Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime Victims' Rights Act

Madam President, it isn't always possible for us to schedule matters in the Senate in a convenient way. I am aware Senator Feinstein must leave to attend another meeting. It is my hope she will able to be here before we vote.

While she is still here, I must say I share her sentiment that some of the most gratifying work I have done in the Senate has been my work with Senator Feinstein and her good staff in putting together a constitutional amendment and working hard to try to get it passed and preparing for the hearings--speaking with the victims, meeting with the Justice Department--literally hundreds of hours of time we have spent together working on this issue. It has helped to foster a bond of trust and friendship between us that I think could be used as a template for our colleagues in this body to work together in a bipartisan way.

I can never thank Senator Feinstein enough for her work on this amendment. I know the many victims who are here in the gallery share that sentiment.

This legislation would not be before us today without Senator Feinstein. That is simply a fact. For all of the hard work we have put in with her cooperation and her commitment to this, I thank Senator Feinstein deeply. She knows that bond of trust will continue to exist between us.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Nickles and Inhofe be added as original cosponsors of the legislation.

Madam President, I join Senator Feinstein in supporting S. 2329, which is the statutory version of the constitutional amendment we have prepared and about which Senator Feinstein has spoken.

The legislation, as I will describe in a moment, will attempt to accomplish as much as possible the same goals the constitutional amendment which has been pending before us would have accomplished.

But before I discuss the details of that, there are several people I would like to thank. In addition to Senator Feinstein--again it is impossible to express my appreciation enough for all of the hard work she put into this effort. We simply couldn't be here, because in order to get things passed in the Senate it is critical there be a bipartisan consensus, especially so for something that requires a supermajority. Without Democrats and Republicans working together, we would have never gotten to this point. Certainly Senator Feinstein was largely responsible for the work on the Democratic side of the aisle.

I appreciate all of my colleagues' understanding and support on this as well.

Senator Frist, who is willing to trust us in scheduling this for time on the floor--and there is very little time to take up matters, as the Presiding Officer knows--understood this was a very important commitment we had made to the victims of crime. During Crime Victims' Rights Month was the time to try to accomplish this. I appreciate his support.

I appreciate the support of Senator Hatch who throughout the years has never stood in the way but always lent us a hand in setting up a hearing and getting a time and a room for markup on the constitutional amendment and supporting its passage.

Again, it is not easy to get a constitutional amendment through even the Judiciary Committee, let alone to get it adopted. But Senator Hatch was supportive of that effort. I very much appreciate his cosponsorship of the statutory version of this amendment, as well as the support of Senator Leahy.

I think I would be remiss if I didn't make the point that the first cosponsors of this legislation were Senator Feinstein, myself, and Senators Hatch and Leahy, chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Obviously this legislation has very strong support. We anticipate it will pass overwhelmingly and will be quickly sent to the House for action there, and hopefully to the President, who I am confident will be supportive of it and will sign it.

Let me at this point thank some of the victims' rights organizations. Again, they were responsible for bringing the issue to our attention and for providing a lot of the information we needed to be able to make the cases and for, frankly, the moral support to keep going. When Senator Feinstein and I would get discouraged, after meeting with victims' rights groups we were no longer discouraged; we were even more committed to pursue this head on. Some of them are headed by remarkable people. There is a whole page of groups I will thank.

Specifically, I thank Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the National Organization for Victim Assistance, Parents of Murdered Children, and Force 100, and especially Colleen Campbell for her leadership of Force 100. Senator Feinstein has already spoken of Colleen Campbell, and this pin in memory of Mickey Thompson speaks volumes about her leadership of this effort.

The fact this is Crime Victims' Rights Month and week I think is important. President Reagan actually had the first recognition of crime victims in a week that was designated for that purpose.

I think it is important at this time we especially recognize the victims of crime all over America; that with this year's memorial of victims' rights, America's values will be vindicated to some extent with the passage of this legislation.

It is especially poignant we would be waiting at this time to recognize these rights of victims of crime. Indeed, it is right to take up this issue. The right to fairness for crime victims and the right to notice and presence and participation are deeply rooted concepts in the United States of America. This country is all about fair play and giving power to the powerless in our society. It is about recognizing the values of liberty of the individuals against encroachments of the Government.

Fair play for crime victims, meaningful participation of crime victims in the justice system, protection against a government that would take from a crime victim the dignity of due process--these are consistent with the most basic values of due process in our society.

I was involved in Arizona issues for victims of crime even before I ever ran for the U.S. House of Representatives, so this was to some extent a cause for me before I became a public official. It was after I became a public official and people really came to me with these stories that I realized I had an opportunity to do more than the things I had done before. I have come to see the need for these protections as critical for our country.

While engaged in all of the other important activities, at bottom, it is a country about individuals who have inherent rights recognized and given to us by God. That is the basis for the creation of this country. Human dignity and the right that all people are made in God's image is such an important part of the foundation of our country that we would be remiss if we did not recognize that concept, that value, especially for those who have been victimized in our society because we could not as a government provide adequate protection for them.

I came to realize in many cases these victims were being victimized a second time because while we were asking them sometimes to come into court and testify against the perpetrators of the crime so they could be incarcerated or dealt with in an appropriate way for the further protection of society, we were not helping these victims at all. They were suffering through the trauma of the victimization and then being thrown into a system which they did not understand, which nobody was helping them with, and which literally prevented them from participation in any meaningful way. I came to realize there were literally millions of people out there being denied these basic rights, being victimized by our criminal justice system.

Let me mention two circumstances, but we will discuss all of the rights in a moment. The one circumstance that seemed to be the most frequent is: My mother was murdered, my daughter was murdered--whatever the situation--and I could not attend the trial. That is what our system says today.

While there are statutes in States and even some State constitutional provisions that purportedly guarantee a victim will not be denied access to the courtroom, it is still the case today that the victims, the victims' families, cannot even go into the courtroom. The defendant is there, the defendant's family is there seated in a reserved row seats, but the victim and the victim's family cannot be present. That is fundamentally wrong. We are not talking even about them saying anything. Obviously, everyone in the courtroom has to behave. The judge can throw anybody out if they do not behave or if they express emotions or try to communicate with the jury. That is not the issue.

They could not attend sometimes because the defendant's lawyer would say: It would be prejudicial to my client if the victims are seen in the courtroom. This was one of the circumstances that I could not believe our criminal justice system was imposing. It is one of those things that is fixed in this statute.

The other circumstance--and there is an especially telling, emotional case in Arizona I became familiar with which induced me to pursue this with all the vigor I could--is the circumstance where a crime has been committed, the perpetrator has been convicted and is in prison or jail, but unbeknown to the victim and the victim's family, the individual gets out of jail. The individual escapes, has some kind of a parole hearing or in some other way is able to leave before the sentence is up, and the victims are not even notified, let alone given an opportunity to appear before that parole board and say: Wait a minute, this person has a 15-year sentence and you are letting him out after 8 years. Let me tell you what he did to me.

Not to go into detail but to finish that story, in one of the Arizona cases with which I am familiar, the woman having been brutally raped and slashed and left to die recovered. Her perpetrator was convicted and put into prison. He had a parole hearing and the parole board decided to release him prematurely. She got no notice of that. She got no opportunity to be present.

By not quite coincidence but enormous alertness and compassion on the part of an individual in the Governor's office at the time routinely reading through the notices of the parole board, a staff person saw this and again almost coincidentally thought, Wait a minute, I don't think that is right under our law. He tracked down this individual who had by then moved to California and asked her if she would like an opportunity to appear before another parole board hearing if that could be arranged. She said yes. The parole board agreed to revisit the issue in a subsequent hearing and she testified. She told her story. After she told her story, the parole board reversed its opinion.

I asked her later: Were you afraid he would come after you if he were released? She said: No. My victimization was random. I was trying to hitchhike. I should never have done it.

He--and, by the way, his wife--picked her up and she was then brutalized as I described it. She said: It was random. I don't think he would come after me again. What I was concerned about was knowing the nature of the kind of individual that commits this kind of crime, he would do it again to somebody else. I didn't want him to have that opportunity to hurt somebody else like he hurt me.

That tells you about the motivation of these victims of crime who are willing, despite the hurt that it causes them, to participate in the criminal justice system--not just for themselves because they get nothing out of it--because they know what it is like and they want to prevent that harm to others.

Those are the kind of people whose portraits are behind me and who Senator Feinstein was talking about. That is why we are trying to do something about righting this wrong, about balancing the scales of justice. Rightly, defendants in this country are protected better than in any country in the world through constitutional amendments that give them rights. We are not trying to take one single right away from any defendant. That would be wrong under our system. But we do think it is time to balance the scales of justice. That was the motivation for Senator Feinstein and me.

Let me talk about some of these individuals. Senator Feinstein talked about Duane Lynn. Duane is from Arizona. I will not repeat the entire story, but he enjoyed the Navy as a young man. He performed in the military. He had a successful career as a highway patrolman upholding the laws of the State of Arizona. He and his wife Nila literally fell in love as teenagers and had been married 49 years and 9 months, just 3 months shy of their 50th anniversary when she was brutally murdered as Senator Feinstein talked about. They had left their home to attend this homeowners' meeting and just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time because the murderer, who was a disgruntled and enraged former resident of the community, burst into the room saying, I am going to kill you, and he started shooting.

As I said, Duane and Nila had been married not quite 50 years when she was brutally murdered. In anticipation of the golden anniversary of their parents, the Lynn children had secretly been saving money to throw a surprise anniversary party, and that money was used to pay for Nila's casket.

It is at this point that Duane's journey through the legal system really started. As Senator Feinstein recounted, he did not really understand what it meant to participate in the judicial system at that time but at least understood that he would have some voice in what happened.

Under the Arizona law and constitution, he had a right, for example, to make a recommendation to the judge when the judge sentenced the perpetrator. But despite having that right in the Arizona Constitution--and, by the way, Arizona judges are pretty good about enforcing these rights--he was denied the right to even appear at the time of sentencing to tell the judge the sentence he thought the perpetrator should get.

He lost an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court and a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. They all told him his rights were unenforceable because for him to speak would violate the defendant's eighth amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment.

Now, that is one of the reasons that Senator Feinstein and I believed that a constitutional amendment was necessary, because as long as the defendant's rights are always asserted as Federal constitutional rights, a mere statutory right, such as we are creating today, is going to be subservient to that. It will be very difficult for victims to win in cases where the defendant's right is asserted under the U.S. Constitution.

Even as a State constitutional right, Duane Lynn was denied the right to speak because the court perceived that the Federal eighth amendment superseded the Arizona State Constitution. So we may still have problems, even with the adoption of a statute here. But Senator Feinstein and I are committed to moving the cause forward, to see whether it is possible to make statutes work, so that we do not need a Federal constitutional amendment. If, as it turns out, we do, then we will revisit the issue, as she said. Hopefully, we will not need to do that.

Just a final I think paradoxical or ironic ending in the Duane Lynn matter. He wanted to speak at the time of sentencing, not to urge the court to impose the death sentence but to impose life without parole. That recommendation was denied because, as I said, the court held that the defendant's rights outweighed his rights.

Let me talk about some of the other victims. I just briefly want to mention Louarna Gillis, because John Gillis, her father, who was a Los Angeles police officer at the time, is now a very important person in our Government in protecting victims' rights because he heads up the Office for Victims of Crime in the Department of Justice.

One of the reasons the Attorney General and the President wanted him in that position is because he felt firsthand the sting of being a crime victim when his daughter was killed, picked out at random by a gang member because the gang member, to be initiated in the gang, had to kill the child of a cop. She just happened to be a child of a cop and she was killed.

John could not be here today, but his wife Patsy is in attendance. I commend her for her support of this effort as well.

Their family has suffered further tragedy in the very recent death of their only other child, their son John. So it reminds us that it is important not only for people to have rights as victims of crime, but to recognize that these very people are the people who are willing to take up the cause here to right this injustice.

By John Gillis' efforts, he literally became the person in charge of this issue in our Government. He is doing an incredibly great job. Part of this legislation is to give him some additional responsibility and a little bit more in the way of resources to see to it that our Federal Government, through the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, and the Office for Victims of Crime, can continue to support the effort of crime victims. I applaud John Gillis very much and appreciate his wife Patsy being with us today.

Let me mention three other people, because this legislation is named for five people--the two I mentioned and then the other three I will mention. Let me discuss each of them.

