May 19, 1966
Page 11043
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that members of the staff of the Committee on Banking and Currency may have the privilege ,of the floor during consideration of the pending bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I believe it would be well for the Senator to explain the differences between the House version and the Senate version. I am hoping that the Senator is not planning on pushing the bill to a vote today because I have been advised that there is but one copy; of the conference report in the Senate Chamber, and therefore only one copy available. This bill is of such importance that all Senators should have an opportunity to examine overnight what changes may have been made by the House.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me say to the Senator that I will undertake to explain the differences between the House and Senate versions. It is our desire to get the bill to a vote today. I trust that the explanation and such discussion as we may have will clarify the questions which the Senator from Delaware may have at that point.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to place in the RECORD at this point the text of the bill as passed by the Senate on May 5 and a brief explanation of the principal differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill
There being no objection, the bill and explanation were ordered o be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
EXPLANATION OF PRINCIPAL DIFFERENCES
The House changes were mainly of a clarifying or technical nature. There are three principal substantive differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill
(1) Section 2(b) of the bill specifies the departments or agencies which may establish trusts under this Act. The House bill amends the Senate language applying to the Farmers Home Administration to describe more precisely the programs to be included. The House amendment adds direct soil and water loans to the included programs. The House also specifies certain
types of loans within the included programs on which trusts may not be established.
(2) The House amendments added a subsection (b) to Section 6 of the bill, which provides that no department or agency listed in this bill may sell any obligations except as provided by this bill or as approved by the Secretary of the Treasury.
The effect of this provision is to assure effective coordination of all asset sales by the various departments and agencies of the Government.
(3} The House version omits section 8(b) of the Senate version, which would require the Secretary of the Treasury to make an annual report to the Congress giving certain specified information regarding asset sales and related matters.
The Treasury Department has indicated that it will provide such a report, whether or not there is a statutory requirement.
[TEXT OF BILL OMITTED]
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. But the Senator knows that we are dealing with a rather far-reaching proposal here. While not for one moment do I distrust the sincerity of the Senator from Maine, I am not unmindful of the fact that the administration which is sponsoring the proposed legislation tried to sneak through a bill granting it authority to sell $33 billion worth of our assets.
After they were caught with their hands in the cookie jar we were able to reduce that amount down to approximately $11 billion. But the principle is wrong, and I want to make sure we are not selling the Washington Monument -- I would not put that past the administration if it could get away with it. I welcome the explanation of the Senator, but I wish to reserve the right to examine this bill very carefully before the Senate votes to see exactly what little gimmicks, if any, the administration may have slipped in.
Therefore, in the interests of orderly procedure I shall ask that it go over until next week. I am sure we will move along much faster if the bill is not pushed to a vote this afternoon.
That is a friendly suggestion.
Mr. MUSKIE. In friendly response to the Senator from Delaware, let me say to him that of course I do not agree with his description of the procedure which we undertook in presenting the original administration bill. I do not believe there was anything sneaky about it; but of course the Senator is entitled to his own opinion. In any case, let me say that the point the Senator has just made is the same one we discussed when the bill was recently before the Senate; namely, whether in principle this is a sound thing to do. That question was resolved in two record votes on this side in the Capitol.
The changes made by the House do not raise that issue and do not go to it. The fact is, the changes made by the House tend to tighten the bill in the direction in which the Senator from Delaware would like it to go, so that I am sure he would approve of the House changes, by and large – I will not presume to make that judgment, but I believe that he would.
In any case, I will undertake to explain the differences and we can see where we go from there.
Mr. President, a few days ago the Senate considered and passed S. 3283, the Participation Sales Act of 1966.
Yesterday the House considered and passed H.R. 14544, which was the House version of the same legislation.
The bill as amended by the House is now before us and has now been laid down, and I would like, at the proper time, to make a motion that we accept the amended bill as it is before us.
The amendments which were adopted in the House and which make it different from the Senate version are largely technical and clarifying amendments.
There are three, however, which I think ought to be brought to the attention of the Senate so it may know what they are.
The first which I undertake to bring to the attention of the Senate has to do with the list of programs which would be covered by the legislation if enacted.
The Senate will recall that in the consideration by the Senate of this legislation the program was narrowed, as indicated by the distinguished Senator from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS], from some $33 billion to some $11 billion.
The amendment adopted by the Senate which accomplished that listed the programs and agencies which would be covered by the legislation.
The language which was adopted by the Senate has been clarified by the House. In order to indicate the nature of that clarification, I will read first the Senate language, and then the House language as it relates to the difference between the two versions.
The Senate language reads as follows 2:
Subject to the limitations provided in paragraph (4) of this subsection, one or more trusts may be established as herein provided by each of the following Departments or Agencies:
The Department of Agriculture Farmers Home Administration (with respect only to loans for land acquisition, rural housing, and crop production).
The House language or version reads as follows:
The Farmers Home Administration of the Department of Agriculture, but only with respect to operating loans, direct farm ownership loans, direct housing loans, and direct soil and water loans. Such trusts may not be established with respect to loans for housing for the elderly under sections 502 and 515 (a ) of the Housing Act of 1949, nor with respect to loans for non-farm recreational development.
The Senate will recall that the Senate language was modified in respect to questions raised by the distinguished Senator from Florida [Mr HOLLAND], who was disturbed that the language as it then stood in the Senate bill would be too comprehensive with respect to the Farmers Home Administration programs and would include programs that ought not to be included.
