[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 35 (Friday, March 5, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2353-S2358]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EDUCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 280, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 280) to provide for education flexibility
partnerships.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Jeffords amendment No. 31, in the nature of a substitute.
Bingaman amendment No. 35 (to amendment No. 31), to provide
for a national school dropout prevention program.
Lott amendment No. 37 (to amendment No. 35), to authorize
additional appropriations to carry out part B of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this week the Senate has been debating
S. 280, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. During the
debate, we have heard various interpretations of Ed-Flex. I want to
take a moment to remind my colleagues about the idea behind Ed-Flex.
The Department of Education, under the leadership of Secretary Riley,
has stated that Ed-Flex authority will help States in ``removing
potential regulatory barriers to the successful implementation of
comprehensive school reform'' efforts.
Under Ed-Flex, the Department of Education gives a State some
authority to grant waivers to a State, giving each State the ability to
make decisions about whether some school districts may be granted
waivers pertaining to certain Federal requirements.
I would like to remind my colleagues that States cannot waive any
Federal regulatory or statutory requirements relating to health and
safety, civil rights, maintenance of effort, comparability of services,
equitable participation of students and professional
[[Page S2354]]
staff in private schools, parental participation and involvement, and
distribution of funds to State or local educational agencies. It is
very limited, but very helpful.
I believe this week, working in a bipartisan fashion, we strengthen
the accountability aspects of the Ed-Flex bill even beyond that of the
bill that was passed out of committee last year by a vote of 17-1. The
accountability features of the bill are designed to improve school and
student performance, which should be the mission of every education
initiative.
For a moment it appears that the debate on this bill has become mired
in a debate over other education proposals not related to education
flexibility but related to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is the foundation for most
Federal programs designed to assist students and teachers in our
elementary and secondary schools. This year, this legislation is up for
review.
As we embark on a new century, it is the perfect opportunity for us
to examine the Federal role in our educational delivery system. The
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions--the HELP
Committee--is currently engaged in the hearing process and has been
since last December.
Through the hearing process, we are evaluating currently authorized
programs and exploring new ideas. The first hearing the committee held
this year in regard to education examined various initiatives that have
been introduced by Members of this body. The Elementary and Secondary
Education Act is the most important education legislation we will
consider this year, and probably the most important one we have. There
are a lot of good ideas that are being discussed in and out of this
Chamber that deserve a thorough review.
It is for this reason that we should not be debating these issues as
amendments to the Ed-Flex bill but should be debating these proposals
in the context of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, so that
they can receive adequate attention in determining their merits.
For this fiscal year, the Federal Government is currently spending
approximately $15 billion on programs related to elementary and
secondary education. This figure excludes special education and
vocational education.
How are these dollars being spent? Who is being served? Is student
performance improving? What types of professional development programs
are helpful to our classroom teachers? Are those teacher training
activities translated into better teaching methods? What are the proper
roles for the various levels of government? These are questions that
must be, and will be, addressed in the coming months during the
Elementary and Secondary Education reauthorization.
I urge my colleagues to work with me and the other members in the
committee in finding the answers to these questions through the
reauthorization process. Do not attempt to short circuit the process by
offering those proposals to the Ed-Flex bill.
The Education Flexibility Partnership Act is not meant to serve as
the sole solution to improving school and student performance. However,
it does serve as a mechanism that will give States the ability to
enhance services to students through flexibility with real
accountability. I urge my colleagues to support immediate passage of S.
280.
Now, we have had, over the past few days, the desire--and I can
understand that desire--to move ahead of the schedule of hearings and
thorough review of the present Federal programs, to introduce the
programs basically that have been recommended by the President for the
purposes of trying to add them to this Ed-Flex bill way ahead of when
they should be offered after a thorough examination and review of the
problems we are facing as well as what the recommended programs would
do to solve those problems.
It is the unenviable position I am placed in of trying to pass a bill
called the Ed-Flex bill which will immediately give help to the States
in better utilizing those resources that are already available and not
to encumber it in the process by amending and trying to create programs
which will hold up the passage of this bill not only here in the Senate
but through the Government in the legislative process. So I don't know
why we should or would like to do that.
