I will reiterate these briefly, adding the American Bar Association's voice to those of many concerned witnesses, and will stress those policy reasons which in our opinion merit the most serious considerations.

The United States has played a leadership role in the drafting and promoting of numerous human rights agreements from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 to the Racial Discrimination Convention in 1966. Responsible leadership therefore seems to indicate that the United States follow through on these initiatives and invest in our own work product, namely the instruments we helped craft and the enforcement procedures we assisted in developing.

The more specific effects of non-ratification relate to United States foreign policy and our role in influencing international relations. The United States in the past few years has been outspoken about human rights violations in other parts of the world. Our concern for violations of international human rights norms is reflected in United States legislation regarding trade and foreign aid, in our severing diplomatic relations with certain serious human rights violators and in words of concern spoken by the President and other government officials. The United States often cites the very treaties it has not yet ratified in support of its charges against human rights violations. Without binding ourselves by the same legal obligations we lose credibility with our friends and we lose standing to accuse the wrongdoers. Without subjecting our record to international scrutiny, we could appear false and dissembling. It is an obvious embarrassment to the United States when Third World countries compare our strong statements on human rights with our record on ratification of the human rights treaties.

This loss of face in the international sphere undermines our status. It may also affect our ability to establish and maintain other international agreements concerning mutual defense assistance, trade and commerce. For example, the failure of the United States to ratify the treaties could have ramifications for United States relations with our NATO allies, nearly all of whom are parties to these treaties.

Finally, a major consequence of United States failure to ratify these treaties is that we are shut out of important international procedures and decisionmaking processes. We cannot now participate in the Human Rights Committee, established three years ago when the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights came into force, or the Committee to Eliminate Racial Discrimination which was established after the Convention came into force in 1969. Similarly, we cannot participate in the nomination and election of judges for the new InterAmerican Court on Human Rights, established by the American Convention, until we ratify that agreement. Thus, all these international bodies now function without our leadership, making decisions which ultimately may impact on us. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would reiterate the position taken by the American Bar Association that the United States should accede to these human rights treaties. We cannot afford to wait thirty for these treaties to be ratified.

The Genocide Convention stands as a haunting example of Senate inaction on these issues. It is not under consideration today precisely because it has already been before the Senate four times and has been reported out favorably by the Subcommittee on each occasion, yet, has failed to gain United States ratification. Everything that can be said about the Genocide Convention, pro and con, has been said here before. As this Committee itself admitted during the 1976 hearings, "further hearings on the treaty were not warranted in view of the voluminous record made in hearings in 1950, 1970, and 1971." It is time to end the 30-year silence the Senate has maintained on the least controversial of the human rights conventions. On behalf of the American Bar Association, I urge the Senate to give its advice and consent on ratification of the Genocide Convention and the four other human rights treaties under consideration.

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S APPROVAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, AUGUST 1978

Be it Resolved, That the American Bar Association favors the accession of the United States to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and urges the Senate to give its advice and consent to ratification of the Convention subject to the following understanding, reservations and declaration.

"(a) The United States understands its obligation to enact legislation and take measures under paragraph (1) of Article 2, subparagraphs (1) (c) and (1)(d) of Article 2, Article 3 and Article 5 to extend only to governmental or governmentassisted activities and to private activities required to be available on a non-discriminatory basis as defined by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

(b) The Constitution of the United States and Article 5 of this Convention 'contain provisions for the protection of individual rights, including the right to free speech, and nothing in this Convention shall be deemed to require or to authorize legislation or other action by the United States which would restrict the right of free speech protected by the Constitution, laws and practice of the United States.

"(c) The United States shall implement all the provisions of the Convention over whose subject matter the Federal Government exercises legislative and judicial administration; with respect to the provisions over whose subject matter constituent units exercise jurisdiction, the Federal Government shall take appropriate measures to the end that the competent authorities of the constituent units may take appropriate measures for the fulfillment of this Covenant.

(d) The United States declares that the provisions of Articles 1 through 7 of this Convention are not self-executing."

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S APPROVAL OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, AUGUST 1979

Be It Resolved, That the American Bar Association urges the Senate to give its advice and consent to the ratification of the American Convention on Human Rights subject to the following reservations, understandings and declarations:

1. The United States declares that the provisions of Articles 1 through 32 of this convention are not self-executing.

2. United States adherence to Article 4 is subject to the Constitution and other law of the United States.

3. The United States considers the provisions of paragraphs (4) and (6) of Article 5 are goals to be achieved progressively rather than through immediate implementation, and, with respect to paragraph (5), reserves the right in appropriate cases to subject minors to procedures and penalties applicable to adults.

