our Constitutional prerogative of Advice and Consent under Article 

II, section 2, is not only a right but a responsibility and I regret 

that we could not hear from the Administration on its concerns and 

recommendations before proceeding to its consideration in Committee.

Like my colleagues, I am troubled by the vagueness of the text 

of this Treaty. Nor is there anything clear or predictive about the 

evolving opinions of the Committee on the Elimination Against Discrimination Against Women (the Convention Committee), the official UN body charged with this Convention’s interpretation. I do 

not believe that it makes sense to dismiss lightly the weight of authority given to these interpretations.

As Senator Helms, my colleagues, and numerous legal scholars 

have pointed out, policy norms, interpreted by such official bodies, 

have increasingly entered the U.S. judicial system as customary 

international law. Some proponents of vaguely worded treaties 

have advanced the concept that modern interpretation of international law requires the incorporation of such interpretations into 

the U.S. legal system. Such a development would created an unwarranted loophole through which purported customary international law—such as pronouncements by official UN committees—

would be held binding under U.S. domestic law with little or no 

scrutiny by our nation’s lawmakers.

CEDAW supporters have claimed that the treaty, as interpreted 

by the CEDAW Committee, represents customary international 

law. While such a claim would be widely presumptive and premature, it cannot be ignored. As a general rule, customary international law is treated as having the same supremacy as federal 

statutes over conflicting state and municipal law in the U.S. legal 

system. Under the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of preemption, if a conflict arises between state law or previously enacted 

federal statute and a treaty provision, the treaty, the treaty will 

prevail.

I find troubling the notion that UN committees, unaccountable to 

the U.S. political system could be empowered to proscribe enforceable rules of law under the guise of customary international law 

that claim sovereignty over the laws of our elected officials. Such 

a proposition is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution and America’s 


E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
25

most cherished ideas of due process, separation of powers in government, and the guarantee that legislators will be held accountable through the elective process.

Furthermore, the text of the Convention itself purports to limit 

the Senate’s constitutional right of Advice and Consent. Article 28, 

section 2 of the Convention states that ‘‘a reservation incompatible 

with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be 

permitted.’’ (Emphasis added) The scope and parameters of this Article are not, to me, self-evident. I can only presume the interpretation of this Article would be subject to the Convention Committee. 

In my opinion, this Article conflicts with the constitutional role of 

the Senate to provide Advice and Consent, which includes making 

reservations which this Body may deem necessary to make the 

Convention consistent with the laws of this nation. Indeed, for that 

matter, that power must encompass any reservation that falls 

within our constitutional authority to mandate.

I am not persuaded by the argument that we must ratify this 

Treaty because other nations have or have not ratified it. We must 

base our consent to this Treaty upon its merits or deficiencies. I 

would point out, however, that much of the world still lives in societies that do not honor basic democratic civil liberties. Many of the 

nations that have ratified this Convention continue to build records 

that catalogue some of the worst human rights violations ever committed against women.

It is my hope that the Senate will not proceed with consideration 

of this Treaty unless and until we have the benefit of the Administration’s views and recommendations on how best to address these 

issues of fundamental importance.

BILL FRIST. 


E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
(26)

XII. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR ALLEN

I am fully committed to ensuring that promotion of the rights of 

women is fully integrated into U.S. foreign and domestic policy and 

I support the general goal of eradicating discrimination against 

women in the U.S. and across the globe. However, I did not vote 

to send this treaty to the floor for full Senate consideration.

First, the President’s senior cabinet members—the Secretary of 

State and the Attorney General—have requested more time to consider the Convention and to propose an appropriate ratification 

package containing reservations, understandings, and declarations. 

The Senate should honor that request.

The Constitutional role of the Senate in these matters is that of 

advice and consent, not initiation. The President has deferred his 

request for advice and consent until the Justice Department review 

is completed. The Senate should await that review before considering this Convention.

There need be no rush to ratification. There is no emergency. 

This Convention has been on the Committee calendar for 22 years.

Second, the vagueness of the text of the Convention, and the 

record of the official UN body that reviews and comments on the 

implementation of the Convention, raise a number of issues that 

must be addressed before the United States Senate provides its advice and consent.

I believe consideration of these issues is particularly necessary to 

determine what reservations, understandings and declarations may 

be required as part of the ratification process.

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against 

Women prepares reports and recommendations to State Parties. 

The existence of this body of reports should lead us to review both 

the Convention and the Committee’s comments to understand the 

basis, practical effect, and any possible implications of the reports.

We should also examine those aspects of the Convention that address areas of law that, in the United States, have traditionally 

been left to the individual States.

For example, in a March 1999 report to China, the Committee 

called for legalized prostitution, saying: ‘‘The Committee is concerned that prostitution, which is often a result of poverty and economic deprivation, is illegal in China . . . . The Committee recommends decriminalization of prostitution.’’

If the Senate ratifies this Convention, the United States would 

subject itself to criticism and condemnation by this Committee, 

which is composed of representatives of countries that are signatories of the Convention.

To provide a preview of what the United States may expect, I 

give you a brief list of member states and signatories of the ConVerDate Mar 21 2002 00:00 Sep 10, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107 txed01 PsN: PFRM67

E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107
27

vention that, potentially, will sit in judgment on United States’ practices and conditions concerning women:

• Afghanistan signed the Convention in 1980. Until the United 

States and allied forces recently liberated Afghanistan, its 

women were oppressed by a series of governments, denying 

them basic freedoms and education opportunities.

• The Peoples’ Republic of China signed the Convention in 1980. 

It has an official policy of forced abortion and sterilizations for 

the women of the country who dare have more than one child.

• Cuba signed the Convention in 1980. In 1994 Castro murdered 

41 women, girls and others who attempted to escape the tyrannical and repressive Castro regime aboard the tugboat 13 de 

Marzo.

• Saudi Arabia signed the Convention in 2000. Yet it treats its 

women as second-class citizens.

These are not examples of enlightened thought. Indeed, our nation with its Constitutional foundation of freedom and opportunity 

for all her citizens—regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or gender—is the beacon of hope for the entire world. Our goal must be 

to lift the human rights of women, and indeed all our people to this 

standard, not lower the bar to that of repressive regimes.

It is important that we fully understand the implications of the 

Committee, rulings on parties that join the Convention after they 

have been issued, as well as the consequences of any ruling that 

might result after a nation becomes party to the Convention.

In addition, we must fully understand the numerous other issues 

raised by the Convention, such as its implication on current U.S. 

constitutional and statutory law and areas of law traditionally the 

prerogatives of the people in the States.

As indicated in a July 8, 2002 letter from Secretary Powell, a 

July 26, 2002 letter from the Assistant Attorney General, and a 

July 19, 2002 letter from Condoleezza Rice, the Assistant to the 

President for National Security Affairs, the Administration is conducting a thorough and expeditious review of this Convention. The 

vote to order CEDAW reported was premature, particularly in light 

of the more than thirty other treaties currently before the Foreign 

Relations Committee that are higher priorities for our national security and foreign policy.

GEORGE ALLEN.

Æ


E:\WAISREPT\EX009.107