SO WHY I FIND THIS AMENDMENT SO TROUBLING?
           MORE E. MORE TROUBLING THAN ANY OTHER BILL WE HAVE DEBATED?
           BECAUSE, MR. PRESIDENT, I REVERE THE CONSTITUTION. I CONSIDER
           AMERICA, TO THIS DAY, THE NOBLE EXPERIMENT THE FOUNDING FATHERS
           CALLED IT WHEN THEY HAD WRITTEN THE CONSTITUTION. I BELIEVE THE
           CONSTITUTION IS A SACRED GOVERNMENT. THE MORE I AM IN

           GOVERNMENT, THE MORE I ALMOST TREMBLE BESIDE THE WISDOM OF THE
           FOUNDING FATHERS. A TRUE -- SOMEONE CALLED IT THE GREATEST
           GROUP OF GENIUSES -- THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHER INDIVIDUAL
           GENIUSES GREATER THAN ANY OF THE SINGLE MEN WHO WROTE THE
           CONSTITUTION -- BUT THEIR COLLECTIVE GENIUS WAS THE GREATEST
           GROUP ASSEMBLAGE OF GENIUS THAT THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN, THIS
           PERSON WROTE. AND I TEND TO SHARE THAT. AND SO AMENDING THE

           DOCUMENT THEY PUT TOGETHER IS SOMETHING OF AWESOME
           RESPONSIBILITY. IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULDN'T BE TAKEN LIGHTLY.
           IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH THE UTMOST CARE AND FORE
           THOUGHT. AND ONE SHOULD ONLY DEBATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS,
           IN MY JUDGMENT. WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO GO. YOU DON'T
           MESS WITH THE CONSTITUTION. YOU DON'T TAMPER WITH THE
           CONSTITUTION. AND YET HERE WE ARE TODAY, DEBATING A VIC STILL'S

           BILL OF RIGHTS -- A VICTIM'S BILL OF RIGHTS, A CONSTITUTIONAL
           AMENDMENT ON VICTIM'S RIGHTS, WHEN NOT A SINGLE STATE SUPREME
           COURT AND CERTAINLY NOT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS
           DECLARED ANY VICTIM'S RIGHTS STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AGAIN, I
           WANT TO REPEAT IS THAT AMAZING FACT FOR MY COLLEAGUES. WE ARE
           HERE DEBATING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WHICH THE IN OTHER 19

           AMENDMENTS AND OF COURSE THE TEN BILL OF RIGHTS AMENDMENTS
           BEING DIFFERENT R. RENT, FOR THE FIRST TIME WE ARE DEBATING AN
           AMENDMENT WHERE NOT A SINGLE STATE SUPREME COURT AND NOT THE
           UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS RULED ANY PART OF VICTIM'S
           RIGHTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WHAT IS CALLED FOR HERE IS A STATUTE.

           I WOULD SUPPORT THE STATUTE MAKING A STATUTE A LAW ALMOST THE
           EXACT AMENDMENT -- PERHAPS EVEN THE EXACT AMENDMENT -- THAT THE
           SENATOR FROM ARIZONA AND THE SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA ARE
           PROFFERING. BUT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT; WHY?
           WHY?
           WHY AMEND THE CONSTITUTION WHEN NO LAW HAS BEEN DECLARED
           UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
           MY COLLEAGUES, WE HAVE NEVER DONE THAT IN THE OVER 200-YEAR

           HISTORY OF THIS REPUBLIC. WE HAVE NEVER TAKEN SOMETHING WE
           BELIEVE IN AND SAID LET'S IMMEDIATELY MAKE IT A CONSTITUTIONAL
           AMENDMENT. WE HAVE DEBATED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS HERE
           BECAUSE STATUTES WERE THROWN OUT. WE JUST DID IT ON THE FLAG
           BURNING AMENDMENT. PEOPLE BELIEVE STRONGLY THE FLAG SHOULDN'T
           BE BURNED. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT SAID IT WAS UNDER
           THE A GIST, THE PE NUMB BRA OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. SO WE DID

