tims. Since then, grass-roots citizens' organizations around the country have pushed for amendments to their state constitutions. Twenty states have responded to the rude treatment victims face, and have enacted constitutional amendments. Seven more states are expected to adopt victims' rights amendments in the coming election.

But this patchwork of state constitutional amendments is inadequate. Even in the 20 states that have victims' rights constitutional amendments, the rights of victims are routinely overridden by the rights of defendants, which are enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, the highest law of the land. There is no dispute that the federal constitution trumps state law in cases of conflict.

The 43 million victims of serious crimes each year, need a constitutional amendment to protect their rights, and restore balance to our justice system. Those accused of crime have many constitutionally protected rights: They have the right to due process, right to confront witnesses; right against self-incrimination, right to a jury trial; right to a speedy trial; right to a public trial; right to counsel; right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Yet, despite rights for the accused, the United States Constitution, our highest law, has no protection for crime victims. The recognized symbol of justice is a figure holding a balanced set of scales, but in reality the scales are heavily weighed on the side of the accused. These protections are sadly one-sided. Our proposal will not deny or infringe any constitutional right of any person accused or convicted of a crime. But it will add to the body of rights we all enjoy as Americans.

Victims of crimes have no constitutional rights. They are often treated as mere inconveniences, forced to view the process from the sidelines. Defendants can be present through their entire trial because they have a constitutional right to be there. But in many trials, victims are ordered to leave the courtroom, such as recently was the case with some of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Victims often are not informed of critical proceedings, such as hearings to consider releasing a defendant on bail or allowing him to plea bargain to a reduced charge. Even when victims find out about these proceedings, they frequently have no opportunity to speak. Today victims have no right to reasonable finality. It is not uncommon for cases to last years and years after the jury verdict, while courts again and again review the same issue. These lengthy delays cause terrible suffering for crime victims, especially the loved ones of homicide victims. What others consider as a mere inconvenience can be an endless nightmare for the victim.

Amending the Constitution is a big step, but a necessary one

Amending the Constitution is, of course, a big step-one which I do not take lightly-but, on this issue, it is a necessary one. As Thomas Jefferson once said: “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times."

Who would be comfortable now if the right to free speech, or a free press, or to peaceably assemble, or any of our other rights were subject to the whims of changing legislative or court majorities? When the rights to vote were extended to all regardless of race, and to women, were they simply put into a statute? Who would dare stand before a crowd of people anywhere in our country and say that a defendant's rights to a lawyer, a speedy public trial, due process, to be informed of the charges, to confront witnesses, to remain silent, or any of the other constitutional protections are important, but don't need to be in the Constitution?

Such a position would be rightly subject to ridicule. Yet that is precisely what critics of the Victims' Bill of Rights would tell crime victims. Victims of crime will never be treated fairly by a system that permits the defendant's constitutional rights always to trump the protections given to victims. Such a system forever would make victims second-class citizens It is precisely because the Constitution is hard to change that basic rights for victims need to be protected in it.

CONCLUSION

The American people are becoming more and more aware of the imbalance in our system. They realize that as we continue to fight for rights for victims of crime, in courtrooms across America, victims will be forced to sit outside while their attackers are tried. Today, and every day, critical proceedings will be held in criminal cases and victims will not be informed of those proceedings or given the opportunity for their voices to be heard. Today, and every day, victims will be forced to endure endless delays. With this constitutional amendment we can cure this injustice.

I would note that the incredible grassroots support for the Victims' Bill of Rights: Karen and Monte Colvin of Tucson, Arizona, whose 19-year-old son Mike was killed in 1990, drove their three-wheel Harley Davidson across the country to Washington, D.C., where they presented me with a 2,000-signature petition in support of the amendment. The Victims' Bill of Rights is endorsed by: Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD); Parents of Murdered Children; National Organization for Victim Assistance; National Victim Center, National Victims' Constitutional Amendment Network; National Center for Missing & Exploited Children; Victim Assistance Legal Organization; Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau; Citizens for Law and Order; John Walsh, host of "America's Most Wanted"; National Coalition Against Sexual Assault; The Law Enforcement Alliance of America.

In closing, I would again like to thank Chairman Henry Hyde for holding this hearing, and Senator Feinstein for her hard work on this amendment. For far too long, the criminal justice system has ignored crime victims who deserve to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect. Our criminal justice system will never be truly just as long as criminals have rights and victims have none. We need a new definition of justice-one that includes the victim.

Mr. HYDE. Well, I thank you, Senator. I certainly concur in your optimistic assessment that we can do this. We are all working along with you and Senator Feinstein and the Justice Department to that end.

I gave you a very inadequate introduction, but you are someone who needs no introduction, a former Member of the House and a distinguished Senator from Arizona, and a stalwart champion of victims' rights for many years.

I am very pleased now to introduce Senator Dianne Feinstein from the State of California. She has lent her important bipartisan support to Senator Kyl's legislation in the Senate. We certainly appreciate her being here today. We appreciate her support for this important amendment and her input.

