[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 144 (Thursday, September 22, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5961-S5963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 1831
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak on S. 1831,
the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act, also known as the PACT
Act. This is a bipartisan bill.
I thank my colleague Senator Blumenthal for coauthoring this and the
33 cosponsors I have.
This is a commonsense bill. This is the first Federal law that would
protect all animals from torture, maiming, and abuse. The PACT Act
allows Federal law enforcement to intervene when this kind of abuse
occurs where the Federal Government has jurisdiction, on Federal
property, in U.S. territories, and in relation to interstate commerce.
The act specifically bans the most appalling forms of animal abuse.
It is often known as crushing. This is when a deranged individual
actually tortures and sometimes sexually assaults household pets for
some perverse enjoyment that they get. There are people who are in the
business of soliciting animals over the Internet so they can conduct
this appalling activity and then sell the images. It is unbelievable,
but it happens.
This legislation is not controversial. Stopping this kind of obscene
animal abuse is not controversial at all. There are no Republicans
objecting to this legislation. The next Democratic leader on the other
side is a cosponsor. Senator Schumer is a cosponsor of this
legislation. There are 27 Democratic cosponsors. Over half of the
Democratic caucus are cosponsors of this legislation, and a majority of
House Members have cosponsored companion legislation. We worked with
all of the relevant committees to make sure all concerns were
addressed. It has been endorsed by every major animal welfare
organization, including the Humane Society, the American Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the Animal Welfare Institute.
We worked with agricultural and sporting groups. There is no organized
opposition to this at all.
This legislation is necessary because there are many hundreds, and
perhaps thousands, of cases of this kind of horrific abuse of animals
occurring every year. We have seen appalling cases. I will submit for
the record examples that are too appalling to discuss. Frankly, it is
just that bad, and we need to bring this to an end.
It is also important for me to briefly point out that academic
research has found a very strong correlation between people who abuse
animals and then subsequently commit violent crimes against human
beings. This has been documented by the National Institute of Mental
Health. They say that a history of sexually assaulting animals is the
single largest risk factor and strongest predictor of increased risk of
committing child sexual abuse.
A 2013 Northeastern University study found that half of all school
shooters had harmed animals before harming humans. It is very clear
that if we can stop people from this appalling abuse of animals, we
will also be protecting human beings, and that is why law enforcement
agencies endorse my legislation as well. The PACT Act is endorsed by
the National Sheriffs' Association, Fraternal Order of Police,
Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, and nearly 200 local law
enforcement agencies.
As I have said, this is a very simple issue. It is not confusing or
complicated, and it is not controversial. Animals are not adequately
protected across America. Many of our constituents feel very strongly
and passionately about this issue, as well they should. Passage of this
legislation will help protect people as well as animals, and Congress
should act on this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the
Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 1831 and the
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration;
[[Page S5962]]
further, that the Toomey substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill,
as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Recognition Of The Minority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I reserve my right to object.
It is stunning that my friend from Pennsylvania would come to the
floor and abandon all the principles we have heard the new Republican
majority wants in the Senate. First of all, how about having a hearing?
There has not been a hearing on this bill. I would put my support of
animals and fighting animal abuse with anyone's. The Humane Society has
supported me every time I have run for office. PETA has supported me,
as have all of the animal rights groups.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to follow what the Republican leader said
about how we are going to proceed in this new Senate? He said that we
were going to have hearings, and they would not bring a bill to the
floor unless there has been a hearing. Well, that hasn't worked out so
well.
We have recently been out of session for 7 weeks. We had a lot of
time to do all kinds of things, but we have done nothing. This has been
the longest recess since 1956, and with the break that is anticipated
by my Republican colleagues, we will break all records going back to--
we don't even know when. We haven't been able to determine that. It
could go as far back as the Depression or World War I.
All of this sadness about not getting something done on this
legislation cries for relief--relief for the American people that we
start working again. We have not only had months to deal with
legislation like this, but we have had more than 6 months to deal with
something that is vitally important to America. It is important
everywhere in America. It is important in Nevada, Pennsylvania,
Kentucky--everyplace. What is that? How about having a full Supreme
Court?
