“We focused attention on the obligation of Congress to act,” said U.S. Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), who joined his colleagues for much of the protest. “The response I got on social media from Vermonters — the calls to our office — has been greater on this event than anything else since I’ve served in Congress. And it’s been overwhelmingly positive.”
Democrats took control of the House floor late Wednesday morning and did not leave until roughly 1 p.m. Thursday. They stalled all congressional action until late Wednesday night, when House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Republican leaders reconvened to push through a major spending bill and other legislation. GOP lawmakers then left town — despite chants of “no bill, no break!” — for their annual Independence Day recess.
Welch said he remained on the floor through much of the night, taking an hourlong break at 11:30 p.m. and a 2.5-hour break at 5 a.m. to return to his nearby apartment for a brief nap. During his walk home, Welch said he was struck by the sight of construction workers showing up in the predawn hours to work on the Capitol dome restoration project. He called it “an interesting contrast” to what he said was a Congress not doing its job.
Following last week’s mass shooting in Orlando, Fla., House Democrats had hoped to cajole their Republican colleagues into scheduling votes on two bills: one to prevent those on terrorist watch lists from buying guns and another to require all gun purchasers to undergo federal background checks. Welch said he was “disappointed” they failed to achieve that goal, but said he understood his colleagues’ decision to end the protest.
“We were willing to stay and didn’t want to break until we had [votes on the bills]. But the reality of the way this institution works is the speaker has the gavel,” the sleep-deprived congressman said Thursday afternoon. “We were willing to stay. He decided to flee — and close the shop two days before we were supposed to get out of here.”
He added, “This will continue.”
Because the House was out of session for much of the protest, Democratic members were able to speak at length in an informal manner. Welch said that created a sense of “solidarity” between colleagues, who shared personal stories of gun violence in their communities. By rule, House video cameras operate only when the body is in session, so those remarks were broadcast live via shaky cellphone videos taken by lawmakers themselves.
Welch said he found it particularly inspiring to join Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a leader in the civil rights movement, for the protest.
“It was, I think, very powerful for all the members that John Lewis really became the leader, because he is, I would say, the most respected member of Congress,” Welch said. “It reminded me a lot of the best of America.”
Disclosure: Paul Heintz worked as Peter Welch’s communications director from November 2008 to March 2011.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
“Very effective”? Did he get high during the “sit-in”? Their action was effective in at least two clear ways: it ran up the electric bill, and it made them look like part-time, fair weather, paper protestors who were committed to the cause only until the cause threatened to get in the way of their vacations and barbecues. Just another rhetoric spewing session–poorly planned, I must add–that demonstrates a dearth of fortitude and guts from this group of self-proclaimed “outraged” leaders. Incredibly disappointing, but truly symbolic of the time in which we live. What’s worse, their actions validated Ryan’s “publicity stunt” tactic.
Good report. I watched on Periscope until midnight. Changed my view of D’s. Most seemed real and talked straight and real. Really hope they continue in July. It’s time.
Seriously? Someone is sure filtering the comments that Rep. Welch is seeing then. Or course this is nothing but a PR piece from Welch’s “former” communications director.
Saddest headline of 2016, right here.
I have to wonder how many of these mass killings, with guns or otherwise, were committed because someone became unhinged after reading a specific published article of propaganda that set them off? It’s very easy for any writing, article, story or blog, to light the fuse on these psychopathic time bombs that are just sitting out there cruising an internet the founding fathers never imagined would exist when they wrote the 1st amendment.
I think people like Paul and sites like Seven Days, should be required to have a license to publish these assault articles. And that they should be limited in how many of these articles they are allowed to write every year. There should also be a severe penalty for any mis-truths and/or blatant lies. They should be required to check & document every single fact and opinion against a government sanctioned database before the article is allowed to be published and their licenses subject to revocation if their opinions are not in line with what the government considers to be the “correct opinions”