I also point out where we are and will take a few minutes just to
point out where we are presently with respect to our attempts and
ability to be able to try to improve the educational process.
Back in 1983 during the Reagan years, Secretary Bell held a Senate
hearing on the status of education in the United States. As a result of
that, a report, ``A Nation at Risk,'' was handed down in 1983 and, with
words which are incredibly, I would say, looking towards the future in
examining our educational system, said, ``If a foreign nation had
imposed upon this Nation our educational system we would have
considered it an act of war.'' Those were incredibly strong words. We
didn't fully understand what they meant for years.
In 1988, the Governors met in Virginia, in Williamsburg, and they
agreed, after examining where we were not within ourselves, the
tendency we have in this country is to try to compare ourselves among
ourselves. In Vermont we say, ``Oh, my gosh, we are doing better than
most of the other States. We must be in good shape. We don't have to do
anything.'' But it did prevail throughout Vermont and the country for
some time. But gradually we recognized the problems.
One of the most, I think, poignant demonstrations of that problem was
by the Motorola company when they had a real problem with the quality
of their production in this country. They found that the Japanese were
moving ahead of them in the area the United States should have been the
leader in--cell phones. The president of Motorola at that time brought
his leaders together, the board of directors, and said, ``What do we
do?'' The recommendation was, first of all, we ought to find out what
our problem is in education, and secondly--I think the tone of it was--
we ought to look elsewhere, to other countries, to find the educated
population that we need in order to produce in competition with the
Japanese.
The CEO did not like the thought or the idea of sending our jobs
overseas because they were better educated. So he asked to have an
examination of his own employees to see what could be done in order for
them to produce the quality that was necessary. The results were
amazing. They did not have the capacity in math. But that wasn't the
basic problem. They found out--this is amazing in a corporation like
Motorola--that the people who were given the math problems couldn't
understand the math problems because they couldn't read. Wow. That sent
a shudder through them. But the CEO went on, saying, ``I don't care. We
can do it.''
So they set up remedial education programs in reading so they could
get their employees up to skills in reading sufficiently to be able to
understand the math problems. Then they had the training in math.
Although the staff still recommended that they ought to send the jobs
overseas to Malaysia, the CEO said, ``We will do it here.''
It turned out that with the proper remedial training and upgrading of
math, they not only were able to produce on a par with the Japanese but
were also superior to them. Therefore, they were able, after
considerable problems getting into the Japanese market, to outperform
the Japanese and kept the jobs at home.
In 1988 it was established that we had a problem by the Governors.
But it took until 1994 before the Congress reacted and passed what is
referred to as the ``Goals 2000'' bill. We took a look. Here it is now,
15 years after the ``Nation At Risk'' report and a goals panel which
Senator Bingaman and I sat on with respect to the Senate, and we found,
to our alarm, that we had no measurable improvement in the 15 years
since the Nation was put on notice we had to improve--no measurable
improvement, except our children were coming to school healthier. In
other words, when they reached the sixth grade, they were healthier
than they were 15 years ago. That still is not a very successful thing.
Then the thing we learned this last time, which was even more
amazing, was that the data we were using to determine whether or not
our young people were improving was 1994 data. We did not even have the
capacity in this
[[Page S2355]]
Nation, after 15 years, to find out where we were. This is very extreme
and a key element of the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act as to why we could not as of yet find out in an
expeditious way where our young people stand as well on the kind of
standard we need to be competitive internationally.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I am happy to yield for a question.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the bill we have been discussing for the
last several days is a bipartisan bill entitled ``Ed-Flex.'' It really
aims at a fundamental issue, I believe, which is how we improve
education for our children, kindergarten through the 12th grade.
This particular bill, which is sponsored by myself and Ron Wyden, is
a bipartisan bill. It is a bill that is very simple.