Roberta Roper is also in attendance. There is nobody who has pursued the cause for victims' rights more strongly than Roberta Roper. She has made numerous trips to Washington. She has testified before the Judiciary Committee in support of the constitutional amendment. She has given us incredible advice and strength. What she did, after her victimization, when her daughter Stephanie was murdered at the age of 22, was to start a foundation in her daughter's name, and that Stephanie Roper Foundation has been a tremendous asset in pursuing the cause of victims around the country.

Her daughter, on April 3, 1982, was kidnapped and raped, tortured and dismembered by two men. The killers had just come upon her when Stephanie's car had been disabled. They had kidnapped her and over a period of 5 hours had repeatedly tortured her. She tried to escape but was caught and killed in a most brutal manner.

Her parents were not even notified of the many continuances that were granted in this case. They were excluded from the courtroom for the entire first trial that occurred. They could not even go into the courtroom. In 1982, the defense convinced the court that the victims would be emotional, irrelevant, and probable cause for a reversal of an appeal. The court agreed and, therefore, denied Vince and Roberta Roper the right to be a voice for their daughter.

That is one of the things that will be corrected by this legislation. We hope a statutory correction will serve to be sufficient.

Roberta Roper is in attendance, and I thank her from the bottom of my heart. She and Collene Campbell--who I will mention next--have been two of the real troopers in this battle.

I also want to say, with regard to Collene Campbell, when Senator Feinstein discussed the death of her son Scott, it is unfortunately the case in many of these situations that more than once people are victimized. Collene and Gary Campbell have been victimized twice. Collene's brother was killed as well and that has been discussed as well.

One of the killers of their son Scott was released from prison. By the way, the circumstances of Scott's murder were especially gruesome. He met an individual who was going to fly him to North Dakota, and somewhere between Los Angeles and Catalina Island, Scott Campbell was killed. His body was literally thrown out of the airplane into the ocean and has never been located.

His parents were not permitted to enter the courtroom during the trials for the men who murdered their son. They were not even notified of a district court of appeals hearing. When one of the killers was released, as I said, the Campbell family was not notified. They only learned of the developments through the newspaper.

You can argue that a defendant might be prejudiced in certain situations by victims having certain rights, but to treat victims this way is not to treat them with the fairness and dignity any American deserves under our values as a nation. Even when these rights exist in statute, when they are not observed, it is time for the Congress to act. That is why we act here, so that no one else will have to suffer through this kind of unfair treatment.

Scott Campbell is shown in this picture. I mentioned Nila Lynn before, as shown in this picture. Roberta Roper's daughter Stephanie is this beautiful young lady shown in this picture right here. As I said, her mother is with us today.

I would also like to mention Robert Preston. In the case of Bob Preston's 22-year-old daughter, Wendy--the beautiful young lady shown in this picture right here--she was murdered in his home on June 23, 1977. She was killed when a man broke into the home to steal money to buy drugs. Her body was found 6 days later. Wendy's murderer was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. Her parents were told that the State of Florida was the victim in the case and they would be notified if and when they were called as witnesses. That was it.

After nearly 6 years, the murderer was allowed to plead to a second- degree murder charge, and he was sentenced to life in prison. In 1987, the Florida Supreme Court overturned the killer's conviction, and in the decision also held that the victims had no rights. This is the kind of example that needs to be brought to light so Americans can appreciate that it is time for Congress to act.

This is Wendy Preston, yet another example of victims being treated unfairly.

There are a lot of other cases we could talk about. Wendy Preston and Stephanie Roper, Scott Campbell, Mickey Thompson, Nila Lynn, and Louarna Gillis are the best of America. We owe them our best. Our best is to ensure the families of future victims will not suffer through the same indignity their families have had to endure.

That is why Senator Feinstein and I began the effort to try to persuade our colleagues a constitutional amendment was necessary to protect these rights, because the defendant's right was always constitutional. Unless we had an equal constitutional right, there was no chance in a conflict the court would ever afford the victim an equal right. That is why we still have reservations about a statutory remedy.

But a lot of our colleagues have said, try a statutory remedy and let's see if by bringing these situations to light, by providing incentives for States to follow the Federal example, by embodying these same rights that were in the constitutional proposal in a statute and giving the victims a right to sue, a remedy, a mandamus remedy, let's see if that can work.

After 8 years of work on the Federal constitutional amendment, supported by President Bush and the Attorney General, we were able to schedule, after we passed the bill through the Judiciary Committee, that constitutional amendment for floor action today. Knowing we would not have the 67 votes to pass it, we decided it was time to get something tangible in statute to protect the rights of victims, and accompanying it could be a modest appropriation of money to help actually support these victims in court when that was necessary and called for. We believed despite the potential that it would not serve adequately, it was time to try something, to be successful, and to at least move the ball forward.

As Senator Leahy said in a press conference we had earlier: The Judiciary Committee of the Senate will provide very strong oversight of implementation of this statute so we will know if it is not working. If it does not work, we will be able to come back and pursue the constitutional remedy. But we consulted with the victims' rights groups that have been most active in support of this. They concurred it was time to pursue the statutory remedy, if we could get some assurance we would be successful in that pursuit and that it would not be simply a fool's errand.

Through the significant help of an individual who I am sure all would acknowledge has been the national leader of this effort, Steve Twist, a lawyer from Phoenix, AZ, communicating with the various victims' rights groups, the consensus was reached it was time for us to convert the constitutional proposal into a statute. This occurred within the last 48 hours. Through the cooperation of Senator Leahy, Senator Hatch, staff, and several other Senators, but most importantly because of the very hard work done by Senator Feinstein's staff and mine, they were able to literally convert these rights in the constitutional proposal into the statutory proposal for submission. That is what is before us today and what we will be voting on.

These are the rights that are set forth in the new statute: That the victim would be reasonably protected from the accused; afforded reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public proceedings involving the crime or any release or escape of the accused; included in public proceedings; ensured proceedings are free from unreasonable delay; that they could confer with the attorney for the government in the case; that they would be given a voice to be heard at any public proceeding involving release or plea or sentencing.

I ask unanimous consent to take time from the time under the control of Senator Feinstein.

I noted in a rather inaccurate Washington Post editorial of yesterday that somehow victims would have a right to speak to the jury. That is what the Washington Post thought. They were very wrong, as they were in other comments in the editorial. There is nothing in here about anything like that. It is only during the time of a release, like the parole hearing I talked about earlier, or sentencing or pleading there would be an opportunity to speak.

They would have a right to full and timely restitution in appropriate cases, and the right to be treated fairly, with respect for their dignity and privacy. Most importantly, they would be granted the right to enforce these rights. They would have legal standing to enforce their rights in court with the appropriate writ procedure to be able to take the court's decision to the higher court. That is one of the problems with existing Federal law which

the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals noted did not grant the victims the standing to sue. So that had to be corrected here.

Finally, we authorized an appropriation of funds to assure the proper oversight of these rights is exercised, that moneys would be made available to enhance the victim notification system, managed by the Department of Justice's Office for Victims of Crime, and the resources additionally to develop state-of-the-art systems for notifying crime victims of important states of development.

To pursue that a moment, all courts notify attorneys for the defendant, the prosecutor's office, and it is a relatively simple matter to add another name and telephone number or address to that list. That is what we are talking about here. It is now being done electronically. It is very easy. So the notice to victims of crime is not something that should be seen as an impediment.

I would like to conclude by thanking some people. Since I know Senator Feinstein did have to attend another meeting, let me thank some folks. Before I do that, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Lott and Nickles as original cosponsors.

As soon as Senator Leahy is here, I will relinquish the floor to him.

I do want to thank President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft; the Office for Victims of Crime Director John Gillis and the administration for their help; Colleen Campbell and her husband Gary; Roberta Roper; Bob Preston; Duane Lynn; Earlene Eason from Indiana, whose son Christopher was murdered; Sally Goelzer from Arizona, whose brother was murdered; Myssey Hartley from Arkansas, whose brother was murdered; Dee Engles, also from Arkansas, a family member murdered; the National Organization for Victim Assistance, especially Beth Rossman, president, Marlene Young, executive director, and John Stein, deputy director, who has been a tremendous help; the National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children, Nancy Ruhe-Munch, executive director; Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Wendy Hamilton, president, and Stephanie Manning; Professor Douglas Beloof, director of the National Crime Victim Law Institute, one of the entities integral to ensuring these rights are enforced--he has done a tremendous job in Oregon in setting up the programs and the lawyers who can defend victims' rights-- Attorney Meg Garvin, lead staff attorney at NCVLI; Attorney General Jane Brady and the National Association of Attorneys General--this has been a bipartisan effort and almost every attorney general in the country has signed on; the National District Attorneys Association; the Fraternal Order of Police, strongly in support of what we are doing; the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the National Restaurant Association; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Maricopa County attorney Rick Romely and county attorney Barbara LaWall in Arizona, who have helped me a lot in this effort; District Attorney Josh Marquis; the Arizona Voice for Crime Victims.

On Senator Hatch's staff, I thank Grace Becker, and on Senator Cornyn's staff, Jim Ho. On Senator Feinstein's staff, I can't thank enough Steve Cash and David Hantman who have been tremendously helpful in providing great advice and counsel, particularly in the last 3 or 4 days, helping us to convert the amendment to a statutory provision and in working on the Democratic side to make this a truly bipartisan process.

Without their assistance, we would not have the statute before the body either.

I have a couple legal interns, Tom Stack and Kevin Wilson, who provided tremendous help to me, and finally I wish to thank my chief person on my staff, Stephen Higgins and I mentioned Steve Twist.

All of these organizations and individuals have been of tremendous help in getting to this point and ensuring we will be able to get this statutory provision passed and sent over to the House for action.

Madam President, I am going to conclude with a couple of points. As soon as Senator Leahy arrives, I am going to relinquish the floor to him because Senator Feinstein has the remainder of the time, and I advise colleagues, if anyone wishes to speak, they should do so right away because I suspect at the conclusion of Senator Leahy's remarks and anything Senator Hatch and Senator Feinstein wish to say, we will proceed to the final passage vote.

The act before us, in addition to setting forth the rights and providing a remedy for the victims of crime, has an authorization of funding. Let me describe that authorization.

In the first year, fiscal year 2005, $16.3 million will be available to the U.S. Attorney's Victims Witness Office for the Victims of Crime Office in the Department of Justice; $300,000 is for the Office of Victims of Crime to administer these new rights; $7 million to the Office of Victims of Crime for the National Crime Victim Law Institute to provide grants and assistance to lawyers to help victims of crime in court. It is the only entity in the country that provides lawyers for victims in criminal cases, and it will provide for two new regional offices and nine specific clinics. Finally, borrowing a provision from a bill Senator Leahy had earlier, there is $5 million for grants to States to develop and implement state-of-the-art victim notification systems.

In the following 4 years, there will be each year authorized an appropriation of $26.5 million generally to the same entities and offices to ensure that these programs are carried out, that victims will have the support they need, and that the notice that is guaranteed in the legislation will be provided. Those are the authorizations for the funding. That is a description of the legislation.

I will close by again referring to the people who have driven this effort, the people who represent the families and who are themselves victims of crime, who did not simply retreat into a shell following the tragedy that befell them but who were willing to muster the courage and the strength to do something about the issue, not necessarily so that they could receive any particular kind of vindication, but so future victims would not have to suffer through the same kind of problems and the same indignities they did.

This is the real spirit of great people, of leaders, and it is the spirit of America. I commend all of these victims for the leadership role they have played in being willing to step out in very difficult circumstances to prod those of us in the legislative body to move this process forward and to get this legislation adopted. They are the ones who deserve the primary thanks today.

The victory, when we pass this legislation, will be largely a victory for them and all of the future victims who will never have to suffer the same kind of indignities that they did.

Mr. President, as the sponsor of this bill, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from California. She is the primary cosponsor of this bill. After extensive consultation with our colleagues, we have drafted a bill with a broad bipartisan consensus. It is not the intent of this bill to limit any laws in favor of crime victims that may currently exist, whether these laws are statutory, regulatory, or found in case law. I ask Senator Feinstein if she agrees.

I would like to address the notice provisions of section 2, (a)(2). The notice provisions are important because if a victim fails to receive notice of a public proceeding in the criminal case at which the victim's right could otherwise have been exercised, that right has effectively been denied. Public proceedings include both trial level and appellate level court proceedings. It does not make sense to enact victims' rights that are rendered useless because the victim never knew of the proceeding at which the right had to be asserted. Simply put, a failure to provide notice of proceedings at which a right can be asserted is equivalent to a violation of the right itself.

Equally important to this right to notice of public proceedings contained in this subsection is the right to notice of the escape or release of the accused. This provision helps to protect crime victims by notifying them that the accused is out on the streets.

