SOME SAY, WELL, THAT'S STRETCH. WE JUST MEANING THE PERSON WHO
           WAS ACTUALLY ASAULTED. WELL, LET'S TRY THIS FROM A DIFFERENT
           ANGLE. LET'S ASSUME THAT SOMEONE IS A VICTIM OF A CRIME AND IS
           MURDERED. IS THAT THE ONLY VICTIM OF THE CRIME?
           IS THE SPOUSE OF THE MURDERED VICTIM ALSO A VICTIM?
           I COULD CERTAINLY ARGUE THAT. AND I COULD ARGUE THAT A LOT OF
           OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY COULD BE VICTIMS. LET'S CONSIDER
           THIS
           
           POSSIBILITY: IF YOU'RE GOING TO EMPOWER VICTIMS TO CHANGE THE
           PROSECUTION AND THE PROCEDURE IN A CRIMINAL CASE, THINK ABOUT A

           BATTERED WIFE, A BATTERED WIFE WHO HAS BEEN THE VICTIM OF
           DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND WHO FINALLY
           STRIKES BACK AND ASUBTLES THE SPOUSE WHO HAS BATTERED HER. SHE
           IS THEN BROUGHT IN ON CRIMINAL CHARGES OF ASSAULT AND BATTERY,
           AND THE ABUSING SPOUSE BECOMES A VICTIM, TOO. ACCORDING TO THIS
           AMENDMENT, THE ABUSING SPOUSE NOW HAS CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS,
           EVEN THOUGH HE WAS THE ONE WHO BATTERED HIS WIFE, GIVEN RISE TO

           HER RESPONSE AND RETRIBUTION. GETS A LITTLE COMPLICATED,
           DOESN'T IT?
           USED TO BE SIMPLE. WE KNEW WHAT A CRIME VICTIM WAS. SOMEONE WHO
           WAS HURT. WELL, WHEN YOU START PLAYING THIS THING OUT, YOU
           UNDERSTAND WHY THE AUTHORS OF THIS PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL
           AMENDMENT, DESPITE 63 DIFFERENT DRAFTS OF THIS AMENDMENT, HAVE
           NEVER DEFINED THE WORD "VICTIM." BECAUSE IF YOU EMPOWER THAT
           VICTIM TO SLOW DOWN COURT PROCEEDINGS OR SPEED THEM UP, TO BE
           NOTIFIED, TO BE PART OF THE PROCESS, YOU BETTER TAKE CARE TO

           UNDERSTAND WHO'S GOING TO RECEIVE THESE RIGHTS. AND HOW THESE
           RIGHTS WILL BE EXERCISED. BECAUSE IF YOU'RE NOLT CAREFUL, YOU
           CAN HAVE A LOT OF UNFORTUNATE CONSEQUENCES. THE AMENDMENT LACKS
           THIS DEFINABLE LANGUAGE. IT DOESN'T DIRECT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
           COURT PERSONNEL WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO ENFORCE THE NEWLY CREATED
           VICTIMS' RIGHTS ON HOW TO DO SO. AND FINALLY, THE IMPORTANT
           GOAL OF ESTABLISHING VICTIMS' RIGHTS CAN BE ACHIEVED THROUGH
           LEGISLATION. A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS SIMPLY NOT
           NECESSARY. DUE TO THE RESPECT THAT I HAVE FOR THE CONSTITUTION,

           I'M EXTREMELY RELUCTANT TO AMEND IT, UNLESS THERE IS NO OTHER
           MEANS BY WHICH THE VICTIMS OF CRIME CAN BE PROTECTED. 33 STATES
           HAVE STATUTES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN OVERTURNED BY FEDERAL COURTS
           -- PARDON ME, CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN
           OVERTURNED BY FEDERAL COURTS. ALL 50 STATES HAVE STATUTES. AND
           FRANKLY, THERE APPEARS TO BE ACROSS THE UNITED STATES IN EVERY
           STATE OF THE NATION A PROTECTION OF CRIME VICTIMS. THE OBVIOUS
           QUESTION OF THOSE WHO BRING THIS AMENDMENT TO THE FLOOR IS, WHY
           IS THIS NECESSARY?

