[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 117 (Friday, August 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9456-S9457]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE STALKING BILL

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to just get a little 
clearer idea of where we are. I feel like there has been a mixture of 
issues here.
  I did object to Judge Montgomery's going forward, because I wanted to 
finish looking at this. There are a number of people who have been 
concerned about the nominations that had gone through and want to look 
at the overall record. I am not prepared--I will object until I know a 
clear field and have a better idea of where we are going. But I am not 
saying that I will keep the objection on Judge Montgomery.
  But in the rhetoric that has been flying around on the floor I think 
the stalking bill has been brought up. I did not put them together. But 
in his statement the night before last, when I objected, the 
distinguished leader of the Democratic Party said that I should be 
grateful to him for his help on the stalking bill and, therefore, not 
use my right to object to a judge. And I was just very concerned about 
that, because I have worked on this stalking bill since Memorial Day. I 
have tried to pass a bill that would protect the stalking victims of 
this country since Memorial Day. I have been held up by a Senator, 
whose sincerity I do not doubt, but, nevertheless, he knows that the 
amendment that he wanted to put on had some problems. He knew that it 
might cause a problem.

  I suggested that if he would just put his amendment on another bill, 
mine then could go forward to the President and we could have the 
protection for the stalking victims of this country today, because the 
President, I believe, will sign it very quickly.
  All the indications are it passed unanimously in the House. We wanted 
it to be passed unanimously in the Senate without amendment so it could 
go straight to the President. We wanted that on Memorial Day. But 
nevertheless, the minority leader says I should be very pleased he 
helped me pass my bill, and my bill is dying in the House right now 
because of the amendment that he forced me to take in order to move on 
another issue.
  So I don't doubt anyone's sincerity here, but I do want to have a 
clear picture of when we are going to take up the stalking bill. I said 
I would be happy to work with the Senator, whose amendment is causing 
the problem, to do it on another issue. But since they have been 
joined--not my me--I do think that it is fair for us to take a little 
time and let me see what the clear picture is on the stalking bill, and 
then I think we can--I am sorry that they were joined. I didn't join 
them. But now that they are, I would like to have a clear picture. I 
don't want rhetoric to continue to get out of control here, but I would 
like an answer.
  So, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I was talking when I should have been 
listening. If I can ask the Senator from Texas, I heard you at the 
beginning of your remarks indicate that you were perhaps not prepared 
to allow this consent to go forward at this time. I am sure you heard 
some of the discussion last night. I was one of the ones who mentioned 
it in some way had been attached to the stalking bill, and the minority 
leader had talked about how he had tried to be helpful to the Senator.
  I am very much committed to the stalking bill which the Senator from 
Texas has been working diligently on for months now. I was here the 
night it was all cleared right up to the last minute, and all of a 
sudden something happened and it was objected to.
  There is not a Senator who thinks we should not pass the stalking 
bill. If you really care about women and children and how they are 
treated across State lines, being harassed and stalked, this bill 
should be done. But it was held up for quite some time by a Senator 
that had an amendment he wanted to offer.
  There was a lot of cooperation from the Senator from Texas, the 
Senator from New Jersey, the Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig. It was 
worked out. It was sent to the House. It looks like it may not get 
through the House now. The understanding was if it got tangled up, we 
would bring it back freestanding without the amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the Senator will yield.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think it is important to know the arrangement that 
was given, because I have not mentioned that because I did not want to 
jeopardize the ability of the amendment to stay on the bill in the 
House. I have been in good faith. I supported the amendment. I have 
tried to get House support for the amendment. But I did not mention 
that we had an agreement with the minority leader, with the majority 
leader, with myself, with the Senator from New Jersey, that, in fact, 
if it got bogged down that they would let us pass it clean in the 
Senate. It has gotten bogged down.

  Now I want to have an assurance that everyone's word is going to be 
kept here, and then I will certainly get out of this picture. But it 
has now become clouded, not of my making, but it has been. That is why 
I was trying to have the opportunity to see what the commitment will be 
to see if we cannot have help for the stalking victims starting right 
now.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could respond to that, I want to assure 
the Senator from Texas, I am absolutely committed to working with her 
on this very important legislation. I am committed to doing whatever is 
necessary to get it through with amendment, without amendment, clean, 
and I commit right here today, after you have had a chance to see what 
will happen in the other body--I am talking frankly about what is 
involved here because I don't think we have time to deal in nuances. We 
need to get right upfront as to what is happening and what we can do to 
solve it.
  We will bring that bill back up by unanimous consent. We will move 
it, if we have to. We will do it when the Senator from Texas is 
satisfied that it is not going to move in the House, and it may.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the Senator will yield.
  Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. It was attempted to be brought up last night in the

