[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3796-3801]
[From the U.S. 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 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.

[[Page 3797]]

  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 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?

[[Page 3798]]


  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 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

[[Page 3799]]

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.
  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.''

[[Page 3800]]


  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.
  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

[[Page 3801]]


     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.

                          ____________________