The man who opened the Senate today, Orrin Hatch, the President pro
tempore of the U.S. Senate, said publicly so everyone could hear that
Merrick Garland would be a consensus nomination for the President. We
satisfied his consensus appetite, and we brought forward, through the
President of the United States, Merrick Garland on March 16. We waited
and waited. Initially no one would even meet with him--no Republican
would meet with him. Finally, a few Republicans trickled into a few
meetings, but there was no hearing, and, of course, no vote.
We are happy to consider all kinds of legislation, but to pick and
choose what they are going to do, leaving volumes of work undone here
in the Senate, is something that leaves me incredulous.
Before we rush ahead on legislation that has had no hearing, I think
it would be a good idea that we have a hearing and a vote on Merrick
Garland. If Republican Senators want to vote against Merrick Garland,
let them do it, but let's go through the process.
I ask through the Chair whether the Senator from Pennsylvania would
be willing to modify his unanimous consent request so that following a
vote on confirmation of the nomination of a consensus nominee, Merrick
Garland, to be a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court so we would have
nine members on the Court--nothing too unusual--the Senate proceed to
the immediate consideration of this legislation, S. 1831.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator modify his request?
Recognition Of The Majority Leader
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, that was a consent request, was it not?
Mr. REID. Yes, it was.
Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. I object to the initial request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the original request.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, let me briefly observe what is going on
here. I don't think it is any mystery to anyone who has been following
what is happening here.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could direct a question to my friend
through the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania yield?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I came to the floor at his convenience. I am
busy, and I am sure he is busy. I came to the floor to be a gentleman,
and I allowed him to go first. I have a speech to give. I came here,
and I agreed to the Republican leader's request. I didn't need to
agree. I said I would be willing to do this right now so the Republican
leader could give his speech later. I think it is rude, to say the
least, for him to give a speech here and prevent me from giving a
speech to the Senate. I think that is not being very collegial, and I
am disappointed that he would do this. He can go ahead and talk as long
as he wants. I will wait.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I would observe for the record that we
have been waiting for about 2 weeks, looking for the opportunity to do
this and work with every Member on the other side, and we accommodated
the leader's schedule when he said this was the only time he could do
this--this and one other time.
I will close by saying this: Look, we all know what is going on here.
The Democratic leader stands up and complains that we have not been
productive and not gotten things done, and then when I propose a
unanimous consent request on a bipartisan bill that has a majority of
Democratic Senators as cosponsors, has been thoroughly vetted, and is
supported by every outside group, he raises a completely unrelated
issue and uses that as the basis to block this noncontroversial
legislation.
This is exactly what the American people are so frustrated about with
this body and some of the leadership in this body when this kind of
completely partisan-driven agenda blocks progress even on modest and
noncontroversial legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, just so the record is very clear, I have
been asked to come to the floor on two or three different occasions to
meet his schedule, and I was here; he wasn't. Make sure the record
reflects that.
Mr. President, for almost 2 years the Senate has been run by the
Republicans. The schedule is set by the Republicans. I don't set the
schedule anymore.
To have my friend, the Senator from Pennsylvania, come here and say:
Well, this is really important--I have indicated how I feel about
animal cruelty. I have spoken out about all kinds of animal cruelty for
more than three decades. But I also have some concern, as do the
American people, that Senators like my friend from Pennsylvania have
helped block a simple hearing and a vote on a man who is a consensus
nominee to be a Supreme Court Justice. That is wrong.
I am not a big fan of polling, but you could take a poll in your
front room, in a mall, or have one of these professionals come in and
claim they know what they are doing. Overwhelmingly, it would show that
the American people want a vote on this.
The Supreme Court being short one member has stopped work from being
done for the good of this country. Important cases that should have
been determined haven't been determined. Now they have to go along with
whatever the lower courts say. That is not our system of justice.
So I hope everyone understands that it would be extremely fair and
important to have a hearing and a vote on Merrick Garland.
I can't understand the lack of courage of my Republican friends such
as the Senator from Pennsylvania. If they don't like Merrick Garland,
vote against him, but don't block him. For the longest time in the
history of America, a Supreme Court Justice has been stopped--stopped--
from even having a hearing. It has never happened before--never in the
history of this country.
I will speak on my subject a little later.
I yield the floor.
I ask that the Chair announce the business of the day.
[[Page S5963]]
____________________