For these rights to notice to be effective, notice must be sufficiently given in advance of a proceeding to give the crime victim the opportunity to arrange his or her affairs in order to be able to attend that proceeding and any scheduling of proceedings should take into account the victim's schedule to facilitate effective notice.

Restrictions on public proceedings are in 28 CFR Sec. 50.9, and it is not the intent here today to alter the meaning of that provision.

I ask Senator Feinstein, if she can comment on her understanding of section (a)(2)?

Yes. That it is my understanding as well. There may be organized crime cases or cases involving national security that require procedures that necessarily deny a crime victim the right not to be excluded that would otherwise be provided under this section. This is as it should be. National security matters and organized crime cases are especially challenging, and there are times when there is a vital need for closed proceedings. In such cases, the proceedings are not intended to be interpreted as ``public proceedings'' under this bill. In this regard, it is not our intent to alter 28 CFR Sec. 50.9 in any respect.

Despite these limitations, this bill allows crime victims, in the vast majority of cases, to attend the hearings and trial of the case involving their victimization. This is so important because crime victims share an interest with the government in seeing that justice is done in a criminal case and this interest supports the idea that victims should not be excluded from public criminal proceedings, whether these are pretrial, trial, or post-trial proceedings.

This right of crime victims not to be excluded from the proceedings provides a foundation for the next section, section 2, (a)(4), which provides victims the right to reasonably be heard at any public proceeding involving release, plea, or sentencing. This provision is intended to allow crime victims to directly address the court in person. It is not necessary for the victim to obtain the permission of either party to do so. This right is a right independent of the Government or the defendant that allows the victim to address the court. To the extent the victim has the right to independently address the court, the victim acts as an independent participant in the proceedings. When a victim invokes this right during plea and sentencing proceedings, it is intended that the he or she be allowed to provide all three types of victim impact--the character of the victim, the impact of the crime on the victim, the victims' family and the community, and sentencing recommendations. Of course, the victim may use a lawyer, at their own expense, to assist in the exercise of this right. This bill does not provide victims with a right to counsel but recognizes that a victim may enlist counsel on their own.

It is not the intent of the term ``reasonably'' in the phrase ``to be reasonably heard'' to provide any excuse for denying a victim the right to appear in person and directly address the court. Indeed, the very purpose of this section is to allow the victim to appear personally and directly address the court. This section would fail in its intent if courts determined that written, rather than oral communication, could generally satisfy this right. On the other hand, the term ``reasonably'' is meant to allow for alternative methods of communicating a victim's views to the court when the victim is unable to attend the proceedings. Such circumstances might arise, for example, if the victim is incarcerated on unrelated matters at the time of the proceedings or if a victim cannot afford to travel to a courthouse. In such cases, communication by the victim to the court is permitted by other reasonable means. Is this the understanding of the Senator of this provision?

Yes. The intent of this section is just as the Senator says. This right to confer does not give the crime victim any right to direct the prosecution. Prosecutors should consider it part of their profession to be available to consult with crime victims about concerns the victims may have which are pertinent to the case, case proceedings or dispositions. Under this provision, victims are able to confer with the Government's attorney about proceedings after charging.

I would like to turn now to the section on restitution, section 2, (a)(6). This section provides the right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. This right, together with the other rights in the act to be heard and confer with the Government's attorney in this act, means that existing restitution laws will be more effective.

I am interested in the Senator's views of this restitution provision.

I concur in the Senator's comments. I would add that the delays in criminal proceedings are among the most chronic problems faced by victims. Whatever peace of mind a victim might achieve after a crime is too often inexcusably postponed by unreasonable delays in the criminal case. A central reason for these rights is to force a change in a criminal justice culture which has failed to focus on the legitimate interests of crime victims, a new focus on limiting unreasonable delays in the criminal process to accommodate the victim is a positive start.

I would like to turn to section 2, (a)(8). This provision contains a number of rights. The broad rights articulated in this section are meant to be rights themselves and are not intended to just be aspirational. One of these rights is the right to be treated with fairness. Of course, fairness includes the notion of due process. Too often victims of crime experience a secondary victimization at the hands of the criminal justice system. This provision is intended to direct Government agencies and employees, whether they are in executive or judiciary branches, to treat victims of crime with the respect they deserve.

Does the Senator agree?

Yes, it is.

Turning briefly to section 2, (c), there are several important things to point out in this subsection. First, where there is a material conflict between the Government's attorney and the crime victim, this provision protects crime victims' rights. This means that if Government lawyers interpret a right differently from a victim, urge a very narrow interpretation of a right, or do not believe a right should be asserted, they are in conflict with the victim and this provision requires that they inform the victim of this and direct the victim to independent counsel, such as the legal clinics for crime victims contemplated under this law. This is an important protection for crime victims because it ensures the independent and individual nature of their rights. Second, the notice section immediately following limits the right to notice of release where such notice may endanger the safety of the person being released. There are cases, particularly in domestic violence cases, where there is danger posed by an intimate partner if the intimate partner is released. Such circumstances are not the norm, even in domestic violence cases as a category of cases. This exception should not be relied upon as an excuse to avoid notifying most victims.

Is that the Senator's understanding of this section?

Absolutely. The enforcement provision the Senator addressed is critical to this bill. Without the ability to enforce the rights in the criminal trial and appellate courts of this country any rights afforded are, at best, rhetoric. We are far past the point where lip service to victims' rights is acceptable. The enforcement provisions of this bill ensure that never again are victim's rights provided in word but not in reality.

I want to turn to section 2, subsection (d)(2) because it is an unfortunate reality that in today's world there are crimes that result in multiple victims. The reality of those situations is that a court may find that the sheer number of victims is so large that it is impracticable to accord each victim the rights in this bill. The bill allows that when the court makes that finding on the record the court must then fashion a procedure that still gives effect to the bill and yet takes into account the impracticability. For instance, in the Oklahoma City bombing case the number of victims was tremendous and attendance at any one proceeding by all of them was impracticable so the court fashioned a procedure that allowed victims to attend the proceedings by close circuit television. This is merely one example. Another may be to allow victims with a right to speak to be heard in writing or through

other methods. Importantly, courts must seek to identify methods that fit the case before that to ensure that despite numerosity of crime victims, the rights in this bill are given effect.

Does the Senator agree with this reading of the bill?

Absolutely. Without the right to seek appellate review and a guarantee that the appellate court will hear the appeal and order relief, a victim is left to the mercy of the very trial court that may have erred. This country's appellate courts are designed to remedy errors of lower courts and this provision requires them to do so for victim's rights. For a victim's right to truly be honored, a victim must be able to assert the rights in trial courts, to then be able to have denials of those rights reviewed at the appellate level, and to have the appellate court take the appeal and order relief. By providing for all of this, this bill ensures that victims' rights will have meaning.

I would like to turn our attention to section 2, subsection (d)(4) because that also provides an enforcement mechanism. This section provides that in any appeal, regardless of the party initiating the appeal, the government can assert as error the district court's denial of a crime victim's right. This subsection is important for a couple of reasons. First, it allows the Government to assert a victim's right on appeal even when it is the defendant who seeks appeal of his or her conviction. This ensures that victims' rights are protected throughout the criminal justice process and that they do not fall by the wayside during what can often be an extended appeal that the victim is not a party to.

Is that the Senator's understanding of the bill?

Yes, it is. We have, over the years, tried to reassure those that oppose victims' rights that they are not an attempt to undermine defendants' rights. This provision reiterates that. It is important for victims' rights to be asserted and protected throughout the criminal justice process, and for courts to have the authority to redo proceedings other than the trial such as release hearings, pleas, and sentencings where victims' rights are abridged, but to not tread upon defendant's rights against double jeopardy in the process. Victims' rights are about a fair and balanced criminal justice system--one that considers defendant's rights as well as victims' rights. This provision protects that careful balance.

I want to turn to the definitions in the bill, contained in section 2, subsection (e). There are a couple of key points to be made about the definitions. A ``crime victim'' is defined as a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of any offense, felony or misdemeanor. This is an intentionally broad definition because all victims of crime deserve to have their rights protected, whether or not they are the victim of the count charged. Additionally, crime victims may, for any number of reasons, want to employ an attorney to represent them in court. This definition of crime victim allows crime victims to do that. It also assures that when, for any reason, crime victims are unable to assert rights on their own, those rights will still be protected.

Is that the Senator's understanding of the bill as well?

Yes.

Let me comment briefly on section 4, Reports. Subsection (a) requires the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to report annually the number of times a right asserted in a criminal case is denied the relief requested, and the reasons therefore, as well as the number of times a mandamus action was brought and the result of that mandamus.

Such reporting is the only way we in the Congress and other interested parties can observe whether reforms we mandate are being carried out. No one doubts the difficulty of obtaining case-by-case information of this nature. Yes, this information is critical to understanding whether Federal statutes really can effectively protect victims' rights or whether a constitutional amendment is necessary. We are certain that affected executive and judicial agencies can work together to implement effective administrative tools to record and amass this data. We would certainly encourage the National Institute of Justice to support any needed research to get this system in place.

Is this Senator Feinstein's understanding?

Yes, that it is my understanding.

Mr. President, I anticipate Senator Leahy's arrival. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent Senator Kohl be added as a cosponsor to the legislation pending.

Mr. President, notwithstanding the previous order, I ask the technical amendment which is at the desk be considered and agreed to and--I withhold on that request for a moment.

I withdraw the request until it is clear.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Notwithstanding the previous order, I ask the technical amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Shelby be added as a cosponsor of the legislation.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hatch, I yield back the time that he has remaining.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Absolutely.

Mr. President, 8 years ago the Senator from Arizona asked me if I would join with him in a pursuit to give victims basic rights under the Constitution of the United States. It was something I knew a little bit about and I was delighted to do it. What I didn't know a lot about was the drafting of a constitutional amendment and how difficult it was. The next 8 years actually proved to be one of the most rewarding times of my Senate experience.

First, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his collegiality, for the ease with which we have been able to work together, and for his leadership on this issue, which has been absolutely 100 percent unrelenting.

In a time of increasing partisan separation in this body, the friendship, the collegiality, and the leadership has been so appreciated by me. It has been one of the bright spots in my Senate career. I want him to know how much I appreciate it.

I also thank victims, about 30 or 40 of whom are present in the gallery. These are victims who have had terrible things happen to them, but rather than sink back into the depths of despair, have decided they would fight for something so that anyone who had similar things happen to them could have a part in the criminal justice system. Particularly, I would like to acknowledge a few of those victims.

The first is Colleen Campbell. Colleen Campbell has lost two members of her family as a product of murder. Senator Kyl, in his remarks, will make that clear. She has become an ardent supporter of our efforts, and a small pin that Senator Kyl and I are wearing today is the pin which represents a group called ``Force 100.'' These are victims who have been asking Congress to take this action. The pin depicts an angel holding a checkered flag. Her brother, Mickey Thompson, who was murdered, was a race car driver, and therefore the checkered flag. Her son, Scott Campbell, was also murdered. Colleen, a brilliant leader and a wonderful woman, has lost two members of her family--her son and her brother--to murder.

The other was Roberta Roper. Roberta is one of the first people I met. She hails from Maryland. Again, Senator Kyl will say more about the circumstances of that crime.

The third is Steve Twist, who has represented the victims with integrity and steadfastness over these past 8 years, to try to get for them as much as could be possible in the recognition of their rights.

Essentially, bottom line, what we have found after numerous Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearings, committee hearings, markups, putting the victims' rights constitutional amendment out on the Senate floor in a prior session, taking it down because we didn't have the votes, beginning anew in this session, going through the processes in committee, and recognizing that we didn't have the 67 votes necessary for a constitutional amendment--both Senator Kyl and I, as well as the victims and their advocates, decided that we should compromise. There are Members of this body who very much want a statute. There are Members of this body who very much want a constitutional amendment. We have drafted a statute which we believe is broad and encompassing, which provides enforcement rights for victims, provides funding for the Department of Justice victims' rights programs, for legal clinics, for enforcement to carry out this law federally and also to spread the word to local and State jurisdictions to enact similar laws.

We basically provide a set of eight rights:

The right to be reasonably protected from the accused; the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of public proceedings so that you know what is happening as well as notice if the accused is released or escapes from custody--

I can't tell you how many victims who may have testified against their assailant live in dread of the fact that an assailant will be released, they won't know it, they won't be able to protect themselves, and the assailant will come after them. That is not theory. It has happened over and over again. There are cases of that, with which I am intimately, unfortunately, knowledgeable--

The right to be present at public proceedings, not to be barred from a court hearing, not to be barred by a public proceeding involving a plea agreement;

The right to be reasonably heard at critical steps in the process, those involving release, plea, or sentencing; the right to confer with the prosecutor;

The right to full and timely restitution, as provided by law;

The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay;

And the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy.

