[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9882-9883]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     VOTING IN THE SENATE AND HOUSE

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, it looks like this week is coming to an 
end in terms of legislative efforts--or the lack thereof--in the House 
and in the Senate. I want everyone to know what this week was. It 
seemed like the week of disruption. We had a filibuster in the U.S. 
Senate, and we had a sit-in--an unprecedented sit-in--in the House of 
Representatives. What was

[[Page 9883]]

that all about? It wasn't only over the substance--it goes to the 
struggle to find the best way for gun control, which really we want to 
be violence control. And what did we filibuster about? Yes, we wanted 
to take up the no-fly, no-buy issue, which says that if you are on a 
terrorist list, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun, and to extend 
background checks to Internet sales and gun shows, but it was also 
about the right to vote. The filibuster was to get a vote. We didn't 
say how people would vote. We knew that would be a subject of debate, 
further amendment, further amendment, and then a vote. Votes are called 
yes or no. But the filibuster was about getting the opportunity to 
offer the amendments, to even be able to vote at all.
  Let's go over to the House of Representatives. What did they sit in 
about? This was not just a spontaneous spout or pout. One of the most 
distinguished Americans, the Congressman from Georgia, John Lewis, led 
a sit-in. He led a sit-in, once again, about getting a vote. This is a 
man who marched across the Pettus Bridge from Selma, AL, faced being 
beaten, faced dogs, and bears the permanent legacy and wounds of that 
civil rights struggle, but he wanted to march for the right to vote and 
was willing to bear any burden. Then why did this man at a certain age 
and stage literally sit down on his hands and knees again? And what was 
that for? That was for the right to vote. That wasn't taking on some 
authoritarian Governor; that was simply in the House of 
Representatives: Give us a vote.
  People will say: Well, why did they do that? Those votes lost in the 
Senate. But there were actually two compromises here--a Collins 
amendment and, at the last minute, a Johnson amendment.
  I want people to know what is going on here. There is the substantive 
debate on how we can curb violence in our country and violence 
perpetrated where we are just awash in guns in our country. That is the 
subject of debate and discussion. I welcome all ideas. I recognize and 
support the Second Amendment of the Constitution. As I said earlier in 
the discussion, I support not only the Second Amendment, I support all 
of the amendments, and I really take seriously my oath to defend the 
Constitution and to defend the American people against all enemies, 
foreign and domestic. We took that oath.
  So I am saying here, can we get rid of the obstructionism to get to 
votes and to get to real votes, not only votes that are some kind of 
parliamentary procedure linguistic thing going on. We vote on the 
motion to proceed. We vote to table the motion. Those are really 
legitimate parliamentary processes, but they are the fog. They are the 
fog of parliamentary procedure.
  The American people have a right--I think the Congress and Members of 
it should have a right to offer solutions to national problems. I think 
that should come in the form of legislation and the amendment process 
following the rules. Follow the rules. Put out the bill. But when it 
comes time to vote, we should be able to have a vote and we should be 
able to vote clearly yes or no. That is all we are asking for here.
  We are going to go through yet one more week, and I hope that next 
week we can actually face our responsibilities and try to come up with 
real solutions to a very real national problem, which is how to curb 
violence in our country; to come up with a variety of ideas, and from 
those ideas, offer them through legislation and amendment and have very 
clear votes.
  People would like us, first of all, to act like Senators and 
Congresspeople. They would also like us to act with civility. We have 
seen it time and time again here. But they would also like for us to 
speak in plain English and have rules that we should follow and that 
they can understand.
  So as this week comes to an end--this has been an unprecedented week 
in our country of a lot of turmoil and tumult. There has been a lot 
within our mutual institutions. I hope calmer heads prevail when we 
come back. Let's really get back to the legislative process that has 
been established by Senate rule and tradition. Let's have civil debate. 
Let's approach it with intellectual rigor. Let's approach it with the 
sincerity I feel is known on both sides of the aisle. But, please, 
let's seek solutions to our national problems and not seek solutions to 
solve our party problems.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________