           WHY DO WE NEED TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
           IF EXISTING STATE LAW AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
           ALREADY PROTECT THE VICTIMS OF CRIME?
           THERE MAY BE FLAWS IN THESE STATE AMENDMENTS, STATE
           CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, STATE LAWS; BUT THESE FLAWS CAN BE
           CORRECTED ON A STATE BASIS, AS NEEDED. IN ADDITION, A STATUTE
           -- A STATUTORY ALTERNATIVE CAN REACH ALL OF THE GOALS THAT IT
           SEEMS TO ACHIEVE. THERE IS THERE'S LEGISLATION PROPOSED BY THE

           SENATOR FROM VERMONT, SENATOR LEAHY, WHICH I ENTHUSIASTICALLY
           SUPPORT, WHICH WOULD PUT IN STATUTE THESE CRIME VICTIM
           PROTECTIONS PROTECTIONS. I THINK THIS IS THE BEST WAY, THE MOST
           EFFECTIVE WAY, TO DEAL WITH THIS. LET ME GIVE YOU A FEW
           ILLUSTRATIONS OF HOW COMPLICATED THIS SITUATION CAN BECOME.
           SOME OF THEM ARE REAL-LIFE STORIES THAT GIVE EVENCE OF PROBLEMS
           THAT PROSECUTORS HAVE RUN INTO IN DEALING WITH THE STATES WHERE
           INDIVIDUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO COME FORWARD AND TO ASSERT THEIR

           RIGHTS AS VICTIMS OF CRIME. LET ME GIVE YOU TWO OF THEM.
           
           IN FLORIDA: A MIAMI DEFENSE LAWYER TELLS OF REPRESENTING A
           MURDER DEFENDANT WHO ACCEPTED A PLEA FROM THE PROSECUTION. OF
           COURSE THE ACCEPTANCE OF A PLEA IS A DECISION THAT YOU WILL
           FLEED GUILTY UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND WAIVE THE TRITE A
           TRIAL. THE JUDGE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE FER AND THE VICTIM'
           MOTHER SPOKE OUT AGAINST IT. THE VICTIM'S MOTHER INSISTED THAT
           THE CRIMINAL DEFENDANT GO TO TRIAL, DESPITE THE AGREEMENT BY

           THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE THAT HE WOULD ACCEPT A
           PLEA. THE CLIENT WENT TO TRIAL, WAS ACQUITTED AND RELEASED.
           
           SECOND CASE IN CALIFORNIA: RELATIVES OF A HOMICIDE VICTIM
           COMPLAINED TO A JUDGE THAT A PLEA BARGAIN BETWEEN THE
           PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE STRUCK WITH THE ACCUSED WAS TOO
           LENIENT. THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED. WITHDRAWAL OF THE PLEA AND
           PROSECUTION OF THE MAN ON MURDER CHARGES. AT THE CLOSE OF THE

           TRIAL, THE DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED AND WENT FREE. IN EACH OF
           THESE INSTANCES, IN EACH STATE, THE VICTIM OR VICTIM'S FAMILY
           ASSERTED THEIR RIGHTS TO OVERTURN A DECISION BY THE PROSECUTOR
           BASED ON THAT PROSECUTOR'S EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE
           LIKELY OUTCOME OF A TRIAL AND THE NET RESULT OF THE IT IS THAT
           THE WRONGDOER ENDED UP WALKING OUT OF THE COURTHOUSE DOOR
           WITHOUT A PENALTY. SO THE SUGGESTION THAT THE VICTIMS'
           INVOLVEMENT OR INTERVENTION IS ALWAYS GOING TO LEAD TO A

           STIFFER PENALTY IS, FRANKLY, SHOWN IN THESE TWO CASES NOT TO
           APPLY. I ALSO WANT TO MAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT DURING THE
           COURSE OF THIS DEBATE, THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE CONSTUTIONAL
           AMENDMENT, THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA, SENATOR KYL, AND THE
           SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA, SENATOR FEINSTEIN, HAVE SAID ON
           OCCASION THAT THIS WOULD IN NO WAY JEOPARDIZE THE RIGHTS OF THE
           ACCUSED. IN OTHER WORDS, THAT EMPOWERING AND GIVING NEW RIGHTS
           TO CRIME VICTIMS WILL NOT BE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ACCUSED

           DEFENDANT. WELL, OUR CONSTITUTION IS VERY CLEAR WHEN IT COMES
           TO CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN RIGHTS WHICH
           SHALL BE PROTECTED. WE OF COURSE KNOW THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY
           JURY. THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT YOUR ACCUSER. ALL OF THE RIGHTS
           WHICH HAVE BEEN CATALOGUED OVER THE YEARS. WHEN THIS
           CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CAME BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY
           COMMITTEE TWO YEARS AGO, I WAS A MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE. I
           OFFERED AN AMENDMENT IN COMMITTEE WHICH SAID, AS AN AMENDMENT
           TO THIS, NO LANGUAGE, NOTHING IN THIS PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL

           AMENDMENT, SHALL DIMINISH NOR DENY THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AS
           GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. WELL, THAT'S BEEN SAID OVER
           AND OVER THAT THAT WAS THE CASE WITH THIS LANGUAGE AND THIS
           PROPOSAL. AND YET MY ATTEMPT TO PUT IT INTO THE AMENDMENT WAS
           REFUSED. AND I UNDERSTAND SENATOR FEINGOLD OF WISCONSIN OFFERED
           THE SAME AMENDMENT IN COMMITTEE THIS TIME, WHEN IT WAS BEING
           CONSIDERED, AND IF AGAIN WAS REFUSED. AND SO AS I STAND HERE
           TODAY, I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING A
           CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WHICH, THOUGH IT IS IMPORTANT, IS NOT

           NECESSARY. AND BEFORE WE AMEND THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN THE UNITED
           STATES OF AMERICA, IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE ALL BELIEVE
           OR AT LEAST THE VAST MAJORITY BELIEVE IS NECESSARY. THE
           EXISTING STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS OF CRIME VICTIMS, THE
           EXISTING STATE STATUTES, ALL PROVIDE PROTECTION TO THE VICTIMS
           OF CRIME. THE SUGGESTION THAT WE CAN PASS A FEDERAL STATUTE
           WHICH CAN BE MODIFIED IF WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT PERFECT, GIVES
           US AN OPTION TO DO SOMETHING RESPONSIBLE WITHOUT INVADING THE

           SANCTITY AND PROVINCE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
           AND, IN ADDITION, LET ME SUGGEST TO YOU THAT PROTECTING THE
           RIGHTS OF VICK TIRPBLGS AS IMPORTANT AS IT IS, MUST BE TAKEN
           INTO CONSIDERATION WITH BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF
           PROTECTION FOR THE ACCUSED AS WELL IN THIS FREE SOCIETY. WE --
           INNOCENCE UNTIL GUILT IS PROVEN. THAT IS SOMETHING WHICH IS
           PAINFUL AT TIMES TO STAND BY. BUT IT IS AS AMERICAN AS THE
           CONSTITUTION, WHICH GUARANTEES T AND SO I WOULD SUGGEST TO MY

           COLLEAGUES IN THE SENATE AND TO ATO MY FRIEND, THE SENATOR FROM
           NEW YORK, WHO I SEE IS ON THE FLOOR, THAT WE SHOULD THINK TWICE
           BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH THIS AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. AND
           I WILL JOIN MY COLLEAGUES DURING THE COURSE OF THIS DEBATE IN
           FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS OF THIS PROPOSAL AND AT THIS
           POINT I YIELD THE FLOOR MY FRIEND FROM NEW YORK. MR. MOYNIHAN:
           MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK.
           

           MR. MOYNIHAN: I WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE THE DISTINGUISHED
           SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS ON WHAT HE HAS SAID.
           
           BUT TAKING ONE EXCEPTION: THE SENATOR JUST SAID WE OUGHT TO
           THINK ICE ABOUT THIS MATTER. DARE I HOPE THAT WE MIGHT THINK
           ONCE. IT COMES ONLY UNEXPECTED TO US US, A MASSIVE DEPARTURE
           FROM TWO CENTURIES OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICE, A MEASURE ONE

           AMENDMENT LONGER IN THE WHOLE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS. AND THERE
           IS NOT A SINGLE MEMBER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE
           LISTENING, WISHING TO SPEAK, PRESENT. THERE ARE THREE OF US ON
           THE SENATE FLOOR WITH THE CONSTITUTION IN OUR HANDS IN A MATTER
           OF 27 HOURS. AND THE CASUALNESS. GEORGE WILL SAID ON SUNDAY

           THAT WE WERE CLUTTERING THE CONSTITUTION. WE DO THINGS PALPABLY
           ILL-ADVISED. IN THE HOUSE THEY PUT THIS ON A ONE-YEAR BALANCED
           BUDGET BACK INTO AN AGRICULTURAL CYCLE THAT IS LONG SINCE GONE.
           NO MENTION WHATEVER OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED, WHICH WE ARE
           VERY CONCERNED ABOUT. GOVERNMENT -- PEOPLE SHOULD CONCERNED
           WHEN GOVERNMENT ACCUSES SOMEONE. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THAT
           FIRST AMENDMENT. AND THEN TO HAVE THIS TEDIOUS, COMPLEX