At one time the system of criminal justice in the United States of America provided these rights. Victims had rights until about the mid- 19th century, the 1850s, when the concept of the public prosecutor was developed in our Nation. Up to that time, victims brought cases. Victims hired lawyers. Victims even hired sheriffs to prosecute cases. That changed in the mid-19th century, and in that change the victim became left out of the process.

Nowhere was the need for this legislation made more clear than during the trials over the Oklahoma City bombing.

Because we got involved, the Senate and the House, because victims were not being given the rights afforded to them by prior legislation, victims then went to a district court of appeals and victims were then subsequently still told that they had no standing.

A brief account of the trial in the Oklahoma City bombing case illustrates this point:

During pre-trial conference in the case against Timothy McVeigh, the District Court issued a ruling to preclude any victim who wished to provide victim impact testimony at sentencing from observing any proceeding in the case.

In a hearing to reconsider the issue of excluding victim witnesses, the trial court denied the victims' motion asserting standing to present their claims and denied the motion for reconsideration.

Three months later in February 1997, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, rejected, without oral argument, the victims' claims on jurisdictional grounds finding they had no ``legally protected interest'' to be present at the trial and had suffered no ``injury in fact.''

Congress reacted the next month by overwhelmingly passing the Victims' Rights Clarification Act of 1997, which provided that watching a trial does not constitute grounds for denying the chance to provide a victim impact statement at sentencing. President Clinton signed the bill into law on March 20, 1997.

When the victims filed a motion with the District Court seeking a hearing to assert their rights under the new law, the District Court concluded ``any motions raising constitutional questions about this legislation would be premature and would present issues that are not now ripe for decision.''

The court then entered a new order on victim-impact witness sequestration, and refused to grant the victims a hearing on the application of the new law, stating that its ruling rendered the request ``moot.''

I believe the result would be different if the bill we are considering today was law then. The victims and the families would have had standing, and would have been able to avail themselves of the mandamus proceeding to get a timely ruling on the merits from the Court of Appeals. Perhaps that would not have been necessary--the District Court judge, armed with the standing provision of this bill, perhaps would have reached a different result during the trial.

We have written a bill that we believe is broad. We have written a bill that provides an enforcement remedy; namely, the writ of mandamus.

This part of the bill is what makes this legislation so important, and different from earlier legislation: It provides mechanisms to enforce the set of rights provided to victims of crime.

These mechanisms fall into four categories:

A direction to our courts that they ``shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in the law.''

A direction to the Attorney General of the United States to take steps to ensure that our Federal prosecutors ``make their best efforts'' to see that crime victims are aware of, and can exercise these rights.

A specific statement that the victim of a crime, or their representative, may assert these rights; the result is that, for the first time victims will have clear standing to ask our courts to enforce their rights.

And a new use of a very old procedure, the writ of mandamus. This provision will establish a procedure where a crime victim can, in essence, immediately appeal a denial of their rights by a trial court to the court of appeals, which must rule ``forthwith.'' Simply put, the mandamus procedure allows an appellate court to take timely action to ensure that the trial court follows the rule of law set out in this statute.

These procedures, taken together, will ensure that the rights defined in the first section are not simply words on paper, but are meaningful and functional.

The bill also has two separate resource provisions, which together will authorize the appropriation of $76 million over the next five years to ensure that the federal government assist crime victims in asserting these rights, and to encourage states to do the same: The bill authorizes a total of $51 million over five years for crime victim assistance grants administered by the Department of Justice to establish and maintain legal assistance programs throughout the nation.

These institutions are key to the success of this legislation, for this is how victims' rights will be really asserted and defended--by lawyers, standing up in court, and explaining to judges and prosecutors what the law means, and how it applies in the case at hand. Rights and remedies need articulation to work, and this money will help make that happen.

These grants, championed by my colleague Senator Leahy, provide a total of $25 million over five years for a specific, and critical, purpose: to ``develop and implement'' the type of notification systems that take full advantage of modern technology.

Computers, linked to sophisticated telephone or automatic mailing systems, can help us ensure that the right to notice, set out in the first section of this bill, is not simply abstract, but is made real by a notification system that can provide ``accurate, and timely'' notice to victims' of crime and their families.

This act, of course, binds only the federal system, but is designed to affect the states also. First it is hoped that states will look to this law as a model and incorporate it into their own systems. This law encourages that by allowing both types of grants--legal assistance and victim notification--to be provided to state entities, and for use in state systems, where the state has in place ``laws substantially equivalent'' to this act.

Never before have these three critical components, rights, remedies and resources, been brought together. It has been said ``a right without a remedy is no right at all,'' and this law would couple victims' rights with victims' remedies in a way that has never been done before in the federal system. I believe that taken together we have a formula for success, and this law will work, and hopefully become the model for our States.

So why is the law needed?

Senator Kyl and I have been working on this issue for the past 8 years. We offer this legislation because the scales of justice are out of balance--while criminal defendants have an array of rights under law, crime victims have few meaningful rights.

In case after case we found victims, and their families, were ignored, cast aside, and treated as non-participants in a critical event in their lives. They were kept in the dark by prosecutors to busy to care enough, by judges focused on defendant's rights, and by a court system that simply did not have a place for them.

The result was terrible--often the experience of the criminal justice system left crime victims and their families victimized yet again.

Let me be clear. I am not talking about the necessary emotional and psychological difficulties which are almost inevitable in our adversary system. Cross examination can be hard. The legal system sometimes must seem complex and irrational to those who do not work in it. Sometimes judges and juries make decisions that victims of crime do not like. But that is not the problem that this law addresses.

That problem is one of process and fairness. The rights I have spoken about are basic, and do not come at the expense of defendant's rights.

Boiled down, they involve the simple right to know what is going on, to participate in the process where the information that victim's and their families can provide may be material and relevant, and the right to be safe from violence.

I mentioned earlier the dramatic disparity between the rights of defendants in our constitution and laws, and the rights of crime victims and their families. My point is to illustrate that our government, and our criminal justice system, can and should care about both the rights of accused and the rights of victims. That is what this law addresses.

Some have said that current law is adequate. For instance, the Victim of Crime Act of 1984 sets out rights for victims--in fact the bill before us restates many of those rights. But prior laws did not have the critical combination of rights and remedies that we now offer.

In fact, a number of victims' rights laws have been passed:

1982, the Victim and Witness Protection Act, mentioned before, which provided for victim restitution and the use of victim impact statements at sentencing in federal cases;

1984, the Victims of Crime Act, which encouraged the States to maintain programs that serve victims of crime, and established a Crime Victims' Fund, which now matches up to 60 percent of the money paid by States for victim compensation awards;

1990, the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act, which increased funding for victim compensation and assistance, and codified a victims' Bill of Rights in the federal justice system;

1994, the Violence Against Women Act, which authorized over $1.6 billion over six years to assist victims of violence and prevent violence against women and children;

1996, the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, which required courts to order restitution when sentencing defendants for certain offenses;

1996, the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, which appropriated funds to assist and compensate victims of terrorism and mass violence;

And 1997, the Victim Rights Clarification Act, which reversed a presumption against crime victims observing any part of the trial proceedings if they were likely to testify during the sentencing hearing, an issue which developed during the Oklahoma City bombing case. Specifically, this legislation prohibited courts from (1) excluding a victim from the trial on the ground that he or she might be called to provide a victim impact statement at sentencing, and (2) excluding a victim impact statement on the ground that the victim had observed the trial.

All of these laws represent a step in the right direction. But they are not enough. They don't really work to protect victims' many had hoped. Why is this? I believe it because they fail to provide an effective procedure for victims to assert standing and vindicate their rights. The bill before us builds on these earlier attempts, and goes one very important step farther--linking rights to remedies, and, I hope, fixing the problem with these earlier laws.

Some have asked--why proceed with a statute, rather than a Consitutional amendment? Why a law and not a constitutional amendment?

Senator Kyl and I have been working for many years towards a constitutional amendment to establish these rights. I have always believed that amending the Constitution is the best way to ensure victims' rights are protected in the criminal justice process. But many have disagreed, arguing that we should try, once again, a legislative approach.

It is clear to me that passage of a Constitutional amendment is impossible at this time. If we tried, and failed, it could be years before we could try again. Victims of crime have waited years for progress, and a compromise approach, resulting in the bill now under consideration, will result in meaningful progress.

Will it work? I hope so. The bill before us is a new and bolder approach, than has ever been tried before in our Federal system.

The standing provision, coupled with the mandamus provision, may have the desired effect. This will be a test, and I, for one, will be watching it closely.

I think for both Senator Kyl, and now for Senator Hatch, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Leahy, the distinguished ranking member, who join us as major cosponsors of this bill, that we will follow this bill carefully and we will see whether the enforcement rights contained in this bill are adequate. If not, you can be sure as the Sun will rise tomorrow, we will be back with a constitutional amendment.

This bill is named after some of the victims. Both Senator Kyl and I briefly want to state the story of the victims after whom the bill is named. I would like to tell the Senate a little bit about Louarna Gillis, who was 22 years old when she was slain on January 17, 1979, as part of a gang initiation. Her murderer wanted to enter the world of narcotics as part of the Mexican Mafia and was told the quickest way to do so was to murder the daughter of a Los Angeles Police Department officer. Can you believe it? It is true.

Louarna Gillis was targeted by the killer. He knew her in high school. That was the reason he targeted her. The murderer picked her up a few blocks from her home, drove her to an alley in East Los Angeles where he shot her in the head as she sat in the car. He pushed her into the alley and fired additional shots into her back.

Louarna's murderer was apprehended 6 months later. He had a long history of violence, including felony convictions.

Louarna's family was not notified of the arraignment, nor were they notified of other critical proceedings in this case. Her family's rights were largely ignored. The first trial resulted in a hung jury, 11 for first-degree murder, 1 not guilty. Louarna's father, John Gillis, was not allowed in the courtroom.

At the second trial, the murderer pled guilty to second-degree murder to avoid the death penalty. He was sentenced to 17 years to life. Parole for Louarna's murderer has successfully been blocked by her family to this day. He will be eligible for parole again in the next 6 to 8 months. Louarna's father, a former homicide detective with LAPD, had just left an intelligence assignment working against street gangs and the Mexican Mafia at the time of her murder. Can you imagine?

Mr. Gillis was later appointed by President George W. Bush as the Director of the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime. He testified before Congress on July 17, 2002. I said:

I know firsthand the personal, financial, and emotional

devastation that violent crime exacts on its victims. As a

survivor of a homicide victim, I testify . . . with the

unique advantage of understanding the plight that victims and

their families face in the criminal justice system . . . When

a person is victimized by crime, he or she is thrust into a

whole new world in which the State's or the government's

needs take priority.

This is the most devastating time in a person's life, when

they have lost a loved one to homicide or violent crime; they

need protection.

They need to let the court know how this crime has impacted

their lives, because it will have a long-lasting, traumatic

impact in their lives. It's important that they have the

opportunity to say something to defend their loved one.

This terrible story took place in my home State of California. This bill will help fathers like Mr. Gillis: he would be notified of key proceedings, and be able to participate in a meaningful way.

I would like to tell you about Nila Ruth Lynn. Here is her picture. She was 69 years old. She was murdered at a homeowners association meeting on April 19, 2000, when an angry man stormed into the meeting and announced: ``I'm going to kill you.''

He was unhappy with the way the association had trimmed the bushes in his yard the previous month. Nila and another woman were killed and several other men were injured during the rampage. She died on the floor in the arms of her husband Duane. They had been married 49 years and 9 months. Nila left behind Duane and six children. The money the children had been saving for a 50th wedding anniversary gift was instead used to pay for her casket.

Duane Lynn suffered through long delays and continuances in this case. Despite clear State constitutional and statutory rights, Duane was not allowed to make a sentencing recommendation for his wife's murderer. Nila's killer was sentenced to death. Duane wanted the defendant to be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, rather than deal with the continuing appeals involving the death sentence.

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied its petition for a review of the Arizona Supreme Court's refusal to protect the right. He testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 8. Here is what he said:

We, as a family of the victim, which was my wife, my love,

the person I still expect to walk through my front door every

day--she was a real person, not just a name and a number on a

document. We could say nothing about the consequences of that

man who took all this away from me. You have no idea what

this feels like. The evil done by a murderer inflicts

tragedy, and that is bad enough. But injuries inflicted by

our legal system are even harder to take. I felt kicked

around and ignored by the very system the government has in

place to protect law-abiding citizens.

