January 24, 1980
Page 686
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, we had a discussion here on the issue raised by the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee (Mr. MUSKIE) and by the ranking minority member (Mr. BELLMON), which involves an accounting procedure, which I shall not go into as it is all spelled out in the RECORD.
It was perfectly clear that a substantial majority here favor the conference report and the provisions in it. In fact, the vote was 55 to 27. It is my guess that if the controversial provision that was raised by the Budget Committee were not included in the report, that there likely would not have been more than three or four votes against the bill, and maybe no votes. Every Member I spoke to who voted against it did so on the ground that they were sticking with the Budget Committee's objection to that provision in the bill.
By that vote the expression of support for the conference report was made. However, on the motion to table, by a vote of 50 to 30, I believe, the Members refused to table and that refusal was based, in my judgment, quite clearly upon an expression of opposition by those Members to that particular provision in the bill. So there has been a clear expression here, in my judgment, that that interest differential provision is the point at issue.
In discussing the matter, there is no use in running through any more roll calls requiring people to vote to reject the conference report, so I am agreeable to have a voice vote on the motion to reconsider, a voice vote on the motion to reject the conference report, and then an amendment will be offered by the chairman of the Budget Committee striking the provision the Budget Committee objects to, and have a roll call vote on that. It will then be sent to the House and the House will act on that conference report, as amended. Do I state it correctly?
Mr. MUSKIE. I could not improve upon the Senator's explanation by uttering another word, a situation in which I rarely find myself.
If it is agreeable all around, I would suggest, Mr. President, that we have a voice vote on the motion to reconsider. I will then make a motion to reject the conference report, and we will voice vote that. Then I have the amendment at the desk which will do what these 50 Senators want to do.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. SARBANES. Is it the Senator's intention to have a roll call vote on the amendment?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. SARBANES. But not to have a roll call on the motion to reject the conference report?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. Why would we not have a roll call vote on both of those, if we are going to have a roll call on either of those?
Mr. NELSON. May I respond to that?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. NELSON. Let me say to the distinguished Senator from Maryland that it is his privilege, of course, to ask for a roll call.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. It is automatic because it was already ordered.
Mr. NELSON. On the motion to reconsider?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. NELSON. All right. Speaking for myself only, and not to request the roll call, this Senator is not trying to put anybody on the spot in any way. I think the RECORD indicates what the feeling here is. I personally have no objection to a voice vote on the motion to reconsider because I think it is clear what these roll calls show.
Mr. SARBANES. I can understand what the Senator from Wisconsin has asserted, that the votes taken up to now express a Senate position and the Senator wants to carry out the rest of the sequence by voice. I do not quite understand carrying out part of the rest of the sequence by voice and part of it by roll call. It seems to me either it should all be done by rollcall or all should be done by voice.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have no objection to that. There is some impression, perhaps erroneous, that a lot of Senators who surrounded us were interested in accelerating the procedure. I have no objection to a roll call, to three roll calls, if that is the desire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inform the Senator from Wisconsin that the yeas and nays have been ordered on a motion to reconsider and on the conference report. It would require unanimous consent to withdraw that.
Mr. NELSON. If I may say one word, it seems to me we are putting in a whole lot of time on roll call votes which are unnecessary. I would be perfectly agreeable to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the request for the roll call votes and have a voice vote on the motion to reconsider, and on the motion to agree to the conference report.
I will make that unanimous consent request right now. Otherwise, we are going to spend a lot of time here unnecessarily. We have a conference going on regarding the windfall profit tax which is an important piece of business. The result will not be any different, as we all know. I put that request.
Mr. McCLURE. Will the Senator restate the request?
Mr. NELSON. My request is to withdraw the roll call vote on the motion to reconsider and on the motion to adopt the conference report.
It will be on the motion to adopt. At the appropriate time I will ask unanimous consent that there be no roll call vote on the amendment offered by the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCLURE. Reserving the right to object, and I do not wish to object, I do want to have the opportunity, and I think other Members want to have the opportunity, at some time, to express support for the legislation by a rollcall vote. At some time before we dispose of this there ought to be such an opportunity. My reason for reserving the right to object is if it does not occur on the adoption of the Muskie amendment, when would it occur?
Mr. MUSKIE. That would be the last vote, as I understand it. That would be the last vote and the last opportunity.
Mr. McCLURE. I reserved the right to object because I appreciate the statement of the Senator from Wisconsin and what he is trying to accomplish, but I very much appreciate his statement as to what the votes have been up to this point. It fits the Senator from Idaho precisely because I do support the legislation, I do object to that one provision, and I do want to support the Senator from Maine and the Budget Committee. I think there are other similarly affected who do not want this to pass without having recorded support for that position.
Mr. HATCH. Reserving the right to object, I would like to make a. comment and ask the Senator from Maine a couple of questions to clarify the matter. It is my understanding that what the distinguished chairman of the Budget Com mittee is trying to do here is to establish that these are off budget items that really ought to be put on budget. Many of us are for this bill and would like to establish that procedure.
Mr. MUSKIE. A more precise way of describing the issue is this: SBA gets its money for the disaster loan program by appropriations from the Treasury. SBA collects interest when it loans that money out. Under the present law it has to pay the Treasury interest.
Under the provision of the conference report, which is a House originated provision, SBA would be exempted from the requirement to pay the Treasury interest. It could accumulate the interest it collects on the money borrowed from the Treasury without paying the Treasury interest. The result would be an accumulation of these payments in the revolving fund which could reduce the likelihood of Appropriations Committee scrutiny of the program for years into the future. There are 38 other direct loan programs, all paying interest to the Treasury under existing law.
Mr. HATCH. That is the point the Senator has made. But in addition, everybody here, I think, realizes there are approximately $16 billion in off-budget items which are not really listed in the total deficit of the United States which need to be put on budget, and that the Budget Committee is going to hold extensive hearings on this particular subject this year, or at least the distinguished chairman has indicated that.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HATCH. And this is a very important issue from the Budget Committee and the Budget Act standpoint as far as the Senate procedural and other operations are concerned.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct. That is why I am delighted that the Senate, as a whole, is focusing on these types of budget problems.
Mr. HATCH. Is it not the suggestion of the distinguished Senator from Maine that we voice vote the motion to reconsider, voice vote the other aspect, then have a vote up or down on the distinguished Senator's amendment to cut out this particular provision, and then let the House put this money back in so we can all vote for this bill?
Mr. MUSKIE. I think that would give Senators a clear opportunity, perhaps the only clear one, to speak to both the substance of the conference report and this issue.
Mr. HATCH. I hope that our colleagues will voice vote these two measures, allow all Senators to vote up or down on the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Maine, which would put all Senators on record in precisely the way they would like to be; then send this message back to the House of Representatives. In the end, the budget process will profit. Will the distinguished Senator from Maine agree with me on that?
Mr. MUSKIE. I agree completely.
Mr. HATCH. I certainly join in with the motion of the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin on the first two and ask the Senator to allow a vote on the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Maine. That would send a message, solve a lot of difficulties, show we make a budget stand here and, in the end, show support for the bill from those who really want to support the bill.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on the motion to reconsider?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have.
Mr. SARBANES. Have they been ordered on the acceptance of the conference report?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have.
Mr. SARBANES. Would it take unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays with respect to both those votes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. Would that question be put separately?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has been put in a joint request by the Senator—
Mr. SARBANES. I object to the joint request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. SARBANES. I have no objection to a voice vote on the reconsideration motion. I then intend to have the yeas and nays on the conference report.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the roll call vote that has been ordered on the motion to reconsider be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question then recurs on the motion to reconsider.
The motion was agreed to.