According to Fitzgerald, crime victims are often inadvertently shut out of the justice process because prosecutors in a federal criminal case act as an arm of the government and, therefore, act independently of the victim. Consequently, victims may not be notified of activities in which they have significant personal stake, such as sentencing hearings, plea negotiations between suspects and the prosecution, or parole hearings, among other things. Fitzgerald further explained that under current law federal crime victims have limited legal recourse when they feel their interests are not being addressed.

“Current law does not adequately ensure that crime victims have access to information, court proceedings, or the opportunity to have their voices heard during the justice process,” stated Fitzgerald. “Establishing specific rights, enforceable by law, will give victims of crime the protections necessary to help ensure they don’t also become victims of the process. I applaud my Senate colleagues for approving this important legislation.”

Proposed by Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the Crime Victims’ Rights Act will grant federal crime victims the following rights:

• The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
• The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public proceeding
involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.
• The right not to be excluded from any such public proceeding.
• The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding involving release,
plea, or sentencing.
• The right to confer with the attorney for the government in the case.
• The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
• The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
• The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity
and privacy.

Additionally, the measure authorizes funding to ensure victims’ rights are enforced — with court backing — nationwide, as well as to help state and local authorities develop and implement programs to notify victims of important developments.
*********************************
FITZGERALD SEEKING APPLICANTS FOR FEDERAL JUDGESHIP IN CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS:

April 14th, 2004 - - CHICAGO, IL.....United States Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald (R-Illinois) is accepting applications to fill the next vacancy on the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. The next vacancy is anticipated to occur upon Chief Judge Joe Billy McDade assuming senior status in December, 2004. Chief Judge McDade has presided on the court since 1991.

The Central District of Illinois comprises the following counties: Adams, Brown, Bureau, Cass, Champaign, Christian, Coles, DeWitt, Douglas, Edgar, Ford, Fulton, Greene, Hancock, Henderson, Henry, Iroquois, Kankakee, Knox, Livingston, Logan, Macon, Macoupin, Marshall, Mason, McDonough, McLean, Menard, Mercer, Montgomery, Morgan, Moultrie, Peoria, Piatt, Pike, Putnam, Rock Island, Sangamon, Schuyler, Scott, Shelby, Stark, Tazewell, Vermilion, Warren, and Woodford.

Persons interested in receiving an application for the position must contact Maggie Hickey in Senator Fitzgerald’s Chicago office prior to May 1, 2004 at the address below:

U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald
Attention: Maggie Hickey
230 South Dearborn Street, Suite 3900
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 886-3506
FAX (312) 886-3514

In recent years, Durbin has been clear on the issue. Once a pro-life congressman, he has voted consistently for abortion rights since joining the Senate.

In the past, most bishops skirted the subject of how Catholic lawmakers act on the abortion issue. George's uncertainty differs from that of St. Louis archbishop Raymond Burke, who admonished pro-abortion rights Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, not to take communion if he attended mass there.

George is awaiting a decision from a committee of the National Conference of Bishops, which is studying the question (he is not on the committee) and attempting ''to come to a common policy.'' Will the committee announce its decision before Election Day? ''I hope so,'' the cardinal said.

Its decision would be advisory, but in recent years pressure from many regular church-going Catholics has been mobilizing. The issue does not involve separation of church and state. Durbin and others will not be told how to vote, but if they wish to remain practicing Catholics and receive communion -- which Catholics believe is the body and blood of Christ -- they have to make a decision. It is the right of the bishops to direct priests to withhold the sacrament from those who flout church teaching. If they give Durbin & Co. a pass, what about the rest of us? Because abortion has been regarded by the church as a grave sin for all its 2,000 years, one who supports and, by his votes or actions, facilitates the practice, should either confess it as a sin (for which he receives forgiveness based on future change of position) or remain in the state of mortal sin, during which he is forbidden to receive the sacrament.

In Illinois, pro-abortion rights Catholics include, among others, Mayor Daley; Cook County Board President John Stroger; Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn; state Attorney General Lisa Madigan; state Comptroller Dan Hynes (who favored abortion rights in a run for the U.S. Senate), and state Senate President Emil Jones, all Democrats; as well as state Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka, a Republican. Among Illinois Democratic congressmen, only Bill Lipinski (3rd) and Jerry Costello (12th) are pro-life; all state congressional Republican Catholic lawmakers, including Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, are pro-life.

George, not known as a man who dispenses the issues with tidy sound bites, discusses problems with a great many qualifications and nuances, with the mini-distinctions of the university professor he once was. But he is clearly firming up his position vis-a-vis those Catholic lawmakers who are free-ranging in their support of abortion. Speaking at the City Club of Chicago luncheon attended by many city Democrats last week, George chastised them for not holding a pro-life caucus, declaring that ''One could say, as I have, that the Democratic Party has lost its soul.'' Then he tried to balance the admonition by saying, ''One could also argue that the Republican Party never had a soul.''

