The Hill
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
SEARCH
Home
HillTube
Mobile
White Papers Portal
New Member Guide
BLOGS
Pundits Blog
Congress Blog
Blog Briefing Room
NEWS
Leading The News
Business & Lobbying
K Street Insiders
John Breaux
John Engler
Vin Weber
Dave Wenhold
The Executive
Campaign 2008
Endorsements '08
COLUMNISTS
Dick Morris
A.B. Stoddard
Brent Budowsky
Ben Goddard
David Hill
David Keene
Josh Marshall
Mark Mellman
Jim Mills
Markos Moulitsas (Kos)
Byron York
COMMENT
Editorial
Letters
Op-eds
Weyant's World
CAPITAL LIVING
Today's Stories
50 Most Beautiful 2008
Other Features
In The Know
Bookshelf
Food & Drink
Onward and Upward
Hillscape
RESOURCES
Classifieds
Subscribe
Order Reprints
Last Six Issues
Useful Links
RSS


Home arrow Leading The News arrow DeMint: Removal of veto threat ‘detrimental’ on housing
Leading The News PDF Print E-mail
DeMint: Removal of veto threat ‘detrimental’ on housing
Posted: 07/25/08 08:35 PM [ET]

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) may be popular in The Palmetto State, but he is not so well-liked this weekend in Washington.

That’s because DeMint, whom South Carolinians sent to the Senate with 54 percent of the vote in 2004, is the only reason Congress’s upper chamber is going to work on Saturday.

The rare weekend session was made possible because DeMint wants to amend a housing bill on the Senate floor – and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is resisting the effort.

Because the bill is a privileged resolution, DeMint can only delay it. That he did, forcing Democrats to run out much of a 30-hour post-cloture clock before Saturday’s vote.

The bill already passed the House on Wednesday, and the White House has reversed an earlier veto threat.

DeMint spoke to The Hill late Friday afternoon:

Q: So how popular are you among your colleagues lately?

A: It’s interesting. There’s been an unusual amount of senior members who have been taking me aside and saying I’m doing the right thing and to hang in there. There is an undercurrent of Republicans saying we’ve got to do something about how the majority leader schedules votes. Some folks are irritated, but they realize I don’t set the schedule. So it’s a mixed bag, but something I have to follow through on.

Q: What’s your principal objection?

A: It’s a massive bill with massive amounts of money and huge implications for the future, and they want to do it with no debate or amendments. And it’s a knee-jerk reaction to a crisis created by incompetence and negligence from Congress. So the same folks who got us into this mess are now saying they can get us out of it. There is no need for us to swallow so much bad policy in exchange for shoring up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which we could have done separately.

Q: But you’ve been referring to the lobbying provision as your biggest problem with the bill.

A: The lobbying provision is one thing I asked for because Congress has a huge conflict of interest here… I also said I would concede and let this go if we had this one amendment that might create some legitimacy to what Congress is trying to do. I gave them a lot of options. I offered a stand-alone bill anytime before we leave this fall. The other offer I made them is to move the two votes to Monday.

Q: If Democrats refuse to budge, isn’t it the case that you’ve only delayed the housing bill, not blocked it, since it’s a privileged resolution?

A: That’s right. But I also know that millions of Americans now know this bill is a problem.

Q: What effect did the White House’s reversal on the bill have on you?

A: It just completely pulled the rug out from any ability to get bad things out of the bill. It was detrimental. The president was willing to concede on bad policy.

Q: You caught a lot of heat for a similar move last week, when you forced a Friday vote in the Senate on AIDS legislation but then didn’t attend. Why?

A: I wasn’t going to let them hold me hostage. I had asked for one amendment, and I said I wouldn’t give them a UC [unanimous consent] otherwise. I had a nephew getting married, and they knew I had a family wedding. And you don’t really have to be here when voting ‘no’ on a cloture motion. I hated to do that and then not be here, but I wasn’t going to be held hostage.

 
 
 
BLOGS
ADVERTISER
Home | Privacy Policy | Terms And Conditions
The Hill
1625 K Street, NW Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax

The contents of this site are © 2008 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.