4. The United States understands that subparagraph (2) (e) of Article 8 does not require the provision of court-appointed counsel for petty offenses for which imprisonment will not be imposed or when the defendant is financially able to retain counsel; it further understands that subparagraph (2) (f) does not forbid requiring an indigent defendant to make a showing that the witness is necessary in order for his attendance to be compelled by the court. The United States understands that the prohibition on double jeopardy contained in paragraph (4) is applicable only when the judgment of an acquittal has been rendered by a court of the same governmental unit, whether the federal government or a constituent unit, which is seeking a new trial for the same cause.

5. The United States does not adhere to the third sentence of Article 9. 6. The United States reserves the right to permit prior restraints in strictly defined circumstances when the right to judicial review was immediately available; the United States does not adhere to paragraph (5) of Article 13. 7. The United States does not adhere to paragraph (1) of Article 14, and understands that paragraph (3) of that article applies only to non-governmental entities.

8. The United States considers the provisions of paragraphs (4) and (5) of Article 17 as goals to be achieved progressively rather than through immediate implementation.

9. The United States considers that its adherence to the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees constitutes compliance with the obligations set forth in paragraph (8) of Article 22.

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S APPROVAL OF RATIFICATION BY THE UNITED STATES OF THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND Cultural RIGHTS, FEBRUARY 1979

I

Be It Resolved, That the American Bar Association favors the ratification by the United States of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and urges the Senate to give its advice and consent to the ratification of the Covenant subject to the following statements, declarations and reservation recommended to the Senate by the Departments of State and Justice:

(a) The United States understands paragraph (1) of Article 2 as establishing that the provisions of Articles 1 through 15 of this Covenant describe goals to be achieved progressively rather than through immediate implementation.

(b) The United States declares that nothing in the Covenant derogates from the equal obligation of all States to fulfill their responsibilities under international law. The United States understands that under the Covenant everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others, and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

(c) The Constitution of the United States and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contain provisions for the protection of individual rights, including the right to free speech, and nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to require or to authorize legislation or other action by the United States which would restrict the right of free speech protected by the Constitution, laws, and practice of the United States.

(d) The United States shall progressively implement all the provisions of the Covenant over whose subject matter the Federal Government exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction; with respect to the provisions over whose subject matter constituent units exercise jurisdiction, the Federal Government shall take appropriate measures, to the end that the competent authorities of the constituent units may take appropriate measures for the fulfillment of this Covenant.

(e) The United States declares that the provisions of Articles 1 through 15 of the Covenant are not self-executing.

II

Be It Resolved, That the American Bar Association favors the ratification by the United States of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and urges the Senate to give its advice and consent to ratification of the Covenant subject to the following reservations, declaration, statement and understanding recommended to the Senate by the Departments of State and Justice (and an understanding on "right to life"):

(a) The Constitution of the United States and Article 19 of this Covenant contain provisions for the protection of individual rights, including the right of free speech, and nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to require or to authorize legislation or other action by the United States which would restrict the right of free speech protected by the Constitution, laws, and practice of the United States.

(b) The United States' adherence to Article 6 (concerning the "right to life") is subject to the Constitution and other laws of the United States.

(c) The United States reserves the right to impose capital punishment on any person duly convicted under existing or future laws permitting the imposition of rapital punishment.

(d) The United States does not adhere to Paragraph (5) of Article 9 or to the third clause of Paragraph (1) of Article 15 (compensation for unlawful arrest, and Detroactive lighter criminal penalties).

(e) The United States considers the (prisoner segregation and rehabilitation standards) rights enumerated in Paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 10 as goals to be achieved progressively rather than through immediate implementation.

(f) The United States understands that subparagraphs (3) (b) and (d) of Article 14 do not require the provision of court-appointed counsel when the defendant is financially able to retain counsel or for petty offenses for which imprisonment will not be imposed. The United States further understands that Paragraph (3) (e) does not forbid requiring an indigent defendant to make a showing that the witness is necessary for his attendance to be compelled by the court. The United States considers that provisions of United States law currently in force constitute compliance with Paragraph (6). The United States understands that the prohibition on double jeopardy contained in Paragraph (7) is applicable only when the judgment of acquittal has been rendered by a court of the same governmental unit, whether the Federal Government or a constituent unit, which is seeking a new trial for the same cause.

(g) The United States declares that the (natural resources utilization) right referred to in Article 47 may be exercised only in accordance with international law.