This is not the way criminal justice should be practiced in the United States of America. The time has come to give victims of crime the right to participate in the system, the right to notice of a public hearing, the right to be present at that public proceeding, the right to make a statement when appropriate, the right to have restitution, if ordered by a judge, the right to know when your assailant or attacker is released from prison, and the right to be treated by our prosecutors and by our criminal justice system with respect and dignity. That is not too much for the Congress of the United States to strive energetically to achieve for the 22 million victims in this country.

It is with great pleasure that over the years I have worked with Senator Kyl to achieve this. Once again, I cannot thank him too much.

I thank the Chair. I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Madam President, I thank the Senator. I do appreciate those words. They mean a great deal to me.

If I might, I ask unanimous consent to add the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, as a cosponsor of the bill.

Madam President, I would like to retain the remainder of my time.

Yes, it is not our intent to restrict victims' rights or accommodations found in other laws. I would like to turn to the bill itself and address the first section, (a)(1), the right of the crime victim to be reasonably protected. Of course, the Government cannot protect the crime victim in all circumstances. However, where reasonable, the crime victim should be provided accommodations such as a secure waiting area, away from the defendant before and after and during breaks in the proceedings.

My understanding of this subsection is the same the Senator's. Too often crime victims have been unable to exercise their rights because they were not informed of the proceedings. Pleas and sentencings have all too frequently occurred without the victim ever knowing that they were taking place. Victims are the persons who are directly harmed by the crime and they have a stake in the criminal process because of that harm. Their lives are significantly altered by the crime and they have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives. To deny them the opportunity to know of and be present at proceedings is counter to the fundamental principles of this country. It is simply wrong. Moreover, victim safety requires that notice of the release or escape of an accused from custody be made in a timely manner to allow the victim to make informed choices about his or her own safety. This provision ensures that takes place.

I would like to turn to section 2, (a)(3) of the bill, which provides that the crime victim has the right not to be excluded from any public proceedings. This language was drafted in a way to ensure that the government would not be responsible for paying for the victim's travel and lodging to a place where they could attend the proceedings.

In all other respects, this section is intended to grant victims the right to attend and be present throughout all public proceedings.

This right is limited in two respects. First, the right is limited to public proceedings, thus grand jury proceedings are excluded from the right. Second, the Government or the defendant can request, and the court can order, judicial proceedings to be closed under existing laws. This provision is not intended to alter those laws or their procedures in any way. I ask the Senator is that is his understanding of this section.

Yes. That is my understanding as well. The victim of crime, or their counsel, should be able to provide any information, as well as their opinion, directly to the court concerning the release, plea, or sentencing of the accused. This bill intends for this right to be heard to be an independent right of the victim, and thus cannot prevent the victim from being heard.

It is important that the ``reasonably be heard'' language not be an excuse for minimizing the victim's opportunity to be heard. Only if it is not practical for the victim to speak in person or if the victim wishes to be heard by the court in a different fashion should this provision mean anything other than an in-person right to be heard.

Of course, in providing victim information or opinion it is important that the victim be able to confer with the prosecutor concerning a variety of matters and proceedings. Section 2, (a)(5) provides a right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case. This right is intended to be expansive. For example, the victim has the right to confer with the Government concerning any critical stage or disposition of the case. The right, however, is not limited to these examples. I ask the Senator if he concurs in this intent.

I thank the Senator. I join his comments.

I would like to move on to section 2, (a)(7), which provides crime victims with a right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. This provision does not curtail the Government's need for reasonable time to organize and prosecute its case. Nor is the provision intended to infringe on the defendant's due process right to prepare a defense.

Too often, however, delays in criminal proceedings occur for the mere convenience of the parties and those delays reach beyond the time needed for defendant's due process or the Government's need to prepare. The result of such delays is that victims cannot begin to put the crime behind them and they continue to be victimized. It is not right to hold crime victims under the stress and pressure of future court proceedings merely because it is convenient for the parties or the court.

This provision should be interpreted so that any decision to continue a criminal case should include reasonable consideration of the rights under this section.

I am eager to hear the Senator's view on this.

Yes.

It is not the intent of this bill that its significance be whittled down or marginalized by the courts or the executive branch. This legislation is meant to correct, not continue, the legacy of the poor treatment of crime victims in the criminal process. This legislation is meant to ensure that cases like the McVeigh case, where victims of the Oklahoma City bombing were effectively denied the right to attend the trial and to avoid federal appeals courts from determining, as the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals did, that victims had no standing to seek review of their right to attend the trial under the former victims' law that this bill replaces.

I would also like to comment on section 2, (b), which directs courts to ensure that the rights in this law be afforded and to record, on the record, any reason for denying relief of an assertion of a crime victim. This provision is critical because it is in the courts of this country that these rights will be asserted and it is the courts that will be responsible for enforcing them. Further, requiring a court to provide the reasons for denial of relief is necessary for effective appeal of such denial.

Is that the understanding of the Senator?

Yes.

I would now like to address the enforcement provisions of the bill, specifically section 2, subsection (d)(1). This provision allows a crime victim to enter the criminal trial court during proceedings involving the crime against the victim and assert the rights provided by this bill. This provision ensures that crime victims have standing to be heard in trial courts so that they are heard at the very moment when their rights are at stake and this, in turn, forces the criminal justice system to be responsive to a victim's rights in a timely way. Importantly, however, the bill does not allow the defendant in the case to assert any of the victim's rights to obtain relief. This prohibition prevents the individual accused of the crime from distorting a right intended for the benefit of the individual victim into a weapon against justice.

The provision allows the crime victim's representative and the attorney for the Government to go into a criminal trial court and assert the crime victim's rights. The inclusions of representatives and the Government's attorney in the provision are important for a number of reasons. First, allowing a representative to assert a crime victim's rights ensures that where a crime victim is unable to assert the rights on his or her own for any reason, including incapacity, incompetence, minority, or death, those rights are not lost. The representative for the crime victim can assert the rights.

Second, a crime victim may choose to enlist a private attorney to represent him or her in the criminal case--this provision allows that attorney to enter an appearance on behalf of the victim in the criminal trial court and assert the victim's rights. The provision also recognizes that, at times, the Government's attorney may be best situated to assert a crime victim's rights either because the crime victim is not available at a particular point in the trial or because, at times, the crime victim's interests coincide with those of the Government and it makes sense for a single person to express those joined interests. Importantly, however, the provision does not mean that the Government's attorney has the authority to compromise or co- opt a victim's right. Nor does the provision mean that by not asserting a victim's right the Government's attorney has waived that right. The rights provided in this bill are personal to the individual crime victim and it is that crime victim that has the final word regarding which of the specific rights to assert and when. Waiver of any of the individual rights provided can only happen by the victim's affirmative waiver of that specific right.

Does all of this correspond with Senator Kyl's understanding of the bill?

Absolutely. It is a tragic reality that cases may involve multiple victims and yet that fact is not grounds for eviscerating the rights in this bill. Rather, that fact is grounds for the court to find an alternative procedure to give effect to this bill.

I now want to turn to another critical aspect of enforcement of victims' rights, section 2, subsection (d)(3). This subsection provides that a crime victim who is denied any of his or her rights as a crime victim has standing to appellate review of that denial. Specifically, the provision allows a crime victim to apply for a writ of mandamus to the appropriate appellate court. The provision provides that court shall take the writ and shall order the relief necessary to protect the crime victim's right. This provision is critical for a couple of reasons. First, it gives the victim standing to appear before the appellate courts of this country and ask for review of a possible error below. Second, while mandamus is generally discretionary, this provision means that courts must review these cases. Appellate review of denials of victims' rights is just as important as the initial assertion of a victim's right. This provision ensures review and encourages courts to broadly defend the victims' rights.

Mr. President, does Senator Kyl agree?

Yes.

I would like to turn to the next provision, section 2, subsection (d)(5). This subsection provides that a failure to afford a right under the act does not provide grounds for a new trial. This provision demonstrates that victim's rights are not intended to be, nor are they, an attack on defendants' protections against double jeopardy. This provision is not intended to prevent courts from vacating decisions in nontrial proceedings in which victims' rights were not protected and ordering those proceedings to be redone. It simply assures that a trial will not be redone. Thus, defendants' and victims' rights are both protected.

Is that the Senator's understanding?

It is.

Now I would like to turn to the portion of the bill concerning administrative compliance with victims' rights, section 2, subsection (f). The provisions of this subsection are relatively self-explanatory, but it important to point out that these procedures are completely separate from and in no way limit the victim's rights in the previous section.

Is that Senator Kyl's understanding?

Yes.

One final point. Throughout this act, reference is made to the ``accused.'' Would the Senator also agree that it is our intention to use this word in the broadest sense to include both those charged and convicted so that the rights we establish apply throughout the criminal justice system?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, be added as a cosponsor of the legislation before us.

Mr. President, I will say a few words in conclusion to my remarks.

I believe the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, will be coming back to the floor to make a small technical modification to the amendment since questions have been developed and they can be easily taken care of. I believe he will do that. Otherwise, I think everyone who is going to speak on this has spoken.

I would like to end by saying how grateful I am for this day. This is an important day for many of us who care about victims' rights--I think every Member of this Senate--because for the first time we have a strong and comprehensive measure to be able to achieve a compendium of victims' rights. That compendium will give victims access to the criminal justice system so they may retain their dignity; so they have an opportunity to know when there is a trial and be present at the trial; to make statements if there is a public proceeding with respect to a plea bargain; to be there to make a statement; to receive restitution, if offered by a judge; to know when their attacker is released from jail or prison--not too much, but certain basic, elemental rights for anyone who has either been the victim of or has been dramatically affected by a crime.

I am very proud of the work on this. I have worked with Senator Kyl for a long time, and now with Senators Hatch and Leahy as well.

I thank everybody who has been involved.

I particularly would like to thank my staff, Steven Cash and Dave Hantman, who over the years I think have grown more determined to get this job done.

I am hopeful we will have a unanimous vote in this body, that the bill will be accepted by the House, and we will be able to say to victims all across this country there is a Federal statute with a remedy and a method of enforcement that will guarantee the very basic rights in Federal crimes; and also the funding to be able to go out and secure some of those same rights under State law.

I thank everybody. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, my colleagues and I have been talking all week about the long overdue reforms that the Hatch-Frist-Miller bill will deliver.

I think it is clear to anybody that asbestos litigation has been spinning out of control with no end in sight for far too long. The shortcomings of the current system are crippling businesses, and, at the same time, depriving asbestos victims of prompt and adequate compensation for their injuries.

One of the most outrageous aspects of the current asbestos litigation system is that it allows--indeed, encourages--some lawyers of questionable ethics to find and bring claims that may be of questionable merit. In some egregious and hopefully rare instances, an entire plan of action has apparently evolved to track down potential claimants based more upon whether they can be properly coached to present a colorable claim than whether their claim has actual merit.

For example, I am told that several years ago, a first-year associate attorney at the law firm of Baron & Budd apparently inadvertently disclosed to defense counsel a memorandum that provides a sad but startling insight into how asbestos claims are created and spun into recoveries.

The memorandum, titled ``Preparing for Your Deposition,'' offers clients detailed instructions. They are shown how to sound credible when giving testimony that they worked with particular asbestos products. The memorandum seems to make every effort to instruct clients to assert particular points that will act to increase the value of their claim, without regard to whether those assertions are actually true. The memorandum even goes so far as to inform clients that a defense attorney will have no way of knowing whether they are lying about their exposure to particular asbestos products.

One excerpt from the memorandum appears to help claimants identify defendant companies and prepares them for a cross-examination that could reveal how flimsy their claim might be. It reads as follows. This is from the Baron & Budd memo ``Preparing for Your Deposition'':

You may be asked how you are able to recall so many product

names. The best answer is to say that you recall seeing the

names on the containers or on the product itself. The more

you thought about it, the more you remembered! If the defense

attorney asks you if you were shown pictures of products,

wait for your attorney to advise you to answer, then say a

girl from Baron & Budd showed you pictures of MANY

products, and you picked out the ones you remembered.

Well, as you can see, that is pretty serious. Another excerpt from the memorandum steers claimants away from admissions that would undermine their claims. On this point, the memorandum equips witnesses with the following admonition. Again, from the Baron & Budd memo--one of the leading firms in these asbestos plaintiffs cases, to which more than $20 billion in fees--that is with a ``B''--have been given. Here is this counseling or coaching. Here is what this law firm memorandum said:

You will be asked if you ever saw any WARNING labels on

containers of asbestos. It is important to maintain that you

NEVER saw any labels on asbestos products that said WARNING

or DANGER.