While the slur produced belly laughs from the Democratic audience, it didn't play so well later with Catholics who vote the GOP for its pro-life stance. Or from those who recall the party was formed to oppose slavery. When I talked with him Friday, George hinted that he has received criticism for his remark. When I teased that by his description I belong to a party that has no soul, he grew quite animated: good-natured but animated. ''I didn't say the Republican Party has no soul,'' he said. ''I said 'one could also argue that the Republican Party never had a soul.' One could argue this. Adjust your hearing aid!''

It's in good working order. So good that it detects the discomfiture of bishops who, like many of us, dislike offending powerful constituencies. Because abortion is one issue that, it could be argued, accepts no nuances, no escape clauses, no micro-distinctions but a firm declaration of right and wrong.

New job figures released last week and other recent indicators show that America's economy is strong and getting stronger, and that the President's Jobs and Growth plan is working. According to the payroll survey, 112,000 new jobs were created in January - the largest monthly increase since December 2000 - and 366,000 jobs have been added over the last 5 months. The national unemployment rate in January of 5.6% continues the steady decline from 6.3% in June 2003 - the fastest 7-month decline in nearly a decade. According to the household survey, at 5.6%, the unemployment rate is below the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

The President's pro-growth policies are working, but he will not be satisfied until every American looking for work has found a job.

BACKGROUND

In the past three years, President Bush has proposed and signed into law three bills reducing the tax burden on American families and small businesses to spur savings, investment and job creation.

I. ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT (Signed into law on June 7, 2001)

Reduced tax rates, including the creation of a new 10 percent tax bracket, for every American who pays income taxes
Increased the child tax credit to $1,000 by 2010
Reduced the marriage penalty beginning in 2005
Phased out the death tax
Increased education tax benefits
Expanded pension and saving opportunities

II. JOB CREATION AND WORKER ASSISTANCE ACT (Signed into law on March 9, 2002)

Provided 30-percent bonus depreciation for business investment in new equipment
Provided emergency tax relief to New York and other areas affected by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001

III. JOBS AND GROWTH TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT (Signed into law on May 28, 2003)

Accelerated income tax rate reductions effective January 1, 2003
Expanded the10 percent bracket effective January 1, 2003
Increased the child credit to $1,000 effective January 1, 2003
Reduced the marriage penalty effective January 1, 2003
Quadrupled small business expensing from $25,000 to $100,000
Increased bonus depreciation for businesses to 50 percent through 2004
Reduced the top tax rate on dividends and capital gains to 15 percent
Repealing these laws would result in an immediate tax increase on American families and businesses. For example, if none of the President's tax relief had been enacted, in 2004:

111 million Americans would pay, on average, $1,586 more in taxes;
81 million women would pay, on average, $1,878 more in taxes;
49 million married couples would pay, on average, $2,602 more in taxes;
43 million families with children would pay, on average, $2,090 more in taxes;
11 million single women with children would pay, on average, $921 more in taxes;
14 million elderly individuals would pay, on average, $1,883 more in taxes;
25 million small businesses would pay, on average, $3,001, more in taxes; and
Nearly 5 million individuals and families who currently have no income tax liability would become subject to the income tax.

The cumulative benefit of these three laws for family budgets and business investment is significant. Under these laws, last year:

A family of four earning $40,000 saw tax relief of $1,933;
25 million small business owners saved an average of $2,853; and
26 million investors saved an average of $798 from lower rates on dividends and capital gains, including 7 million seniors who will save an average of $1,088.
The cumulative effect on the economy is just as strong, laying the groundwork for increased economic growth and job creation. According to the Department of the Treasury, by the last quarter of 2003, the tax relief had:

Reduced the unemployment rate by nearly 1 percentage point below where it would have been otherwise;
Increased the jobs available to Americans by as many as 2 million; and
Increased real GDP by as much as 3 percent.

President Bush has called on Congress to act now to make this tax relief permanent. Failure to permanently extend these tax cuts would dramatically increase the burden on American taxpayers in future years:

In 2005, the increased child credit, additional marriage penalty relief, and expanded 10-percent bracket will sunset, increasing the tax burden on a family of four earning $40,000 by $915;
In 2006, allowable small business expensing will shrink from $100,000 to just $25,000, increasing the cost of capital investments for America's small businesses;
In 2009, the top tax rate on dividends will increase from 15 to 35 percent, while the tax on capital gains will climb from 15 to 20 percent, raising the tax burden on retirees and families investing for their future; and
In 2011, the rate relief, new 10-percent tax bracket, death tax repeal, marriage penalty relief, and all the remaining tax relief enacted over the past three years will sunset, resulting in tax increase for every American man or woman who pays income taxes.

==>Barry Goldwater