My question is: It seems that over the last several hours of
yesterday that a number of extraneous amendments which have nothing to
do with my bill, the Ed-Flex bill, a very specific bill which gives
flexibility to schools and to teachers and to local communities to
accomplish education goals--all of these amendments seem to be well
intended, seem to be great programs, but I ask: Is it not appropriate,
or more appropriate, so that we can deliver a bipartisan bill supported
by the American people, supported by all 50 Governors, supported by the
President of the United States, supported by the Department of
Education--why can't we in this body come to agreement to pass this
bill as written with several germane or relevant amendments, which we
have been dealing with very appropriately, in a clean way without
trying to attach all of these other programs--all of these other
programs, I might add, which have huge price tags. My bill doesn't cost
a single cent, has bipartisan support, and will help the children
within weeks or months of passage.
Why not--this is the question to my distinguished colleague--address
all of these other issues, well intended, which do cost money, which
are new programs, why not address them through the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, which is the most appropriate forum where we
are considering all of these education programs as we go forward? Why
can't we proceed with our bill as written, as appropriately modified,
without having to consider every one of these other major issues that
come forward that need to be addressed elsewhere?
Mr. JEFFORDS. In answer, I say that the Senator is right, absolutely
right. What we need to do is to get this country in a position where
the Governors have the flexibility to assist us as we move forward.
I would point out that what we have done also as a fallback in that
sense is, with second-degree amendments, to point out that the best
thing we can do right now for the Governors and the Nation is to fully
fund IDEA, which is the largest expense that local schools have in
doing what is constitutionally required; that is, to provide a child
with an appropriate and free education.
A recent Supreme Court decision just the other day points out how
important that is now, where, under the 1988 Americans with
Disabilities Act, the schools are now responsible to ensure that health
care, which is necessary in order to allow the child to be able to
obtain the maximum they can, is to be paid for by local governments.
Now, we promised to pay 40 percent of that bill when it was passed. I
was on the committee, so I feel a little personally responsible. We
said we would pay 40 percent. If you look at the chart behind me here,
you can see that we are far from doing that. The total cost now--and
that is going to go up significantly with the Supreme Court decision--
is $40.5 billion a year. The Federal Government, in order to take up
its share, which would obviously be around $10 billion--well over $10
billion, right. But we are far from that. Right now we are still $11
billion short
Mr. FRIST. If the Senator will yield for one more question about
where we stand as of this morning, again, the bill I have proposed,
which passed through your committee last year by a vote of 17 to 1,
which passed through your committee this year, which has bipartisan
support, is Ed-Flex, flexibility given to local communities with strong
accountability--that is the bill that we are discussing. Is what you
have just pointed out, and what was pointed out yesterday, that before
we consider a number of other programs--which may be important and
which will be considered in your committee over the course of the next
year--before we should fund new programs, however good they might be,
we have an obligation to fulfill the promises that we made in the past,
promises to fund a very good program--the Disability Education Act;
special education? You pointed out that we have not fulfilled that
promise yet and before we should dedicate specific funds to new
programs, we should fund that unfunded promise that we made, that we
guaranteed in the past.
Mr. JEFFORDS. That is absolutely correct. I praise the Senator for
raising that issue and for the introduction on the Ed-Flex bill,
because that is a no-cost measure. In fact, it is a ``no-brainer'' in
the sense of passage. It ought to be passed. All it does is give the
States flexibility to maximize the utilization of Federal funds. That
should be on the books before we add any new programs and have the
Governors have the maximum flexibility.