Finally, apparently to drive home the point that cross-examination may be of little value in certain circumstances, the memorandum advises claimants as follows--again, the same law firm:

Keep in mind that these [defense] attorneys are very young

and WERE NOT PRESENT at the jobsites you worked at. They have

NO RECORDS to tell them what products were used on a

particular job, even if they act like they do.

Law Professor Lester Brickman has studied the asbestos litigation process extensively and has written detailed analyses of that process. Professor Brickman reviewed the law firm's memorandum and said:

In my opinion . . . this is subornation of perjury. Now,

after the memorandum was discovered, the Dallas Observer

conducted an investigation of the Baron law firm's asbestos

practices. That investigation appeared to uncover an

extensive process geared toward manipulating the asbestos

litigation system.

As the Dallas Observer wrote:

Two former paralegals . . . both say that a client-coaching

system was in place at the firm. Workers were routinely

encouraged to remember seeing asbestos products on their jobs

that they didn't truly recall.

Still another aspect of the Dallas Observer investigation into the Baron firm's handling of asbestos cases revealed a process that put a premium on schooling claimants by planting the right bits of information in their heads.

As the Dallas Observer reported:

A paralegal says that in many cases, the client had no

specific recollection of some products before she interviewed

them. ``My original caseload was a thousand, but I didn't

interview that many people. It was in the hundreds. I'd say

that probably in 75 percent of those cases I had people

identify at least one product they couldn't recall

originally.''

Now, manipulation of claimant memories and stories appear to have gone beyond implanting valuable facts to improve their claims. The Dallas Observer found that the Baron law firm also conveniently helped claimants eliminate facts from their stories where that would suit their purpose. The Observer reported the following:

According to the paralegals, their job didn't stop with

implanting memories; there were also the asbestos products

they had to encourage clients not to recall. Two lawyers told

her to discourage identification of Johns-Manville products

because the Manville Trust was not paying claims rendered

against it at the time. ... Thus, when a client would say he

saw, for instance, a Johns-Manville pipe covering, the

paralegal says, she would hand them a line. ``You'd say, `You

know, we've talked to some other people, other witnesses, and

they recall working with Owens-Corning Kaylo. Don't you think

you saw that?' And they'd say, `Yeah, maybe you're right.' ''

Finally, another document obtained by the Observer consisted of handwritten notes apparently taken by a Baron & Budd attorney during an internal training session. I will just say these are the things that are wrong with asbestos litigation. Is this counseling or coaching? The memorandum states: ``Warn plaintiffs not to say you were around it-- even if you were--after you knew it was dangerous.''

These practices, if they indeed took place--and I hope they did not take place in the way the Dallas Observer described them in its investigative report--distort a system that is already struggling to provide fairness. If lawyers for purported asbestos victims coach clients to lie in this manner, they may win some big fees for themselves along with some unjustified awards for clients who aren't actually sick, such practices have a sinister effect: They deprive seriously injured asbestos victims of the swift and fair recoveries that they deserve for their injuries and they cheat the payer firm out of money, they cheat employees of these firms out of their jobs, and they cheat investors and individual retirees of these firms out of their investments.

The time to act is now. I urge my colleagues to vote to invoke cloture against the minority's obstructive tactics. We owe it to these victims to put a halt to these abusive practices that

enrich the few at the expense of many and enrich those who are not sick at the expense of those who are. We owe it to hardworking Americans who stand to lose their jobs and pensions because of this asbestos mess. And we owe it to everyday Americans to provide them a civil justice systems that works.

Ray Klappert lives in Ft. Lauderdale, FL, and is actively supporting passage of legislation establishing an asbestos trust fund. His support is not surprising given the serious asbestos health problems he may be facing in the future. Here is Ray's story:

Ray's father, Fred Klappert, was a Korean War veteran and self- employed in the construction business. In 1973, Fred contracted to work on the renovation of the interior of a commercial building in Miami Beach. During the renovation, which lasted several months and involved a partial demolition of the old building, Fred was exposed to asbestos.

Twenty-five years later, Fred Klappert developed a severe cough and doctors eventually diagnosed him with asbestosis. Fred has since passed away. Unfortunately, the Klapperts had nowhere to turn for help and no source from which to be compensated for their loss.

Ray has since learned about the dangers of asbestos and has grown quite concerned for his own health. Ray worked with his father on that same building in 1973. Ray fears he may also acquire an asbestos- related disease and, like his father, have nowhere to turn for help.

An asbestos trust fund ensures a potential asbestos victim like Ray Klappert that there will still be adequate compensation in the future-- that will not be the case if asbestos litigation remains our method in the tort system. If a trust is established, Ray will not have to worry whether the defendant companies come insolvent, and thus the prospect of collecting pennies on the dollar from some bankruptcy trust. He also knows that the legislation will ensure that if he needs it, he will have access to medical monitoring as soon as the bill is enacted. This kind of security is essential for the peace of mind of all future asbestos victims.

What is wrong with asbestos litigation? It is running out of control and ruining our legal system. Compensation for victims such as Fred and Ray Klappert, under the current system, nothing. Under the FAIR Act, they get compensated.

Passage of S. 2290 will give Ray confidence that help is available should he need it in the future. If the legislation fails, Ray Klappert, like his father, will become just another victim of a tort system that has failed and will continue to fail thousands of Americans who have been exposed to asbestos.

As the asbestos litigation crisis continues unabated, nearly all of the major asbestos manufacturers are bankrupt. Consequently, more and more small businesses are forced to defend these costly lawsuits--some of which are without merit. A compelling illustration of this epidemic is the case of Monroe Rubber and Gasket, a small Monroe, Louisiana business with only 15 remaining employees--a number down 33 percent since asbestos litigation began against the company just 4 years ago.

Prior to 1986, Monroe Rubber and Gasket used a compressed asbestos sheet in manufacturing its gaskets. Mike Carter, one of its owners, called for a thorough examination of the company's gasket manufacturing process in order to determine whether any asbestos was actually released into the air when this sheet was cut. The results were negative. Additionally, not a single Monroe Rubber and Gasket employee, including Mr. Carter, who has worked around his company's products for decades, has acquired an asbestos-related disease.

In 2000, despite its decision to end the practice of using any products containing asbestos in its gasket manufacturing process nearly fourteen years earlier, Monroe Rubber and Gasket began to be named in lawsuits on behalf of individuals who worked at chemical plants and paper mills that used the company's gaskets in their own machinery. There are approximately 75 lawsuits currently pending against the company. In some cases, Monroe Rubber and Gasket is the only defendant. In others, Monroe Rubber and Gasket is simply one of dozens. I must point out that not one such lawsuit against Monroe Rubber and Gasket involves a current or former employee of the company. Needless to say, that reeks of irony.

Fighting these kinds of lawsuits is cost-prohibitive, especially for a small business that is at best a peripheral defendant. According to Mr. Carter, asbestos litigation costs his company more than $250,000 a year, and, if you can believe it, not one such claim against Monroe Rubber and Gasket has actually gone to trial. In addition to not including a case that has reached final disposition, this cost also fails to include the loss of productivity resulting from the thousands of hours spent on the litigation by Mr. Carter himself.

What is wrong with asbestos litigation? Take the case of Monroe Rubber and Gasket: The cost of litigation so far, $250,000 a year; the lawsuits filed against the company, 75; the workforce loss, 33 percent; the number of company employees who are sick throughout eternity has been zero; the number of company employees who have sued, zero. Yet this company is being torn apart by litigation that it should not have to face.

The impact of these considerable losses is felt not only by Mr. Carter and his fellow small business owners, but also by the employees. Moreover, Monroe Rubber and Gasket has been forced to cancel plans to open a new facility in Arkansas. The money that was going to be used to underwrite the expansion has gone instead to the lawyers. Some of them were not so voracious. They are defense lawyers who had to be retained under these circumstances.

For Mike Carter and the employees at Monroe Rubber and Gasket, the issue is simple--unless we choose to act, they will be out of work. At the moment, most of the costs of the litigation are covered by insurance, but it is uncertain how long that will last. In fact, the employees don't know who will go bankrupt first--the company or its insurance carrier. What they do know, however, is that if we fail to act, they will soon join thousands and thousands of other American workers who are out of work or who lost their pensions or their health plans because of the nightmare of asbestos litigation. This is not a fair and just result, and Congress should act to rectify the situation.

Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on our side?

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I have been listening to the arguments of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle.

I thank Senators Carper, Nelson, Miller, and Baucus, who indicated they will vote for this bill in the end if we can resolve some of the problems. These Senators in every sense have worked extraordinarily hard on this bill, especially Senator Miller.

I believe we can accommodate Senator Baucus so he can literally vote for this bill. I do not want to see people from Montana be mistreated. Frankly, I believe we can make the appropriate change. We have talked about what it will be. It is what he has told me he would accept. I think we can make that change. But that is what you do on the floor of the Senate.

Having said that about these colleagues who have worked so hard with us, including Senator Feinstein, who has worked with us on these matters, all of them are going to vote against cloture today, at least as far as I know.

Having said that, I was interested in the comments of the distinguished ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, that we have to get into reality here; reality the way the Senate is supposed to work, the way the legislative process works. After 15 months of meeting with everybody from one end of this country to the other, everybody in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and virtually everybody in the Senate, 15 months of intensive negotiations, where are we? In reality, they are filibustering even a motion to proceed which I think shows where this is all going. They are not filibustering the bill which would be next. They are filibustering the motion to even proceed to the bill. The reality is if we want to be legislators and we want to legislate, then we bring the bill up and we fight it out on the floor.

We have a filibuster here on the motion to proceed. We have had 15 months of negotiations. We have bent over backward to try to accommodate our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. There is virtually only one thing many of them want more of; that is, more money. That is after putting in the original $108 billion, which nobody thought we could get done; that almost everybody said if you get that we will go--virtually everybody involved, including the unions. We are now up to $114 billion, and it is still not enough. If that is not enough, then bring an amendment to the bill on the floor. Make it more, if you can.

The problem is I think they know the vast majority of Senators in this body know it is enough. They know it is probably too much and know what a burden it is going to be on these companies that are basically near bankruptcy to pay for this. But we have done that.

I heard the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee say we should be legislators. If the funds are enough, they would go. Bring amendments. Let us fight out. That is what we do. That is what this floor is for--not just filibustering a motion to proceed so we can't fight it out, so we can't have amendments. I think they should quit hiding behind outrageous figures everybody around here knows can't be done.

I believe my friend said one of the problems is solvency protection. How can you protect from insolvency, if these companies start going into bankruptcy? We have had 70 so far. We will have more loss of health benefits, loss of pensions, and loss of jobs.

By the way, on the award values, it is interesting to me that I am hearing it is not enough in award values to individual people and the individual categories, and yet the award values were approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee 14-3. Only two Democrats did not vote. All the other Democrats voted for the award values we have in this bill-- every one of them. The only three members on our side who didn't vote for the award values said they felt they were too high. The Democrats all agreed they were decent award values.

If we are going to be legislators, let us be legislators. Let us not hide behind a filibuster of a motion to proceed.

There have been a lot of comments by my friend on the other side about the fairness and adequacy of the claim values. He said they are low. What he failed to mention today in his remarks is the Feinstein bipartisan claims values amendment was adopted by the committee 14-3. It was a bipartisan vote. The only three who voted against it were Republicans who thought the claims values we had were too high. All of the votes from the other side of the aisle were 100 percent for the claims values.

I am not sure why my friend from Vermont is now saying the claims values we have adopted in a bipartisan fashion--he was there last July--are now too low. It is amazing to me. It is typical of what we have gone through for 15 months trying to work this out. I think they may figure as long as they can keep this going, there will be more and more demands on these few companies that are now stuck after the main companies that caused the problem are all bankrupt. These companies, such as Monroe, which I mentioned earlier, are stuck having to try to win but the defense costs alone would eat them alive and put them into bankruptcy.

We can talk about this forever. We can negotiate forever. But if it means more and more money, bring amendments to the floor. Maybe they will win on it. I don't know. All I can do is show how exorbitant they are under the circumstances.

We still have a hedge factor in this matter. If for some reason there are not enough funds at the end of this process to pay off claims--and we believe not only there will be, but there will be more than enough funds--then this will revert back to the tort system again.

Nobody will want that to happen. Nobody will let that happen. But even if it does, then these voracious claims lawyers, these personal injury lawyers--about 10 percent or even less of the American Association of Trial Lawyers--will be able to do the same things we have just mentioned they have been doing in this matter.