(h) The United States shall implement all the provisions of the Covenant over whose subject matter the Federal Government exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction; with respect to the provisions over whose subject matter constituent units exercise jurisdiction, the Federal Government shall take appropriate measures, to the end that the competent authorities of the constituent units may take appropriate measures for the fulfillment of this Covenant.

(i) The United States declares that the provisions of Articles 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Moore.

Next we will hear from Ms. Simmons.

STATEMENT OF ALTHEA T. L. SIMMONS, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON BUREAU, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

MS. SIMMONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am Althea Simmons. I appear here today on behalf of the NAACP in support of the four international treaties on racial discrimination, economic, social, cultural, political, and human rights.

At the outset, I can say that the very names of the treaties almost would insure our supporting them. Since our organization's founding some 70 years ago, we have been concerned with civil, human, and political rights, not only on a national, but also an international scale. So our testimony here today is consistent with our practice as well as our philosophy.

Because of the nature of the NAACP's objectives, it is obvious that our main concern is with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. If this convention were adopted and literally and fully implemented, the reason for the NAACP's existence would terminate and we would gladly cease to exist.

Unfortunately, we cannot predict that result in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the convention assumes significance as one means of reaching that goal.

Contrary to the recommendations of the State Department, we would hope that the limitations and reservations placed on our approval of the treaty would not be accepted by the Senate, except in a few instances.

If the treaty were allowed to be self-executing, it would solve a number of the legal and practical problems faced by blacks and other minorities to full equality of opportunity and treatment.

Thus, the "purpose or effect" clause of part I, article 1, paragraph 1, would eliminate the distinction between de jure and de facto segregation, give a basis for attacking exclusionary zoning laws and greatly advance the implementation of affirmative action programs, as would paragraph 4 of this article.

Article 2 without reservations would greatly strengthen our national commitment to the elimination of racial barriers to justice and provide a stronger legal base for such elimination.

Article 5(e) (i) as set out in the treaty would establish what we consider to be a basic right, the right to employment. This right is one that is desperately needed by the black community, especially among youth. However, with the State Department's recommended reservation, we shall have to rely on congressional implementation of the Humphrey-Hawkins law to secure this badly needed right.

We cite these few examples, Mr. Chairman, to show why we have reservations about the reservations to the treaty. But, recognizing the political realities as well as the necessity for some reservations, such as that in article 4, which would abridge our constitutional right to free speech, we nonetheless endorse the convention with or without the reservations the Senate has been asked to enact.

We feel that creation under the convention of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination would be a positive development. While it would lack enforcement authority, we believe that it could invoke some moral suasion in situations that cannot be correctly solved by normal governmental processes, such as the Wilmington Ten incident in this country.

We feel that rejection of this treaty would be a tragic mistake. The world is well aware of the strides this Nation has made in recent years in curbing racial discrimination. Failure to approve the treaty no doubt would be widely construed as a repudiation of our recent history in the area of constitutional and civil rights.

We who have been in the forefront of developing this history would wonder whether the senatorial commitment to equality, demonstrated by passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as well as numerous other legislative enactments from 1957 to date, is waning. We trust this is not true and that the Senate will respond to this treaty as it did to the legislation I have mentioned.

As we read the State Department's position on the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the covenant is considered a statement of objectives to be reached eventually through the democratic legislative process. Even with this limitation, we think it is worth approval. The stated objectives are ones which we in NAACP have endorsed and for which we have worked: The freedom from all types of discrimination, the right to employment, fair wages, equal pay, safe and healthy working conditions, equal opportunity in employment, the right to join a trade union, the right to strike, to name just a few. We could well go through the litany for quite a while.

But, once again, despite treaty reservations with which we might disagree and our reluctance to endorse any gradualism approach, we feel that support of this treaty should be expressed by those who support full equality. We therefore urge the Senate to approve this

covenant.

The strong emphasis on the right of self-determination expressed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights cannot help but remind us in the NAACP of one of our illustrious founders, Dr. W. E. B. Dubois, who was also the founder of the Pan-African Movement. To us, Senate consent to this treaty would be a welcome, though belated, endorsement of the Association's support of Dr. Dubois' anticolonialism crusade.

The commitments made by the signatories to the treaty-to insure an effective remedy against governmental violations of rights; the right to judicial and administrative processes to protect rights; guarantee of enforcement of remedy-all are principles to which the association is likewise committed and are our reason for being.

As we view the American Convention on Human Rights, it is a hemispheric application of many of the principles enunciated in the

other three treaties.

But, once again, while we recognize the practical necessities that lead our Government to express certain reservations, we feel that our system of justice falls short of that called for by the convention. We hope that ultimately the United States could conform to some of

55-159-80- -6