Mr. President, I want to also alert people about the program for this
morning. We have promised that we will have a vote before 10:30 in
order to accommodate several Senators. So I want to continue to expand
on where we should be going right now. I am hopeful that we can be
finished with another amendment in the next 20 minutes so we can call
the vote before 10:30 to accommodate those Senators. I again urge that
the only amendments I will consider on this bill with respect to
education will be those that will not encumber this bill with programs
which should appropriately be on the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, which we will be discussing, and on which we are already holding
hearings. We may accommodate amendments, but not those that will
interfere with an orderly process of this legislation going forward,
unencumbered, on bills that should be appropriately brought before the
committee with respect to education and other matters.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Unanimous-Consent Request
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending Ed-Flex
bill be temporarily set aside and the Senate now proceed to the
consideration of Calendar No. 26, S. 508, a bill to prohibit
implementation of ``Know Your Customer'' regulations by the Federal
banking agencies. I further ask consent that there be 20 minutes for
debate on the bill equally divided in the usual form, there be no
amendments in order, and following that debate the bill be read a third
time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators on this side, I will
have to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Amendment No. 40
(Purpose: To prohibit implementation of ``Know Your Customer''
regulations by the Federal banking agencies)
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I call up amendment 40.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], for Mr. Allard, for
himself, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Bennett and Mr. Gramm,
proposes an amendment numbered 40 to the language in the bill
proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 31.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
In the language proposed to be stricken, insert the
following:
SEC. . ``KNOW YOUR CUSTOMER'' REGULATIONS RESCINDED.
(a) In General.--None of the following proposed regulations
may be published in final form and, to the extent that any
such regulation has become effective before the date of the
date of the enactment of this legislation, such regulation
shall cease to be effective as of such date:
(1) The regulation proposed by the Comptroller of the
Currency to amend part 21 of
[[Page S2356]]
title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as published in
the Federal Register on December 7, 1998.
(2) The regulation proposed by the Director of the Office
of Thrift Supervision to amend part 563 of title 12 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, as published in the Federal
Register on December 7, 1998.
(3) The regulation proposed by the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System to amend parts 208, 211, and 225
of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulation, as published
in the Federal Register on December 7, 1998.
(4) The regulation proposed by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation to amend part 326 of title 12 of the
Code of Federal Regulations as published in the Federal
Register on December 7, 1998.
(b) Prohibition on Similar Regulations.--None of the
Federal Banking Agencies referred to in subsection (a) may
prescribe any regulation which is substantially similar to,
or would have substantially the safe effect as, any proposed
regulation described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of
subsection (a).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we now find ourselves in a situation where
the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, or FDIC, have introduced a regulation called ``Know Your
Customer.'' This regulation has a 90-day public comment period which
will end on March 8. On behalf of the Banking Committee, Senator
Bennett and I sent a letter to each of the regulators, urging them to
drop this proposed regulation. I would like to briefly tell our
colleagues what this regulation does.
Under these regulations imposed on every bank and every thrift in
America, banks and thrifts would have to set up a program to document a
system of internal controls for compliance with the regulation
including independent testing, monitoring of day-to-day compliance, and
annual personnel training.
What all this would be geared toward is looking at the bank account
of every single American who has an account, large or small, in any
thrift or any bank in America, to determine the identity of any new
customers, to determine the customer's source of funds in bank
transactions, to determine the particular customer's normal and
expected financial transactions, to monitor account activity for
transactions that are inconsistent with the normal and expected
transactions, and to report transactions of customers that are
determined to be suspicious to the regulatory authority.
If you ever wondered what happened to all those people in the former
Soviet Union who used to run things there and now are permanently out
of work, the answer is they are all in the Clinton administration and
they are running the banking authorities of this country. Can you
imagine having in place in America regulations so if your mama doubles
the contribution she makes on Sunday to the church, her banker looks at
it to see if it is out of the ordinary?
I don't doubt that somewhere, somebody had some good intention. The
objective here is to look at money laundering. But the problem is, this
is such a broad-reaching regulation that it infringes on our
constitutional rights.
I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to amendment IV
in the Constitution. Amendment IV says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures shall not be violated. . . .
Our Federal Government has no right to routinely monitor your bank
account. Our Federal Government has no right to keep records on where
your money comes from, or how you write checks, or how you spend your
money, unless there is some clear, compelling case that you are
violating the law. What these bank regulators have done is not only run
afoul of public opinion--over 135,000 Americans have filed comments in
opposition to this process--but they have run afoul of something more
important than public opinion. They have run afoul of the Constitution
of the United States.