I think everybody is protected. There is no question about it.

Why are we not going to invoke cloture here and kill this bill? Why aren't we going to have amendments to make this bill more pure, if we can? Why don't we have amendments to increase the funding, if that is what they think should occur? The fact is they don't

want to do it because they know darned well if they did, they probably couldn't win on these outrageous claims. But if they did, then the Senate will have worked its will. That is what legislators do. They don't hide behind filibustering every bill. They do not have obstruction tactics on every bill. Around here, we have to get 60 votes for virtually any bill that means anything. That is pretty pathetic. Sooner or later, we are going to have to address that. That includes judges for the first time in history.

But this bill is important. I acknowledge cloture will not be invoked today. I have known that for a long time. The fact of the matter is at least everybody is going to know where everybody stands on this matter. Does that mean we are going to quit negotiating and quit trying to bring people together? No. We will. But if we don't get that down in another week, it seems to me this bill is going to be dead. If it is dead, then I pity those 8,400 companies plus all the insurance companies--about 16 of those--because they are all headed toward bankruptcy and this country is going to suffer a tremendous problem while the truly sick are not going to get compensated. The truly sick are not going to get compensated. We have seen the sleazy approach of at least one of the personal injury law firms toward manipulating the process so those who aren't getting sick get a recovery which they should never have gotten. That takes money away from those who are sick. Guess who the beneficiaries of this whole process are. These personal injury lawyers, some of whom are honest, but probably some who are not.

This chart shows it all. The word ``filibuster'' comes from the Spanish word ``filibustero,'' meaning pirating and hijacking. I shudder to think we will consign all of these people who have asbestos-related illnesses to oblivion and not do the best we can to help them when we have a system that is broken.

I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time and proceed to the vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 823, I call up the bill (H.R. 5107), to protect crime victims' rights, to eliminate the substantial backlog of DNA samples collected from crime scenes and convicted offenders, to improve and expand the DNA testing capacity of Federal, State, and local crime laboratories, to increase research and development of new DNA testing technologies, to develop new training programs regarding the collection and use of DNA evidence, to provide post-conviction testing of DNA evidence to exonerate the innocent, to improve the performance of counsel in State capital cases, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5107, the Justice for All Act of 2004. This bill is called ``justice for all'' because it will enhance the rights and protections of all persons who are involved in the criminal justice system.

It does this through two different but complimentary mechanisms. First, a new set of statutory victims' rights that are both enforceable in a court of law and supported by fully-funded victims-assistance programs; and, two, a comprehensive DNA bill that seeks to ensure that the true offender is caught and convicted of the crime.

Victims of crime have long complained that theirs are the forgotten voices in the criminal justice system. For example, Roberta Roper, whose daughter Stephanie was kidnapped, brutally raped, tortured and murdered in 1982, testified before the Subcommittee on the Constitution that, unlike her daughter's killers, she had no right to be informed, no rights to attend the trial and no rights to be heard before sentencing.

Her experience, and that of many others like her, have led victims' rights advocates to push for a victims' rights statute to counterbalance the rights provided to the accused under the Constitution.

The victims' rights portion of this bill originated with S. 2329, which passed the Senate on April 22, 2004, by a vote of 96 to 1. Like S. 2329, this bill contains eight enumerated rights for the victim, including the right to be reasonably protected from the accused, the right to timely notice of public court proceedings involving the crime, the right not to be excluded from such public court proceedings, the right to be reasonably heard at those proceedings, the reasonable right to confer with the prosecutor, the right to restitution, the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay and the right to be treated with fairness and respect.

Each of these rights is enforceable by both the prosecutor and the crime victim. The crime victim and the prosecutor may assert the crime victim's right and, if necessary, seek a stay of any proceedings in which the victim's rights are being denied. The government or the crime victim can then seek a writ of mandamus from the appropriate Court of Appeals to ensure that the crime victim's rights are protected.

In addition, the Justice for All Act contains important provisions to ensure that the criminal justice system will continue to operate in an efficient manner and that there will be an appropriate level of finality to all proceedings.

Finally, this legislation will provide funds for victims' assistance programs at both the Federal and State level. Of particular importance are funds to support programs that provide legal counsel for crime victims. These funds will help to develop a body of laws to protect the rights of victims in the Federal courts. The National Crime Victim Law Institute is but one example of an organization that provides the type of legal counsel envisioned by the bill.

The bill is not identical to the Senate-passed bill, but it is close. Since Senate passage, the committee has worked with many interested parties on these issues. That process resulted in H.R. 5107 which, as introduced, addressed many of the concerns raised by S. 2329. However, at the Committee on the Judiciary's markup, I stated that we will continue to work on this bill until we have the best bill possible. After several more weeks of negotiations, I believe that the manager's amendment, which I will offer in a bit, moves even further in the right direction and now represents that best possible bill.

The second important element of the Justice for All Act contained in titles II through IV pertains to the use of DNA technology. These provisions come from H.R. 3214 which passed the House by a vote of 357 to 67 on November 5, 2003, but continues to await action in the Senate. The DNA portion of the Justice for All Act as introduced was identical to the version of H.R. 3214 passed by the House last November.

Titles II through IV of the Justice for All Act seek to resolve another problem that victims face, the frustration and depression over the length of time it takes to track down and apprehend the attacker. DNA samples can help to quickly apprehend offenders and solve crimes if law enforcement agencies have access to the most up-to-date testing capabilities. Additionally, DNA technology is increasingly vital to ensuring accuracy and fairness in the criminal justice system. DNA can identify criminals with incredible accuracy when biological evidence exists, and DNA can be used to clear suspects and exonerate persons mistakenly accused or convicted of crimes.

The current Federal and State DNA collection and analysis system needs improvement. The Justice for All Act will provide the necessary funding to ensure these critical programs have access to the necessary equipment and training. It will provide funds to eliminate the backlog of DNA samples in need of testing and provide greater access to potentially exculpatory evidence to those who may have been wrongfully convicted of a crime.

However, as we did with the victims' rights portion of the bill, we have continued to work with all parties to address concerns relating to the DNA testing portions of the bill. Those changes, which are reflected in the manager's amendment, greatly improve the bill, and I will describe them in greater detail when the amendment comes up.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill has been the process of lengthy negotiations among many different parties. Most of the parties have worked to get this result, and I think they now believe that this is a good product. Unfortunately, however, the Department of Justice was unable to come to this conclusion. I, and the other cosponsors of this legislation, bent over backwards to satisfy their concerns. No matter how much we bent, nothing would satisfy them. As chairman of the committee with the authorizing jurisdiction over the department, I am very disappointed with its position on this bill. This bill contains many, many good things for the department, and its absolute obstinence despite many, many efforts to compromise is completely unreasonable.

This reminds me of the debate over the breakup of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 2002, a clearly dysfunctional agency that needed reform. Out of blind bureaucratic inertia, the department opposed that much-needed legislation until the very last moment. In short, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the department will come to its senses, throw off its blinders and endorse this good and important legislation.

I would finally like to thank those who did cooperate in this process. The chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) has been a tireless advocate for victims' rights, as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Ranking

Member Conyers), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and all of the other important cosponsors for this important bill.

In addition, I want to thank my own staff, Katy Crooks, and general counsel, Philip Kiko, Jay Apperson, and Stewart Jeffries, as well as staffers of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), Mark Agrast and Christine Leonard. This would not have happened without their tireless work. I urge my colleagues to support this very good bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the original author of the Innocents Protection Act, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the issue raised by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) was one of the most vexatious issues in the negotiations that are leading up to the manager's amendment, which I will offer shortly. And the most difficult of the issues that the manager's amendment deals with relates to the time limit for seeking post-conviction DNA testing.

On one side there were a group of people who wanted to have no time limit at all, and a motion could be made at any time as long as the defendant was still alive and in jail. On the other side, there were people who wanted to have a hard and fast limit, and the shorter the limitation possible they were in favor of. Those people said that defendants would simply game the system waiting until the witnesses had died and the DNA had evaporated and, consequently, there would not be enough evidence to conduct a retrial.

The compromise that was worked out, I think, is a fair one. For the first 5 years after conviction, there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of the test. After 5 years, there is a rebuttable presumption against the test, but the defendant can get a motion granted if the court finds that the applicant was incompetent at trial, there is newly discovered DNA evidence, or that denial of the motion to retest would result in manifest injustice or for good cause shown.

So, for the first 5 years, the burden is on the prosecution to show that the test should not be granted. After 5 years, the burden effectively is on the defendant to show that the test should be granted for the reasons that I have enumerated.

I believe that takes care of the concerns that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) has expressed, and I would

urge adoption of the manager's amendment and overwhelming support of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the National District Attorneys Association expressing support for the manager's amendment to H.R. 5107 be included in the Record.

National District Attorneys

Association,

Alexandria, VA, October 6, 2004.

Hon. Jim Sensenbrenner,

Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Conyers Jr.,

Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner and Congressman Conyers: As

President of the National District Attorneys Association I

want to express my support for the Managers Amendment that I

understand has been offered to H.R. 5107 the ``Justice For

All Act.''

The Amendment has addressed our major concerns with the

``Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act.'' The clear

indication that Capital Resource Centers are not to be funded

through federal funds is important as is the stipulation that

the funding is to be used for training counsel in capital

cases.

While the compromise standard for new trials does not reach

our criteria of a ``preponderance'' it is a marked

improvement over prior efforts.

The importance of DNA to our system of criminal justice

cannot be over emphasized and the problems that our

laboratories and courts are encountering are in our daily

headlines. ``The Justice For All Act'' provides the resources

desperately needed by the states to overcome serious

impediments to the effective use of DNA to seek justice and

truth in our criminal justice system.

Sincerely,

Paul F. Walsh Jr.,

District Attorney, Bristol County, MA,

President, National District Attorneys Association.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, on September 22, 2004, the Committee on the Judiciary met and considered this combined Victim Rights-DNA bill. It was reported voted favorably, without amendment, on a voice vote. At the time, I assured my colleagues who raised concerns about the legislation that we would work with them as well as the Department of Justice to address the concerns. I believe this amendment represents a positive compromise in our efforts to address those concerns while protecting victims and ensuring DNA testing will be available to exonerate the innocent and to identify the guilty.

In the victims' rights portion of the legislation, we worked out a number of provisions with the authors of that part of the bill and the victims' rights groups to address issues raised by the Department of Justice, the courts, and outside groups. The result was a compromise that I believe effectively addresses the needs of victims of crime to be more involved in the criminal justice process but will not result in delaying court proceedings nor infringing on the right of a defendant to a speedy trial.

To address privacy concerns raised about DNA databases, my amendment includes increased penalties for misuse of DNA analyses from $100,000 to $250,000, and the possibility of a year in prison to discourage any person who would seek to misuse DNA for personal gain.

The amendment also requires a report to Congress if the Justice Department plans to modify or supplement the core generic markers needed for compatibility with the national DNA database. This is essential to reassure those who raise civil liberty concerns that DNA samples entered into the combined database would not be used for inappropriate purposes.

The legislation authorizes a substantial amount of money to provide grants to States to eliminate their DNA backlogs. Some have raised the concern that there may be some States that do not have a substantial backlog and, thus, would not receive funds. To ensure that the States are effectively using their resources, the amendment allows a State that has no DNA backlog to apply for grants for other forensic sciences.

With regard to the provision relating to the post-conviction DNA testing, the amendment offers a compromise, as I have previously stated, between those who wish to have no time limit on the ability of convicted persons seeking DNA testing and those who insist on a limitation of time, lest convicted persons game the system by waiting until the witnesses have died or waiting until the evidence has evaporated, thus effectively preventing a retrial.

The compromise provides for a 5-year period in which there would be a rebuttable presumption in favor of granting the DNA test. After 5 years, there is a presumption against granting a test unless the court finds that the applicant was incompetent, there is newly discovered DNA evidence, denial would result in a manifest injustice, or for other good cause shown. The amendment also includes tighter language to ensure that defendants cannot make repetitive motions for relief.

Because some of my colleagues in the Department of Justice raised concern about the standard for granting a new trial, the amendment increases the standard for obtaining a new trial to require that there be compelling evidence that a new trial would result in an acquittal. This represents a compromise from the preponderance of evidence and clear and convincing evidence.

With respect to funding prosecution and defense representation in capital cases, the original bill and this amendment do not allow funds to be used directly or indirectly to fund representation in specific capital cases. Additionally, report language on the DNA provision prohibits the creation of capital resource centers.

