[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13409-13410]
[From the U.S. 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; 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

[[Page 13410]]

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.

                          ____________________