           OUR DUTY ON THIS FLOOR AND DEBATED WHETHER WE SHOULD AMEND THE
           BILL OF RIGHTS, FIRST TIME WE WOULD EVER DO IT. TO SAY THAT
           FLAG BURNING WAS PROHIBITED. IT WAS WHAT THE FOUNDING TO THERS
           THOUGHT THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS SHOULD BE. IT WAS AN
           AMENDMENT THAT HAD BEEN THOUGHT ABOUT. IT IT WAS AN AMENDMENT
           THAT HAD BEEN DEBATED. IT WAS AN AMENDMENT THAT WENT TO THE

           CORE OF GREAT CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES. MY GUESS IS, IF A
           WASHINGTON OR A JEFFERSON OR MADISON WERE LOOKING ON THE FLOOR
           DURING THAT DEBATE, THEY WOULD SMILE. THEY WOULD SAY THAT'S THE
           SENATE THAT THEY HOPED TO HAVE HAVE. MY COLLEAGUES, IF A
           WASHINGTON OR A JEFFERSON OR A MADISON WERE LOOKING ON THE
           FLOOR AS WE DEBATE THIS, I BELIEVE THEY WOULD RECOIL. NOT
           BECAUSE OF THE ISSUE OF VI TIM'S RIGHTS, BUT BECAUSE OF PASS --
           PASSING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ONLY THE 20TH SINCE THE BILL

           OF RIGHTS WHEN KNOW LAW HAD BEEN DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
           WHEN NO ASPECT OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF NEEDED TO BE
           CLARIFIED. SO I WOULD ASK MY COLLEAGUES AND I WILL ASK THEM
           WHEN THEY ARE HERE BECAUSE THIS DEBATE WILL GO ON FOR SOME TIME
           AS IT SHOULD, WHY NOT A STATUTE?
           I'VE HEARD MY COLLEAGUE FROM CALIFORNIA SAY BECAUSE WE HAVE TO
           SHOW HOW IMPORTANT VICTIM RIGHTS ARE. IN ALL DUE RESPECT, WE
           CAN SHOW THAT IMPORTANCE WITH A STATUTE. I BELIEVE IN THE

           RIGHTS OF WORKING PEOPLE. I HAVE WORKED FOR LAWS LIKE MINIMUM
           WAGE AND PROTECTING THE RIGHT IN THE WORKPLACE. I WOULD NOT PUT
           ON -- IN THE CONSTITUTION WE MUST PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF WORKING
           PEOPLE UNLESS OF COURSE THERE WERE A SERIES OF STATUTES ABOUT
           WORKING PEOPLE THAT HAD BEEN THROWN OUT BY THE COURTS. EVEN IN
           THE EARLY 100'S WHEN THE WAGES LAWS AND CHILD LABOR LAWS WERE
           THROWN OUT AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WE DIDN'T AMEND THE

           CONSTITUTION. WHEN THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN REASON TO. BUT HERE?
           NOW?
           AS THE LAWYERS SAY, NO STERE DICES. NO FINAL OPINION?
           IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. IF WE WERE TO MASS THIS AMENDMENT, WE
           WOULD CHANGES FUNDAMENTALLY CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY, THE WAY THE
           LOGS OF THIS COUNTRY ARE MADE. BECAUSE WE WOULD SAY THE NEW
           CONSTITUTION IS OPEN TO THINGS WE BELIEVE IN AND FEEL STRONGLY

           ABOUT EVEN WHERE A STATUTE MIGHT HAVE SOLVED THE PROBLEM. MY
           COLLEAGUE FROM CALIFORNIA, AND I REGRET SHE IS NOT HERE, WE HAD
           THIS CONVERSATION AFTER OUR CAUCUS, SAID TO ME, WELL, THERE
           HAVE BEEN TWO FEDERAL COURTS THAT IGNORED VICTIMS RIGHTS.
           REASON THOUGH WE PASSED STATUTES. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS?
           THAT MEANS THE STATUTE WAS POORLY DRAFTED. A JUDGE CANNOT
           IGNORE STATUTORY LAW. AND I ASKED HER WHY WOUBITD THAT BE
           APPEALED?
           IF IT WAS WHOLE-DRAFTED?

