WASHINGTON — Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House majority leader, said on Tuesday that Democrats who protested the lack of votes on gun legislation by essentially seizing the House floor for more than 24 hours recently may be punished for breaking
WASHINGTON — Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House majority leader, said on Tuesday that Democrats who protested the lack of votes on gun legislation by essentially seizing the House floor for more than 24 hours recently may be punished for breaking House rules.
The behavior was not “becoming of the U.S. Congress,” McCarthy said in an interview with a few dozen reporters on Tuesday. He said that it was his understanding that Democrats had mistreated House staff members and perhaps even damaged congressional furniture as they shut down the chamber with a sit-in-style protest.
McCarthy said that he and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan would be meeting with the House sergeant-at-arms later on Tuesday to discuss investigative paths and possible ramifications for the Democrats. “This is not the way the House should work,” McCarthy said. “You first have to know all the facts. Action has to be taken on behavior taken toward professional staff.”
Filming and streaming video of the House, which the Democrats did when the regular TV feed of the chamber ended after Republicans gaveled the House into recess during the sit-in, are violations of House rules. Other potential violations include standing in the well and cutting off debate. At least one referral to the House Office of Congressional Ethics has been made by an outside group regarding fundraising solicitations that went out during the sit-in.
Republicans said they intended to hold a vote this week on a measure to prevent terrorists from obtaining guns. It is similar to one that failed in the Senate after Democrats called it toothless.
It is unclear what punishment could be taken against those who took part in the protest. It is possible that Republicans could make some sort of rule change that would also adversely affect their party, but individual censure seems very unlikely given how many Democrats participated.
“The lengths the House Republican leadership will go to follow the NRA’s marching orders know no bounds,” said Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader who participated in the sit-in.
House Democrats made it clear that they would not stand down but were keeping their options open on Tuesday as they returned from the Fourth of July recess. Last week, more than 60 Democrats participated in rallies, news conferences and other events around the country on a declared “national day of action,” trying to energize supporters and keep up pressure on Republican leaders.
The House Rules Committee was supposed to meet Tuesday to set the guidelines for the antiterrorism package that is scheduled to come to the floor this week, which includes restrictions on gun purchases by those suspected of having ties to terrorism. A similar bill recently failed in the Senate and is broadly opposed by Democrats, who will most likely push to allow amendments on the legislation.
Ryan is scheduled to meet Tuesday evening with Reps. John Lewis of Georgia and John B. Larson of Connecticut, the organizers of the recent sit-in.
Speaking from the House floor ahead of their meeting, Larson called on Ryan to hold votes on measures that would restrict access to guns of those on the government’s no-fly list and expand background checks, urging him to remember that “he is, indeed, speaker of the entire House.”
“We’re prevailing upon the decency of the other side, their understanding of the Constitution, their understanding of the rules of the House,” Larson said.
Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., said Democrats had engaged in “one of the most disgraceful and childish breaches of the institution” by seizing the House floor on June 22.
“They certainly have a right to their opinions. They have a right to express those opinions on the House floor and they have a right to use all of the procedures of the House to act on their opinions,” he said. “What they do not have is the right to prevent those with different views from exercising the same rights, and yet that is precisely what they did.”
© 2016 The New York Times Company