[[Page S9457]]

House, and it was thwarted. So it has now had an opportunity and it was 
to be brought up in a way that the amendment would not be on it.
  I have supported the amendment. I would like to see the amendment 
stay on it. But nevertheless, it is not one person in the House, it was 
several who have objected to it. And when it was to be brought up in 
that way, Members of the New Jersey delegation objected, and, of 
course, I understand that. I am not being critical. That is everyone's 
right, but nevertheless, I have been told I should be grateful for the 
help in passing my bill, which is now dying, and I am trying to see 
where we can make an agreement on this in order to free the business of 
the Senate.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, I commit 
to her I will stalk this bill across party lines, across State lines.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am not worried about the majority 
leader being committed.
  Mr. LOTT. Let me go one step further. I want to assure her of my own 
commitment. I will be prepared to try to get unanimous consent to do it 
this night if that will be helpful.
  Let me say, before I yield to the Democratic whip, the Democratic 
leader and I work together. We try very hard, in our trusting 
relationship. I think we have that. Sometimes we hope we can do things, 
we hope to achieve, but we have to deal with 98 other people. Every now 
and then, we get a little further out on the limb, and we have to back 
off.
  The minority leader is a man of his word, and he has assured the 
Senator from Texas that he will work with us to try to get this done at 
the earliest time that the Senator from Texas would like to get that 
done. I don't want to speak for him or put words in his mouth, but I 
know him and I know, as he has already worked with me and with the 
Senator from Texas, that he is for this stalking bill, and he is going 
to work with us to try to get it done. He has another Senator, or 
Senators, who have an interest. We have to work through all that, but 
we will work through that.

  Would the whip like to say something? I yield to the whip.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I was not privileged to the agreement among 
the distinguished Senator from Texas and New Jersey and our leader. So 
I am somewhat in a difficult spot here this morning. I will have to 
wait until the leader has arrived. He is not here at the moment, and we 
all understand why he is not, and also the Senator from New Jersey.
  Two things happened. I remember the distinguished Senator from Texas 
making a statement on the floor about how much stronger her bill was 
after the Lautenberg amendment was attached, and you made a very strong 
statement about the bill as it left here.
  The bill was only passed last week. We have been trying to get bills 
passed for 8, 9, and 10 months. So it was just passed last week. The 
problem in the House, as I understand, was they tried to strip the 
Lautenberg amendment from the stalking bill, and that is where it ran 
into trouble.
  The day is not over and tomorrow is not over, as the majority leader 
has said. Maybe things can work out. I am willing to help in any way I 
can, but I am somewhat at a disadvantage, if I may use that as a tool 
here. I will work with the majority leader, as Senator Daschle has.
  So I think what I am saying is correct here, that attempting to take 
the Lautenberg amendment off the stalking bill last night caused the 
problems, and that was the reason it was not brought up. Today is 
another day.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could seek recognition again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Before I press the Senator or give assurances to the 
Senator from Texas even further, could I inquire of the Democratic 
whip--I was under the impression that, if we could work out the 
difficulties with the nomination of Ms. Montgomery, we could also move 
the CFTC nominations, which are Republican and Democrat, we could move 
the military nominations, and we could begin to move the appropriations 
conference reports.
  I am informed that maybe that is not the case if I move forward in 
good faith on the nomination of the judge from Minnesota. Have I been 
informed correctly we are not going to move these other nominations?
  Mr. FORD. That depends. That would be my position as of this time, 
that only the one judge. We can do judges, and that is plural. We can 
do safe drinking water. We can do the small business minimum wage 
conference report.
  Mr. LOTT. Oh, yes.
  Mr. FORD. We could do health care and those sorts of things.
  Mr. LOTT. Can we do the health care conference report?
  Mr. FORD. Yes, we could. But, I mean, we have a little problem with 
that bill. As the majority leader knows, we want to have a striking 
provision relating to a drug patent that was put into the conference 
report. We would like to have an opportunity to remove that before we 
move to it.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FORD. You have the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. We are going to have to have some good faith and 
cooperation. If the Democrats are going to hold up all the legislation 
until we get agreement on all the judges, then I think that is 
exceeding anybody's expectations. It is not going to happen. I have 
acted in good faith. I continue to act in good faith. I have been here 
before everybody trying to work out one more. But if you are going to 
hold up agreed-to CFTC nominations and health insurance legislation and 
all these other bills until there is some agreement on all of the 
judges here today, then I think that is just not going to be possible.

                          ____________________