           IT WASN'T APPEALED. TO RUSH TO A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT?
           I WOULD SAY TO MY COLLEAGUES THAT THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN BELOW
           THE RADAR SCREEN, IT HAS CREPT UP STEGTLY UPON US. IT HASN'T
           GOTTEN THE AIRING AND DEBATE IT NEEDS AND ALREADY WE ARE
           RUSHING TO JUDGMENT TO PASS HAS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. AGAIN
           IT WAS SAID THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS STILL BEING
           NEGOTIATED BY ONE OF THE CHIEFS RESPONSIBLE SOURCE. WHAT IS
           THIS?

           WE ARE NEGOTIATING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AT THE SAME TIME
           WE ARE DEBATING IT, SOMETHING THAT IF IT BECOMES PART OF THE
           CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE CHANGED WITHOUT HUGE MOVEMENT?
           YOU DON'T DO THAT. THE CONSTITUTION IS A SACRED DOCUMENT. THE
           GREATEST GROUP OF PRACTICAL JEAN IOUSS IN THE WORLD PUT IT
           TOGETHER. IT IS NOT SOMETHING WILL LIR NILLY THAT IF SOMEBODY

           FEELS STRONGLY ABOUT IT AND HAS THE ENERGY AND PASSION  THAT WE
           THEN JUST GO AHEAD AND AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. THIS IS A DID I
           SPIRITING DAY IN A CERTAIN WAY. -- DISPIRITING DAY IN A CERTAIN
           WAY, IN MY JUDGMENT BECAUSE WE ARE DEBATING WHETHER TO TAKE AT
           THAT GREAT CONTAMINANT DOCUMENT, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
           STATES, AND CHEAPEN IT. CHEAPEN IT BY SAYING WHEN WE FEEL

           PASSIONATELY ABOUT SOMETHING, WE SKIP THE STATUTORY PROCESS, WE
           SKIP THE JEW ZIGS PROCESS AND WE GO RIGHT TO AMENDING THE
           CONSTITUTION. I AM NOT DEBATING THE MERITS OF THE PROVISIONS. I
           BELIEVE, AS I SAID, IN ALMOST EVERY ONE. BUT WE ARE ONE OF
           THESE COULD BE ESTABLISHED BY STATUTE. BUT -- BY LAW. AND THEN
           IF WE FOUND OUT ONE WAS POORLY DRAFTED, WE COULD WHICH CAN IT.
           AND THEN IF WE FOUND OUT THERE WAS SOMETHING PEOPLE DIDN'T TAKE

           INTO ACCOUNT -- THAT HAPPENS WHAT WE WRITE LAWS -- WE CAN
           CHANGE IT. NOT SO WITH A AND COULD INSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. AND
           MY COLLEAGUES, IF YOU LOOK THEY AMENDMENT THAT'S BEEN DRAFTED,
           IT IS LONGER THAN THE ENTIRE BILL OF RIGHTS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE
           LANGUAGE -- IT IS NOT THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
           UNITED STATES WHICH TALKS ABOUT GREAT CONCEPTS. VICTIM'S RIGHTS

           IS A FINE CONCEPT. BUT THE LANGUAGE WHICH I HAVE HERE IS THE
           LANGUAGE OF A STATUTE. AGAIN, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED AN ANSWER, A
           GOOD ANSWER FROM MY COLLEAGUE FROM ARIZONA AND MY COLLEAGUE
           FROM CALIFORNIA, WHY NOT A STATUES -- STATUTE. YOU CAN PASS IT
           MORE QUICKLY AND EASILY. IT FITS THE AMENDMENT. IT FITS WHA ARE
           TRYING TO DO. NO COURT HAS -- NO SUPREME COURT, NO FINAL
           AUTHORITY HAS THROWN IT OUT. AND TO SAY THERE WERE TWO FEDERAL

           CASES WHERE THE JUDGE IGNORED A STATUTE AND WE IMMEDIATELY GO
           TO A LOWER COURT JUDGE AND WE NEED IMMEDIATELY GO TO AT THAT
           CONDITION INSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, AGAIN, CHEAPENS THE
           CONSTITUTION. I INTEND TO DEBATE THIS AMENDMENT AT SOME LENGTH.
           I KNOW SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES DO, BECAUSE AS I SAID, THIS HAS
           NOT GOTTEN AIRING. IN FACT, A MONTH AGO IF YOU TALKED TO MOST
           PEOPLE THEY WOULD SHRUG THEIR SHOLETE DERS AND SAY DON'T WORRY.