This amendment tightens the provisions relating to the training and appointment of capital counsel. The amendment specifies that no less than 75 percent of the funds shall be used to carry out training for representation and the creation of an effective system at the trial court level. No more than 25 percent of the funds shall be used to carry out training and systems for appellate representation.

The amendment also reduces the authorization of grants to States to provide training to defense attorneys and prosecutors, and to establish a system of appointment of counsel in capital cases.

Finally, the amendment provides for notification 180 days before the destruction of biological evidence, and provides that the time period will not begin to run until any direct appeal of the conviction was complete. This will ensure that the evidence in the case is preserved to benefit both the defendant and the government if the conviction is reversed.

I believe this amendment represents a good compromise package which will help ensure justice for all. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I see my good friend, the Senator from Arizona, in the Chamber. I know the distinguished Senator from California will be joining us shortly. What is the time allocation? I know the distinguished Senator from Arizona wants to make sure we all have time, but I was just curious where we are.

I do not anticipate using all my time by any means. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Arizona who had indicated earlier that he fit us in because of conflicting schedules that the Senator from California and I have. Before I even begin, I want to again thank the distinguished Senators from Arizona and California for all they have done on this issue.

This past Sunday, as we all know, marked the start of National Crime Victims' Rights Week. We set this week aside each year to refocus attention on the needs and rights of crime victims. One would almost think we would not have to do that, but as a matter of fact, too often, the needs of victims are not met, and their rights are not fully honored. I learned this during my time as a prosecutor. I think all of us have learned this, from the experiences and some terribly gripping stories that we have heard from our constituents.

This year, the Senate had been scheduled to mark the occasion of National Crime Victims' Rights Week by taking up S.J. Res. 1, a proposed constitutional amendment. It was going to end up being days, maybe weeks, of debate even though everyone knew that the constitutional amendment was not going to pass. We went through this process back in April of the year 2000, during the last Presidential election year.

I said then, during that earlier debate on the constitutional amendment, that I have worked long and hard to protect and advance crime victims' rights, as have many on both sides of the aisle in this body. As a prosecutor for 8\1/2\ years, I worked day to day, year to year alongside victims, seeking justice on their behalf. This was back at a time before people spoke much about victims having rights. I like to think that my office was a model in this regard, for making sure that victims were heard.

I have worked on and have led many legislative efforts on behalf of victims throughout my service in the Senate. One of the most recent of those efforts was the creation of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund. I am grateful to have been able to take part in something that has brought some relief to so many victims.

But I will never forget the victims I worked with as a prosecutor or the needs of the new victims minted each day through the crimes committed against them.

For years, at Christmas time, I received a very poignant letter from a woman who was the victim of a very serious crime. She told me how she was doing, how her children were doing.

When I go to the grocery store in Vermont, or I'm walking down the street, I run into people who were helped during those years and who had a voice during those years. It is gratifying, but I have to think about the fact that every single day, there are a whole lot more crimes, and a whole lot more victims.

I have always believed that victims should be afforded certain basic protections. I believe victims should be notified when the defendant is in court or when he is about to be released. I believe victims should be heard at critical stages of the prosecution. I believe victims are entitled to restitution from offenders.

In recent years, the debate has never been about whether victims should be protected. Of course they should. Rather, the debate has been about how victims should be protected.

I did not think the proposed constitutional amendment was the best way forward. I still believe that. We all agree, and every witness who testified before the Judiciary Committee on this issue agreed, that every right provided by the victims' rights amendment can be, or already is, protected by State or Federal statutory law.

So we have long had the power to enhance victims' rights through regular legislation, passed with a simple majority vote, and make an immediate difference in the lives of crime victims. Legislative enhancements are more easily enacted, more directly applied and implemented, and more able to provide specific, effective remedies. In addition, as Chief Justice Rehnquist and others have pointed out, statutes are more easily corrected if we find, in hindsight, that they need correction, clarification, or improvement.

When we pass the Kyl-Feinstein-Hatch-Leahy Victims' Rights Act, we will take a step that I have long advocated. So I thank and commend the principal sponsors of S.J. Res. 1, the distinguished Senators from California and Arizona. We came from both sides on the constitutional debate, but all of us are deeply committed to the cause of victims' rights, and that is why we came together on this legislation.

This legislation will provide crime victims in the Federal system with all the rights and protections that the proposed constitutional amendment would have provided. In fact, our statute goes further than the constitutional amendment because it gives the same rights and protections to all crime victims, not just to the victims of violent crimes. The elderly woman who is defrauded out of her life savings will get the same protection from this statute as other crime victims.

This statute, S. 2329, also spells out how victims' rights are to be enforced, using language that Senator Kennedy and I developed in S. 805, the Crime Victims Assistance Act. In addition to providing victims with standing to assert their rights in mandamus actions, S. 2329 will establish an administrative authority in the Department of Justice to receive and investigate victims' claims of unlawful or inappropriate action on the part of criminal justice and victims' service providers. Department of Justice employees who fail to comply with the law pertaining to the treatment of crime victims could face disciplinary sanctions, including suspension or termination of employment.

We have incorporated other proposals from S. 805 as well, to help States implement and enforce their own victims' rights laws. And we have called for two annual reports, one by the Administrative Office of the Courts, and the other by the General Accounting Office, to make sure we get some feedback on how the rights and procedures established by the statute are working in practice. Over time, we will be able to modify and fine-tune the statute so that it provides an appropriate degree of protection for the rights of crime victims.

I have no doubt we are going to pass this law today. I believe the other body will pass the law, and the President will sign it. Then part of our duty is going to have to be to follow up to see how it works.

I said to some of the representatives of victims' groups this morning, keep our feet to the fire. Make sure we follow up. Passage of this bill will necessitate careful oversight of its implementation by Congress. If, as I hope, federal judges and prosecutors take victims' rights seriously, there should be little need for victims to bring mandamus actions to enforce their rights. But if, for whatever reason, victims feel that they are not being treated fairly, we may see a wave of new litigation in the federal courts, with victims and their lawyers having to insert themselves into criminal cases. We will need to monitor the situation closely.

I am committed to giving victims real and enforceable rights. But I am convinced that prosecutors should be capable of protecting those rights, once we make them clear. In my experience, prosecutors have victims' interests at heart.

Senator Kennedy and I proposed in the Crime Victims Assistance Act a limited-standing provision, which applied with respect to the victim's right to attend and observe the trial, and under which a victim could assert her right if the prosecutor refused to do so. Passing such a provision would have allowed us to observe over a period of time whether direct participation of victims in criminal proceedings has any unanticipated consequences for the administration of justice.

This Victims' Rights Act proposes a bolder experiment, entitling victims to assert a panoply of rights, regardless of whether the prosecution is already asserting the same rights on their behalf. For example, at the insistence of other sponsors, this bill will enable victims to bring mandamus actions alleging the denial of their statutory right ``to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy,'' which may be difficult claims to adjudicate.

I note with some regret that S. 2329 picks up language from S.J. Res. 1 denying victims any cause of action for damages in the event that their rights are violated. Allowing victims to vindicate their rights through separate proceedings for damages instead of through mandamus actions in the criminal case could well be a more efficient as well as a more effective way of ensuring that victims' rights are honored. Certainly the prospect of being held to account in such proceedings would provide a powerful incentive to take victims' rights seriously. But the

Republican sponsors of the bill did not want to provide for damages.

Similarly, some Republican Senators did not want to allow courts to appoint attorneys to help crime victims. It is my hope and belief that victims will seldom need representation, since they already have powerful advocates in our public prosecutors. Still, it is possible that a judge would want to appoint an attorney for a victim in an extraordinary case, as for example if there is a material conflict between the victim's interests and the interests of the prosecution. By failing to provide for this possibility, S. 2329 may perpetuate a system of unequal justice for victims, where the wealthy have the benefit of counsel, and the poor do not.

There are other provisions that were also, regrettably, left on the cutting-room floor during negotiations on this bill. First, we dropped a provision that was in the proposed constitutional amendment, which would have given victims certain rights in the context of clemency proceedings. I know Attorney General Ashcroft, when he was a Member of the Senate, felt strongly that victims should have a voice in these proceedings. I would welcome the chance to work with him, to have him provide for that within the Federal system, to do in the Federal system what he wanted to do while a member of this body.

A second provision that I would have liked to include in the bill would have authorized funding for a broad range of compliance authorities to help enforce the rights of crime victims in the state systems. Senator Kennedy and I proposed such a program in the Crime Victims Assistance Act, but I was unable to persuade my colleagues to include it in this bill.

There are a variety of remedies for violations of rights that are operating at the State level, all of which have strengths and weaknesses. Some States use more than one approach. Arizona has a non- statutory ombudsman staff position in the Attorney General's office, to receive and investigate victim complaints; a victims' legal assistance project run by a non-profit and the Arizona State University College of Law, and a system of auditing those who receive grants to implement victims' rights. Wisconsin uses a State employee to receive and attempt to resolve victim complaints, as well as a victims' rights board that can formally receive complaints and seek sanctions for violations. Alaska has a State Office of Victims' Rights. South Carolina has an independent victim ombudsman. Connecticut has a State Victim Advocate. Vermont is exploring various options. We do have a Center for Crime Victims Services, which advocates informally for victims and is one of the premier victims' services sites in the country.

Finally, I want to comment on the unusual genesis of this bill, and the extraordinary procedure that has brought us so swiftly to a vote in the Senate. As I mentioned earlier, the Senate was scheduled to begin work this week on the proposed constitutional amendment, S.J. Res. 1. On Wednesday, the Republican leadership moved to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. I would not have opposed this motion. I voted to proceed to an earlier iteration of this constitutional amendment four years ago, and I would have been prepared to proceed to it again this week. Even given the time this would have taken and the expected outcome, I would not have opposed a debate on the constitutional amendment.

It was under these circumstances that we had so little opportunity to work on crafting the crime victims' statute. I would have liked to have gotten the views of the Office for Victims of Crime and other components of the Department of Justice, for example. Many victims' groups and domestic violence organizations opposed the constitutional amendment, as did many law professors, judges, and prosecutors. I would have liked to hear their views on this statute. I am personally concerned that the statute may not adequately address the special problems raised in domestic violence and abuse situations. If it does not, then we may need to amend it again.

Given the Republican leadership's insistence on proceeding to the constitutional amendment today, there was not as much time as I would have liked to develop the statutory alternative that we vote on today, and no time to hold hearings on it or improve the bill in Committee. Fortunately, however, this is to be a statute, not a constitutional amendment, and it can be modified and improved. We will be able to make it better as we go along.

I commend my good friend, Senator Feinstein, for mediating this consensus legislation. I know that she would have preferred to pass a constitutional amendment. She has made that clear. Nevertheless, she worked hard to produce a bill that we all can support, showing once again that she is first and foremost a legislator who wants to get things done. Due in large part to Senator Feinstein's efforts, we now have an opportunity to advance the cause of victims' rights with strong, practical, bipartisan legislation. I have never doubted Senator Feinstein or Senator Kyl's commitment to victims' rights. I am delighted that we have come together to advance that common cause.

My friend and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, is another lead sponsor of this legislation. He and I have worked together on the Judiciary Committee in this area. He has been a tireless advocate for the rights of crime victims, and more generally for fairness in the administration of justice.

I want to thank David Hantman and Steve Cash of Senator Feinstein's staff; Bruce Artim and Grace Becker of Senator Hatch's staff; Steven Higgins of Senator Kyl's staff; Robin Toone of Senator Kennedy's staff; Bob Schiff and Alex Busansky of Senator Feingold's staff; Neil MacBride and Louisa Terrell of Senator Biden's staff; Chris Kang of Senator Durbin's staff; Mark Childress and Jennifer Duck of Senator Daschle's staff; and, most especially the members of my own staff for their hard work on this bill over the last several days under extraordinary circumstances and pressures.

I also want to commend and thank the many victims' advocates and service providers in Vermont and across the country who show their dedication every day of the year to crime victims. I want to thank those who work in the area of domestic violence and abuse in particular. I am thankful for their dedication and grateful for their advice and insights over the years.

For more than 20 years I have sponsored and championed legislation to help victims. I have mentioned the recent September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, and I am also proud of such other advancements on behalf of victims as a law to provide assistance to victims of international terrorism, and bills to raise the cap on victims' assistance and compensation programs and to protect the rights of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing. Today's vote provides us the opportunity to make progress on yet another important measure to address the needs of victims.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the National Center for Victims of Crime stating strong support for S. 2329 be printed in the Record as well as, for the sake of completeness, a number of editorials that appeared on this subject recently.

Madam President, I do not see others seeking time so I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.