Senator Feinstein.

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for leading this effort in the House. I want to just comment that Senator Kyl has really been very wonderful to work with. We have worked together in the spirit of bipartisanship. I think that's one of the reasons why we are going to end up with a constitutional amendment that will meet the tests of both political parties. We were both very appreciative when former majority leader Bob Dole supported this, and of course the President of the United States has joined in his support. Since that time, the White House and the Justice Department have played very important roles as Senator Kyl has said.

We have a draft of our latest up until last night. I think allwe have worked with Justice, with the White House, with Prof. Larry Tribe, with Stephen Twist-Dr. Stephen Twist representing the victims. I think we've got concurrence with all but perhaps one part that Justice still has some concerns about. I'd be happy to share that with you. You might want to discuss that with Justice when they come in this afternoon.

Let me tell you how I got into this. There was a case in San Francisco in 1974. The case was Frank Carlson and Annette Carlson. They lived in Portrero Hill. A man by the name of Angelo Pavegeau broke into their home, tied up Frank Carlson. They were a young couple. Beat him to death with a hammer, a chopping

block and a ceramic vase. He then proceeded to rape Annette Carlson. He broke several of her bones. He slit her wrists. He tried to strangle her with a telephone cord. He then set their home on fire and he left them.

Believe it or not, somehow, some way she lived. She testified against him. When I was mayor, she called me every year. She said, "I know he's going to get out. I live in fear. I have changed my name. I live anonymously. Please help me keep him in prison." Then I began to think.

Then there was another case called the Salarno case, Harriet and Mike Salarno. They own a television store in the Sunset District in San Francisco. Their daughter Catina was murdered at the University of the Pacific by her boyfriend, who then went in and watched television while she bled to death in front of the dormitory. They began to head a victims movement.

In 1982, California became the first of 20 States to pass constitutional amendments which I supported, to protect victims' rights. The problem with that is that they are patchwork of different rights throughout the States. As Senator Kyl said, and you can see here, an accused have 15 specific rights guaranteed to them by our Constitution. Victims have none. So when the rights come up against each other, as they are now beginning to do in a couple of cases, in Oklahoma City, for example. The California case I described was one, but the problem now has become nationwide.

The prosecution is underway now against two men charged with the bombing. Their surviving victims, including families of the deceased, wanted to attend the trial. Unfortunately, the judge has forced them to make a very painful choice. If they choose to attend the trial, they will forfeit their right to testify at the sentencing hearing if the defendants are convicted. Despite the prosecutor's ef forts, the judge decided that victims' testimony at sentencing could be affected "by just seeing the defendants in court." So attendance at the trial will disqualify them from testifying. The judge apparently had no concerns about the testimony of the defendants being affected by their presence or even their families' presence during the trial.

This followed on the heels of an earlier ruling by the judge, that victims should not get priority for seats in the courtroom, because he had constitutional concerns about giving them special treatment.

Mr. Chairman, our amendment will prevent just this kind of thing from happening in the future. I go on then and discuss in my written remarks, a Utah rape case that's recent with some of the same conflicts presented to the judiciary. I really believe this is an idea whose time has come. I don't believe when our forefathers drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that they knew there would be 11 million victims of crimes of violence in these United States every year, and 42 million victims overall.

People have a right to know when the trial is happening, to have notice. They have a right to be present. The victim has a right, we hope, to be heard. More fundamentally, a victim has a right to be noticed if their assailant escapes. They have a right to protection in that situation. They have a right to know and to be heard at a parole hearing. Those are the rights that would be established by

this constitutional amendment. So I am hopeful, very hopeful, that with the President's support, with the strong bipartisan support, that we can move this this year, get it before the States, and have it ratified by three-quarters of our States within a three-year period. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Feinstein follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased that you are holding this hearing on an issue that is very, very important to me, and, I know, to you as well-providing constitutional rights for victims of crime. I also want to acknowledge the leadership of my colleague, Senator Kyl, in bringing this important issue to the forefront.

Let me start by telling you about two cases in California which really brought home to me the need for greater protection for the rights of victims of crime.

PAVAGEAU CASE

In 1974, in San Francisco, a man named Angelo Pavageau broke into the house of Frank Carlson in Portrero Hill. He tied Mr. Carlson to a chair and murdered him by beating him with a hammer, a chopping block, and a ceramic vase. He then repeatedly raped Carlson's 24-year-old wife, breaking several of her bones. He slit her wrist and tried to strangle her with a telephone cord before setting their home on fire and leaving them to go up in flames.

But Mrs. Carlson survived the fire. She lived to testify against her attacker. But she has had to change her name and lives in fear that her attacker may be released someday. When I was Mayor of San Francisco, she called me several times to notify me that he was up for parole. But it was up to her to find out when his parole hearings were.

It shouldn't have to be that way. It should be the responsibility of the state to send a letter through the mail or make a phone call to let a victim know that her attacker is up for parole, and she should have the opportunity to testify at that hearing.