As a result, not having heard a definite answer from the regulators,
members of the Banking Committee are here today to begin our process of
engaging in oversight to be sure that when we pass laws, as we did
setting up these agencies, that those laws are adhered to.
I believe our committees spend too much time writing law and too
little time seeing that regulatory agencies abide by that law.
I have two colleagues here today who have been leaders in this effort
to introduce the bill that we were unable to call up because a
unanimous consent was objected to. Let me first yield to Senator
Allard.
Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator for yielding for the purpose of a
question. I just want to be clear that we are talking about the same
issue here. My understanding is that these are the same rules and
regulations proposed by the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the Office of
Thrift Supervision and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency on
December 7. As I understand, the regulations are going to require banks
to set up customer profiles. I cannot imagine anything more intrusive
than looking into somebody's banking account any time there is a little
bonus that they get in their paycheck or they give a contribution
somewhere. Then they suddenly become subject to scrutiny, not only by
their banker but by law enforcement agencies and by the regulators. I
think that is extremely intrusive. I just wanted to clarify that.
The regulations that are being proposed are extremely vague and are
certainly a threat to our privacy in this country. The regulations, as
I understand, were drawn up to fight fraud, tax evasion, and combat
money laundering, but I do believe that they are reaching entirely too
far. I think these regulations are unnecessary and, frankly, I think
these regulations ought to be scratched.
One other thing that I want to clarify with Senator Gramm from Texas
is that credit unions, security firms and insurance firms are exempt
from these regulations. Again, we have one part of the financial
industry being regulated and none of the other parts being regulated. I
think the proposed regulations would create a lot of imbalance.
Mr. GRAMM. If the Senator would allow me to reclaim my time, very
briefly, not only is it an unconstitutional, unjustified, and
unwarranted search and seizure, but wisely, the Securities and Exchange
Commission and the National Credit Union Administration have not
promulgated such rules. While we are being critical, and justifiably
so, of the agencies that have, we should point out that these agencies
did not follow suit, and I think they deserve some credit.
The point is, if I know that the Federal Government is going to be
spying on my little bank account that might have $1,100 in it, and I
can take it and put it in a credit union or put it in a mutual fund and
have some degree of privacy, every little bank, every savings and loan
or community bank in America ends up being disadvantaged, because the
Federal Government is using them to snoop on their customers. As a
result, they lose customers.
Mr. ALLARD. These are unbelievably intrusive. I congratulate the
chairman of the Banking Committee for his hard work, and, in
particular, my colleague from Pennsylvania. He has really stepped
forward on this issue, doing a great job on the Banking Committee. It
is a pleasure to work with both of you on this issue.
Mr. GRAMM. Senator Santorum.
Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to return the
compliment to my colleague from Colorado, Senator Allard, who has been
magnificent in introducing legislation, working with Senator Enzi from
Wyoming, and coauthoring a letter with myself and sending a
correspondence a couple of weeks ago complaining about this regulation.
He mentioned a couple of the concerns. Actually, an interesting
concern was brought up yesterday. If you are not aware or are you
aware, Mr. Hawke, who is the head of the OCC, testified before the
House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law, yesterday and raised a concern. These are his
regulations, but he raised some concerns, from all the feedback he had
received, that he believed that these regulations were inadvertently
undermining confidence in the banking system, because it violated the
trust and the right of privacy between the banker and the customer.
There are serious consequences to this. It is not just moving it from
your bank to your savings and loan, but literally, it undermines the
customer-banker relationship and that privacy relationship that is
expected.
[[Page S2357]]
I will quote Mr. Hawke:
Law-abiding citizens . . . will understandably be
apprehensive that their banks will report any transactions
that may be the least out of the ordinary . . .''
A widespread loss of confidence in the privacy of bank
accounts could lead to widespread withdrawals and ``do
lasting damage to our banking system. . . .''
That is from the regulator who has proposed these. I think he has now
understood. Over 140,000 people have written, with, to my
understanding, 33 in favor, and the other 139,900-plus were against it.