           AMENDMENT ABOUT VICTIMS' RIGHTS AND AS THE SENATOR SAYS, NO
           DEFINITION WHATEVER OF WHAT A VICTIM IS. AND LET ME SAY TO YOU
           -- LET ME SAY TO THE -- TO THOSE NOT PRESENT ON THE OPPOSITE
           SIDE -- AND THERE ARE OF COURSE PPORTERS ON THIS SIDE -- LET ME
           TELL YOU, SIR, LAID DIS,
           
           GENTLEMEN: THE CAPACITY OF AMERICAN CULTURE IN THIS STAGE TO

           THINK UP NEW FORMS OF VICTIMHOOD IS UNPRECEDENTED. IT HAS BEEN
           A CHARACTERISTIC OF CULTURE FOR GENERATIONS TO FIND VICTIMS AND
           TO DECLARE ONE'S SELF A VICTIM AND DEMAND COMPENSATION AND
           CONSIDERATION THEREFORE. IT'S MAYBE OF A PERMANENT FEATURE OF
           AMERICAN CULTURE. I DON'T NOFMTE I DOUBT IT. BUT IT'S AT A HIGH
           MOMENT NOW AND WOULD THIS AMENDMENT -- OH, MY GOODNESS. AND FOR

           THE LOSS, YES. FOR THOSE WHO BUILD AND DESIGN COURTHOUSES, OH,
           SURE. AND JUJTS, THERE WILL BE NO MORE JUDGES BEING HELD UP IN
           THE SENATE. WE WILL NEED DOUBLE THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY, IN NO
           TIME AT ALL. HOW CAN WE HAVE COME TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE SO
           LITTLE SENSE OF OUR HISTORY, AS THE SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS SO
           QUITE RIGHTLY SAID. JAMES MADISON DID NOT THINK THE BILL OF

           RIGHTS WAS NECESSARY SINCE THE CONSTITUTION ONLY GAVE POWERS --
           SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. WHAT
           IT WASN'T GIVEN, IT COULDN'T DO. STILL GEORGE MASON AND OTHERS
           PERSUADED HIM AND PRUDENCE -- A HUGELY IMPORTANT ASPECT OF GOOD
           GOVERNMENT -- PRUDENCE SAID, WELL, WHY NOT HAVE A BILL OF
           RIGHTS?
           AND WE HAVE LEARNED TO BE GLAD THAT WE DO. BUT DO YOU RECALL
           THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WE WENT THROUGH A YEAR AGO?

           I WAS STRUCK BY THE MANAGERS, FINE PERSONS ALL, BUT HOW LITTLE
           REFERENCE THEY GAVE TO THE CONSTITUTION WHICH PROVIDES FOR
           IMPEACHMENT. I MAY BE MISTAKEN -- I HOPE I AM -- BUT I DID NOT
           HEAR ONE REFERENCE TO MADISON'S NOTES, WHICH HE KEPT DURING THE
           CONVENTION IN PHILADELPHIA, OR THE NOTES -- THE ONE DAY IN
           WHICH THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE WAS SETTLED. AND ON THAT DAY IT

           WAS STATED, FOR EXAMPLE, THE MOST IMPORTANT IMPEACHMENT OF THE
           AGE THEN WAS THE IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS GOING ON IN
           LONDON, EDMUND BURKE, WELL-KNOWN HERE AS A SUPPORTER OF THE
           COLONIES' RIGHTS, MANAGED THE CASE BY THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN
           THE HOUSE OF LORDS. AND THE POINT WAS MADE THAT MASON -- I'M
           SORRY -- I THINK MADE BY MASON THAT HASTINGS WAS NOT ACCUSED OF

           A CRIME; THAT WAS NOT WHAT WAS BEING DONE. IT WAS ABUSE OF
           OFFICE. SO WE HAVE THE TERM "HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS."
           "HIGH CRIMES." NO, SIR. YOU KNOW WHAT THE REFERENCES WERE IN
           HAT DEBATE?
           THEY WER TO HOLLYWOOD MOVIES. AND DO YOU REMEMBER MARLENE
           DETRIECH AND "WITNESSS FOR THE PROSECUTION"?
           ARE WE TRIVIALIZING OUR OATH TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE
           CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN
           AND DOMESTIC?

           IT'S -- IT SCARCE ME TO BELIEVE. NOW, WHY ARE THE SEATS EMPTY
           ON THE OTHER SIDE?
           I CANNOT BE CERTAIN, BUT I
{END: 2000/04/25 TIME: 16-30 , Tue.  106TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}