SALARNO CASE

In 1979 a killing occurred which really galvanized the victims' rights movement in California. A young woman named Catina Rose Salarno was murdered on her first day of school at the University of Pacific in Stockton. The killer was 18-yearold Steven John Burns, Catina's high school sweetheart and a trusted family friend. Catina had broken off her relationship with Burns, but she agreed to meet him that night for a walk on campus. When Catina turned around, he shot her at pointblank range, left her there on the ground, and went back to his dorm room to watch Monday night football. He could see her as she bled to death outside his window. Burns argued at the trial that he suffered from schizophrenia, but he was convicted and sentenced to life at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville. During the trial, the family was not allowed in the courtroom and had to sit outside waiting for news. Burns was up for parole in October of last year, but was denied because of the gravity of the crime and his lack of remorse. He can apply for parole again

in 1998.

The murder of Catina has had a profound and lasting effect on the family. Her mother, Harriet, and her father, Michael, co-founded Crime Victims United-one of California's most outspoken groups for victims rights. A year ago, her younger sister, Nina, became a deputy district attorney in Sacramento County. Together, the family works tirelessly to educate the public about the rights of crime victims.

These cases helped California to become the first state in the nation to pass a crime victims' amendment-Proposition 8-to its constitution in 1982. It gave victims the right to restitution, the right to testify at sentencing, probation and parole hearings, established a right to safe and secure public school campuses, and made various changes in criminal law. It was a good start.

Since that time, 20 states have passed constitutional amendments guaranteeing the rights of crime victims-and five more are expected to pass by the end of this year. Most of the state amendments have won with the approval of more than 80 percent of the voters.

But today, in most states of the Union, victims still are not made aware of the victim's trial, many times are not allowed in the courtroom during the trial, and are not notified when a convicted offender is released from prison.

OKLAHOMA BOMBING CASE

While the California cases I described brought victims' mistreatment by the legal system home to me, the problem is nationwide, and is as current as today's news. Two developments in just the past two weeks demonstrate the real need for a federal constitutional amendment, right now.

The prosecution is under way against two men charged with one of the most cowardly, evil and heinous acts in recent memory: the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which killed 168 people.

The surviving victims, including families of the deceased, wanted to attend the trial in this case. Unfortunately, the judge has forced them to make a very painful choice: if they choose to attend the trial, they will forfeit their right to testify at the sentencing hearing if the defendants are convicted.

Despite the prosecutor's valiant efforts, the judge decided that victims' testimony at sentencing could be affected, quote, "by just seeing the defendants in court," unquote, so attendance at the trial will disqualify them from testifying. The judge apparently had no such concerns about the testimony of the defendants being affected by their presence during the trial.

This followed on the heels of an earlier ruling by the judge that victims should not get priority for seats in the courtroom because he had constitutional concerns about giving them special treatment.

Mr. Chairman, our amendment will prevent just this sort of miscarriage of justice. If our amendment were law today, those victims would be allowed to attend the trial and to testify at sentencing, and would not be shut out of one or the other proceeding.

UTAH RAPE CASE

Just last Friday, another judicial decision demonstrated why state constitutional amendments are not sufficient to solve these problems. In the case of Utah v. Beltran-Felix, the defendant's partner raped a jewelry store employee during an armed robbery, and then the defendant Emilio Beltran-Felix, forced this woman to perform oral sex on him. All of this happened in front of her co-workers.

Because Utah has a victims' rights amendment, the victim asserted her right to attend the trial. However, defense counsel objected, claiming that this violated the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Fortunately, the judge allowed the victim to remain, and last Friday this decision was upheld by the Utah Court of Appeals. However, that court refused to categorically assert that the presence of a non-disruptive victim did not violate the Fifth Amendment. Instead, the court took the approach of looking at the particular facts of the case to see whether the victim tailored her testimony to match the testimony of other witnesses.

This case-by-case approach to determining whether victims can constitutionally be allowed to attend the trial, like the decision in the Oklahoma bombing case, puts victims in an unfairly difficult position. In Utah now, before deciding to attend the trial, the victim must consider that she is taking the risk that she is giving her attacker an argument that she tailored her testimony, which he can then use on appeal to possibly overturn his conviction.

Our amendment would place victims on the same footing as criminals. Sequestration of witnesses is not required for the defendant, despite the same or even greater potential for tailoring testimony, because his right to be in the courtroom is deemed more important.

Victims' right to be in the courtroom is equally important-yes, the defendant's liberty is at risk, but it is the victim who often has been traumatized and brutalized, and for whom we seek justice in the trial. This constitutional amendment will give the victim the same right to attend the trial that is as much theirs as it is the defendant's.

Mr. Chairman, I believe these cases demonstrate that the time finally has come to amend the United States Constitution to protect the rights of victims of serious crimes.

WHY A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT?

Some people question why this needs to be a constitutional amendment. The reasons for this are: to give victims' rights the same legal strength that criminals' rights have; to give these rights to victims of crime in every state of the Union; and to establish consistent, uniform rights for the millions of crime victims in our country.