I can tell you, in my office we have received 200 to 300 letters, all
against, and almost all from individuals. The few thrifts and banks
that have written us did not write us to complain about the regulatory
burden, but wrote us to reflect all the complaints they are getting
from their customers about the invasion of privacy here. This has some
serious constitutional issues, and, I think, very serious ramifications
for the banking industry. I would like your comment on that.
Mr. GRAMM. First of all, I would guess that those 33 people who were
for it are the people who are going to sell all the management services
and the training programs and the computer programs for enforcement. It
is a foul breeze that doesn't blow somebody some good.
The point is, you have 260 million Americans who lose a
constitutional right, when you have financial institutions that have
every confidence that people have in the security of their deposits,
not that they are going to lose the money but that they are going to
lose their freedom to take their paychecks, deposit in their bank
without people knowing how much they have deposited, and spend their
money on things they want to spend it on without being second guessed
as to whether this expenditure was out of the ordinary, with language
like ``determine the particular customer's normal and expected
transaction.''
Mr. SANTORUM. They are going to do a profile on every individual's
transactions within their bank?
Mr. GRAMM. Take a bank in a medium-sized town and take the personnel
they have, how in the world could they possibly comply with this
outrageous regulation without it costing, on a nationwide basis,
literally billions of dollars?
I think one of the complaints that we have on this issue is a very
simple one, not only is it unconstitutional, not only is it outrageous,
but it shows, again, how callous Federal regulators are about the costs
that are imposed on American business, and the loss of freedom for
American consumers. It is sort of the idea that if someone has a social
experimentation, it is the job of Americans to comply with their
experiment and it is the job of business to pay for it.
Nowhere in the regulation does it suggest that the Government is
going to pay the bank in your hometown or the bank that is in a
shopping center near where you live in Colorado; there is nothing in
the regulation that says they are going to pay for all these costs. Who
do you think is going to pay for it? You are going to pay for it with
fees on your checking account. You are going to pay for it with lower
rates of return on your CD. You are going to pay for it when you borrow
money to buy your home or buy a car or borrow money on a guaranteed
student loan to send your child to college. You are going to pay for
these regulations in higher costs.
I am delighted that the Comptroller of the Currency has become
concerned, but why didn't they think about this before they promulgated
this regulation?
The point is, our job on the Banking Committee is to stop this kind
of thing from happening.
Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GRAMM. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. ALLARD. It is interesting how their light sort of turned on after
such diverse groups as the ACLU and the Christian Coalition came
together and opposed these regulations. As my colleague from
Pennsylvania pointed out, the regulators have received over 100,000
objections. There are so many objections coming in, that they have a
hard time keeping the number up on the web page because so many people
are writing in to explain their concerns. I think the American people
have caught on to this folly, and I think it is a shame that we have to
bring it up in this manner to address it in the Senate.
Again, I thank the chairman of the Banking Committee for his fight to
protect the Constitution and to protect the privacy rights of American
citizens.
It is extremely important that we do everything possible to keep from
having these rules and regulations passed. They are so invasive.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator from Texas yield?
Mr. GRAMM. I yield, and then I will yield to the Senator from
Washington for a question.
Mr. SANTORUM. As I understand procedurally what has happened, we
tried to call up a bill on the floor, which I introduced with Senator
Allard and Senator Enzi, and tried to get a vote to express the will of
the Senate that we are against the ``Know Your Customer'' regulations.
My understanding is the other side objected to bringing that bill up.
So you have had to offer an amendment to the Ed-Flex bill to try to get
the Senate on record in opposition, because there will be some
decision--the end of the comment period will be, I think, on Monday; is
that correct?
Mr. GRAMM. That is correct. I also remind my colleague, we sent a
letter from the committee on February 10 objecting to these
regulations. The point is, when the committee of jurisdiction almost a
month ago said no, the time has come for them to answer. That is why we
brought this issue to the floor.
Mr. SANTORUM. So it is your desire to try to get a vote on this, have
the Senate express itself in an up-or-down fashion in the next few
minutes?