           IT IS HERE. IT IS BEING DEBATED. WE ARE ON THE PRECIPICE OF
           CHANGING WHAT AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS GREAT
           COUNTRY MEANS. WE NOT NOT DO IT LIGHTLY. WE OUGHT NOT DO IT
           SIMPLY BECAUSE WE FEEL A NEED, AS I DO DO, TO SAY THAT VICTIMS
           HAVE RIGHTS IN THE COURTROOM. WE OUGHT TO DO IT BECAUSE THERE
           IS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE, AND HERE IT IS -- HERE THERE IS IS. WE

           OUGHT TO DO IT BECAUSE THE JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS
           HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED AND THE CONSTITUTION HASN'T ANTICIPATED A
           NEW CHANGE, THIS CLEARLY IS NOT THAT CASE. WE OUGHT TO DO IT
           BECAUSE THIS ISSUE HAS REACHED ITS FULSOMENESS. MY COLLEAGUES,
           I BELIEVE IF WE WERE TO PASS THIS -- THIS BODY WERE TO PASS
           THIS AMENDMENT, WE WOULD REGRET IT. SHORTLY THEREAFTER. WE

           WOULD EXPERIENCE AS WE NEVER HAVE DEBATE ABOUT WHAT SPECIFIC
           LITTLE CLAUSES IN THE CONSTITUTION MEAN -- NOT THE
           INTERPRETATION OF WHAT IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH -- BUT HOW DO YOU
           DEFINE A VICTIM?
           HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH CERTAIN PHRASES AND CLAUSES?
           IT IS A TROUBLING DAY, MR. PRESIDENT. IT IS A TROUBLING DAY

           BECAUSE ALMOST WITHOUT DEBATE, ALMOST WITHOUT NATIONAL FOCUS,
           WE ARE THINKING OF CHANGING WHAT AN AMENDMENT TO THE
           CONSTITUTION MEANS. IT IS NOT SIMPLY SUPPOSED TO MAKE US FEEL
           GOOD. IT IS NOT SIMPLY TO MAKE A POLITICAL STATEMENT TO THE
           PEOPLE BACK HOME. IT IS TO FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE RIGHTS,
           PRIVILEGES AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CITIZENRY.

           AGAIN, TO MY COLLEAGUES, WHY CAN'T WE TRY TO PASS THIS VERY
           SAME LANGUAGE AS A STATUTE?
           I AM GOING TO INTRODUCE THAT AS AN AMENDMENT IF WE ARE ALLOWED
           TO. THE VERY EXACT LANGUAGE THEY HAVE BUT MAKE IT A STATUTE. I
           HAVE NOT HEARD A GOOD ARGUMENT. AND UNTIL I DO, I WOULD URGE
           EVERY ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES, DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN ALIKE TO

           REFRAIN FROM THE UNDERSTANDABLE TEA SIRE TO DO SOMETHING
           QUICKLY AND -- DESIRE TO DO SOMETHING QUICKLY, AND INSTEAD, DO
           SOMETHING CORRECTLY. MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD RESERVE THE BALANCE
           OF THE HOUR THAT HAS BEEN SEDE -- CREEDED TO ME TO DEBATE THIS

           AMENDMENT. MR. DURBIN: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.
           

           MR. DURBIN: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PROCEDURE AT THIS MOMENT. I
           AM SEEKING RECOGNITION. I DON'T KNOW IF I DO IT THROUGH THE THE
           SENATOR FROM NEW YORK OR FROM THE CHAIR.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: YOU MAY SEEK ONE HOUR YOURSELF THROUGH
           THE CHAIR.
           

           MR. DURBIN: I ASK TO ADDRESS SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NUMBER 3.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR IS RECOGNIZED.
           

           MR. DURBIN: I COMMEND MY
{END: 2000/04/25 TIME: 16-00 , Tue.  106TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}