The House has further refined the language adopted by the Senate. The House language has been reviewed by the distinguished Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND], and he raises no objection to it. .
I should like to ask the Senator from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS], if he would like to direct any questions now to this difference between the House and Senate version.
Mr WILLIAMS of Delaware. No I merely want to have a written copy to see for myself what the differences are.
Did I understand the Senator correctly to say that he intends to move that the Senate adopt H.R. 14544?
Mr MUSKIE. That is my intention. I shall be happy to show the Senator the language I have just read.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Delaware. Mr. President, I would like to direct a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair. I understand the Senator from Maine intends to move that the Senate adopt the House bill, H.R. 14544. That bill is not on the Senate Calendar. The Senate originally passed a bill (S. 3283) which went to the House, and the House amendment to the Senate bill is now before us. But H.R. 14544 as such is not before the Senate.
I ask the Chair if it is in order to consider a bill that has not been before the Senate.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I was not as precise in stating what my intention was as I should have been.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The matter before the Senate is to concur in the House amendment, which is a substitute for the Senate bill.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. That is my understanding, and that is the reason why I raised the question. Perhaps the Senator from Maine misstated what he intended. I understood him to say he was going to move that the Senate adopt H.R. 14544, which is a House bill. I do not think it would be in order if such a motion were made, and I shall make a point of order at the proper time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I did not at that point make a motion. I indicated my intention. I did not indicate it as precisely as I should have from a parliamentary point of view. I regret I was not more precise. But at the proper time I shall undertake to make a motion that is parliamentarily correct.
The second difference between the two versions of the bill which I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate is a requirement added by the House bill which was not included in the Senate bill.
The requirement which has been added to the House bill is to the effect that with respect to direct sales of these obligations outside the authority of the bill or participation sales outside the authority of the bill, such sales could not take place without direct approval by the Secretary of the Treasury. Clearly, the effect of this requirement in the House bill is to bring the entire operation with respect to these obligations under the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury.
This requirement appears to be important from the standpoint of managing sales of Government paper, whether direct Treasury borrowings, participation sales or direct sales under any program. It appears to make sense and is in fact in conformity with existing practices and I see no difficulty in the requirement which has been provided by the House bill.
The third difference between the two bills deals with an amendment initially offered by the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT], subsequently cosponsored by the Senator from Utah and myself, which established a requirement for an annual report.
The language reads as follows.
(b) the Secretary of the Treasury shall each year make a report to the Senate and House of Representatives setting forth:
(1) the net increase or decrease during the preceding fiscal year (A) in the aggregate principal amount of obligations acquired by the executive departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the United States which may be subjected to a trust under section 502 (c) of the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act and (B) in the total amount of outstanding beneficial interests or participations in such obligations, and
(2) the extent to which the sale of such beneficial interests or participations reduced the deficit or increased the surplus realized by the Government in its operations during the preceding fiscal year.
This language was not included in the House version of the bill because, as I understand, it was not offered in the House.
The Under Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Joseph W. Barr, has been in touch with the distinguished Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT] and has advised the Senator that he will send him a letter accepting the obligation or responsibility which was imposed by the Senate version of the bill. So the annual report contemplated by the language that I have just read will be made, notwithstanding the fact that it is not included in the House version of the bill and may not be included in the bill as enacted by Congress.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. In the event that Mr. Barr leaves the Treasury Department and someone else takes his place, would the person who succeeds him be bound by anything that was promised by Mr. Barr?
Mr. MUSKIE. The commitment is by the Secretary of the Treasury as an office, not as an individual.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I would like to read such a commitment, because it is my understanding that one Secretary of the Treasury cannot bind a succeeding Secretary of the Treasury any more than one Congress can bind another.
Does the Senator have the text of the letter so that it can be read to the Senate at this time?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT] conducted the discussions with the Under Secretary of the Treasury. The Senator from Utah is in a better position to reassure the Senator from Delaware than is the Senator from Maine.
I have received this commitment from the representatives of the Secretary of the Treasury with whom I have talked. They have informed me that such a report will be made and that it is not dependent upon the verbal commitment of any individual who is now an employee of the Treasury Department. I have received this commitment.
The record that is being made here also commits the Secretary of the Treasury or the Treasury Department to this obligation. I see no doubt about it.
If the Senator from Delaware desires additional reassurance, I suggest that he discuss it with the Senator from Utah.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Is the Senator now speaking of a verbal commitment?
Mr. MUSKIE. I did not discuss this question with the Secretary of the Treasury. My understanding is that the Secretary of the Treasury promised to send Senator BENNETT a letter in which the commitment would be made. I do not know whether that letter has been delivered to the Senator from Utah.
My understanding is that the Senator from Utah received the verbal assurance of the Under Secretary of the Treasury that such a letter would be sent to the Senator. I undertook to establish that fact. If my understanding is incorrect, I desire to be told. My understanding is that the Senator from Utah has been reassured that the Treasury Department is committed to make such a report. I have no reason to believe that the Senator from Utah has not been reassured. If the Senator from Delaware is not reassured, then by all means the Senator from Delaware should take whatever steps appeal to him to obtain such assurance.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I am trying to learn whether the Senator from Maine has received a verbal commitment or a written commitment.
Mr. MUSKIE. I attempted to describe to the Senator from Delaware, in as precise language as I could, what it is I have.
Mr. President, these are the three principal differences between the Senate version and the House version of the legislation. It is my opinion that they are reasonable and that the Senate would be well advised to accept them.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.