Mr. GRAMM. That is right. It would be nice if our colleagues would
let us have an up-or-down vote on it. I don't know why anybody would be
opposed to this amendment. But it would be my objective, after yielding
to the Senator solely for the purpose of a question, to move to table
the pending amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. But I yield to the
Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you. Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk
about education. I was a little surprised we were talking about banking
since we haven't been able to talk about a lot of education issues that
are critical to parents, students and teachers across the country.
I ask my colleague from Texas what his intent is on this amendment. I
know we are expected to go to a vote shortly. There are a number of us
here who did want to talk about education before a vote occurred. Do
you intend to vote in the next several minutes without yielding any
Democratic time?
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, my intention is to move to table the
amendment before 10:20 and ask for the yeas and nays. I do know we are
here this morning to talk about education, and that is very important.
But I say to my colleagues, in apologizing for having to disrupt their
debate, that this is about education. When we have the Federal
Government imposing regulations that will cost our financial
institutions billions of dollars to comply and that will end up driving
up the cost of loans as people borrow money to send their children to
college, I think it is something with which we have to deal.
We are reaching the point where we could have a final determination.
We are encouraged that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
has raised concern about it responding to 140,000 objections. But the
point is, on Monday, we are going to have, potentially, a final
determination. We had hoped when we sent a letter on February 10 that
we would get action. We did not get that action. As a result, we are
here today.
Mr. President, I move to table amendment No. 40, and I ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table amendment No. 40. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. FITZGERALD (when his name was called). Present.
[[Page S2358]]
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning),
the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from
Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator
from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas)
are necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the
Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) would each
vote ``no.''
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad),
the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), and the Senator from
Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 0, nays 88, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 33 Leg.]
NAYS--88
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Fitzgerald
NOT VOTING--11
Bunning
Burns
Conrad
Dorgan
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Kyl
McCain
Mikulski
Sessions
Thomas
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 40) was rejected.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Senate now is in its third day of debate
on the education flexibility bill. I think that is good. This is a
subject we should all be more than happy to talk about. There has been
a good debate and a number of amendments have been disposed of. But
progress has begun to slow down.
I feel the need to remind our colleagues on both sides of the aisle
that the appropriations season is fast approaching and that we have
several important items to consider between now and the Easter recess.
For instance, I presume that by the latter part of next week the
emergency supplemental appropriations bill will be ready for
consideration, since the Appropriations Committee reported it out
unanimously yesterday; and, of course, we hope to go to the budget
resolution and get it completed before we end the session at the end of
March for the Easter recess. I believe there is a genuine interest on
both sides of the aisle in completing both the Ed-Flex bill as well as
the emergency supplemental, if that can be worked out, and the budget
resolution which will be available, hopefully, within the next 10 days
or so.
Cloture Motion
Mr. LOTT. In order to assure that we keep moving toward passage of
the Ed-Flex bill, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment No. 31
to Calendar No. 12, S. 280, the education flexibility
partnership bill.
Trent Lott, Jim Jeffords, John H. Chafee, Bob Smith (NH),
Thad Cochran, Arlen Specter, Slade Gorton, Mitch
McConnell, Richard Shelby, Bill Frist, Larry E. Craig,
Jon Kyl, Paul Coverdell, Gordon Smith, Peter G.
Fitzgerald, Judd Gregg.
Mr. LOTT. Again, Mr. President, it is my hope that the cloture vote
will not be needed and that the Senate will be able to enter into some
reasonable time agreement with respect to the Ed-Flex bill.
I know the Senator from Oregon has been working on both sides of the
aisle, talking to his cosponsors, Senator Frist and the chairman and
ranking member of the committee, as well as leadership on the
Democratic side of the aisle, and to the majority leader. He will
continue to do that. I am hoping that he will find some way to get an
agreement as to how we can proceed with amendments and get to a
conclusion. But we haven't been able to get that worked out yet.
If we cannot get something worked out, then the cloture vote would
occur on this cloture motion on Tuesday, March 9.
I now ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII
be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________