[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 31, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11261-S11266]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
          RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 2044

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by Senator Daschle which deals with the rights of police officers and 
firefighters--especially--firefighters to have the opportunity to 
organize in collective bargaining agreements.
  This amendment is timely in light of what we have seen relative to 
the commitment of our firefighters across the

[[Page S11262]]

country, along with our police officers and police personnel, in that 
it gives them rights which are given to most American Government 
employees.
  With the enactment of this language, we will have essentially covered 
the majority of State and local employees in a consistent manner across 
the country.
  The language of this amendment simply requires States to provide 
minimum collective bargaining rights to their public safety employees 
in whatever manner the States choose. In other words, if the State has 
any form of collective bargaining, they are basically exempt from this 
bill.
  It outlines certain rights that must be protected, but it leaves the 
majority of decisions to State legislatures, and States that already 
have the minimum collective bargaining protection, as outlined in the 
legislation, will be exempt from Federal statutes, as will small 
municipalities and subdivisions.
  The amendment also addresses the issue of the right to strike. As we 
know, public employees do not have a right to strike, and this 
amendment does nothing to advance that right to any public employee.
  Further, it protects the right of each employee to join or refrain 
from joining a labor union organization. In other words, in States 
which have right-to-work laws, those right-to-work laws are not 
impacted at all by this legislation.
  This legislation is extremely important, in my opinion, at this time 
because it is a statement by the Congress of our understanding of the 
importance of the jobs which firefighters and police officers do. We 
saw in New York, obviously, and we saw in Washington that these 
individuals put their lives on the line, and it is reasonable that they 
have a fair opportunity to make their case in the form of a collective 
bargaining atmosphere which is consistent with other Government 
employees and which is consistent with the laws in the States in which 
they live and work should those States have collective bargaining 
agreements.
  I strongly support this amendment. I appreciate the majority leader 
bringing it forward. It did pass the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions, of which I am the ranking member. There was not a 
recorded vote on it, but I can assure my colleagues it was a 
significant majority who supported the bill.
  I look forward to it being taken up here and adopted in the Senate.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Dorgan be allowed to speak following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2044

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I wish to speak briefly about the amendment Senator 
Daschle laid down which would allow firefighters, police officers, and 
emergency medical personnel basic collective bargaining rights; that is 
to say, the right to form a union and to bargain over hours and wages 
and working conditions.
  In other words, what we are saying is the firefighters, the police 
officers, the emergency medical personnel, the first responders on 
September 11--and indeed I meet with them all across Minnesota--they 
will be the first responders in all of our States if, God forbid, we 
have to deal with other attacks that they have the right to join a 
union, bargain collectively in order to be able to earn a decent 
living, in order to have civilized working conditions, in order to be 
able to support their families.
  I have to say on this last day of October of the year 2001, this is a 
no-brainer amendment, a no-brainer in that everybody should support it. 
It is crystal clear. As many have said, we are redefining heroes and 
heroines. It is crystal clear people in our country that there is just 
a reservoir of good feeling and strong support for these men and women. 
While we can have all of the benefit concerts and everybody can give 
all of the speeches in the world, enough speeches to deafen all the 
gods, the way we can actually show our support as Senators is to 
support this amendment, give the firefighters, give the police 
officers, and give the emergency medical personnel the right to join a 
union and bargain collectively.
  My last point--and believe me, I will not do this, but I could 
literally talk for the next 20 hours on this, and I will only talk for 
1 minute--I want this in the Record if it is not in the Record: 
Washington Post, A4, ``Quick Action Urged on Economic Stimulus.''
  We have some quotes from several members of the administration 
basically saying if we extend the health insurance subsidies--in other 
words, people are out of work, it is terrifying, now you have lost your 
job, now you do not have any health care coverage for yourself and, 
maybe more importantly, for your children--that if in fact we pass a 
recovery bill that helps people to afford health care coverage for 
themselves and their loved ones, workers will lose the incentive to 
search for new jobs.
  Coming from several members of the administration, the insulting 
assumption is if we were to help out unemployed workers with health 
care benefits so they could afford coverage for themselves and their 
loved ones, being lazy, they might not then actually find a job and 
work.
  This is outrageous. I do not even know if I need to say anything 
more. I said I would only speak briefly, so I will not say any more. It 
is just outrageous.
  We as Democrats have to have an economic recovery act that speaks to 
the unemployment benefits, speaks to health care coverage, speaks to 
job training, workforce development, speaks to investment and 
affordable housing or rebuilding crumbling schools, speaks to the whole 
infrastructure of public safety in the country, creates jobs, puts 
money in the economy, and enables people to purchase.

  We ought to do that. We ought to do it now. If Democrats cannot stand 
for these families--firefighters, police, and other working families--
and if we cannot do this now, then who are we and for what do we stand? 
I am confident we will have a strong package of benefits. This is 
something for which we have to fight hard.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I will speak about an amendment I have pending, but I 
will follow on the comments of my colleague from Minnesota. We do not 
have the option, in my judgment, of leaving this session of Congress 
without passing a package of legislation that will try to stimulate 
this economy. This economy was on its knees going into September 11. It 
was a weak economy in a great deal of trouble.
  On September 11, we had the cowardly terrorists acts that cut a hole 
in this country's economy. I fear very much that perhaps most of us do 
not fully understand how and why the economy hurts. We need to err, if 
we err, on the side of taking bold, aggressive action to stimulate the 
economy.
  Stimulating an economy is done by creating incentives for investment 
and incentives for consumption. Part of the incentives for consumption 
are to assist those in this country who, during a tough economy, are 
losing their jobs. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their 
jobs and have unemployment compensation that is inadequate, for too 
short a duration.
  Part of the stimulus package has to be to help those families, as 
well. That money is invested immediately into the economy in the form 
of consumption. I think it is important to do a range of things: 
Incentivize consumption, incentivize investment, and a range of other 
approaches to stimulate the economy and give lift to the American 
economy. We are likely in a recession. We do not know how deep or how 
long. I know we cannot afford to adjourn this Congress without working 
together with the President, in a bipartisan way, to create a stimulus 
package that is serious. This is not just politics as usual. This is 
serious business.
  The question of whether the American people have opportunity and hope 
is dependant on whether we have an economy that provides an expanded 
economic base, and therefore creates that hope and creates that 
opportunity for jobs.

[[Page S11263]]

                           Amendment No. 2024

  On the subject I want to discuss, I have an amendment now pending, or 
maybe it was set aside temporarily, but I offered the amendment, and I 
would like to get it approved this afternoon. The amendment deals with 
something called the advance passenger information system, a system 
that now exists in this country. It is for those who are entering our 
country from foreign lands. For those bringing a commercial airliner 
into this country and for those who will disembark today, we have what 
is called an advance passenger information system. Those airlines will 
send to this country a list of the passengers. Our Customs Service, the 
FBI, and other Federal law enforcement agencies can check names against 
lists that we have to make sure we are not allowing someone into our 
country, as a guest, who might be a known or suspected terrorist or 
someone who is associated with terrorists or someone who is on a list 
that we do not want to enter this country.
  There are lists of people who have committed acts of terror, criminal 
acts, people we do not want to be allowed into this country.
  Today, we have the advance passenger information systems. Most 
airliners voluntarily comply with it and send the information to us. 
Not all airlines, however. About 15 percent of the passengers come into 
this country without having their name on a manifest that is sent to 
our country to be run against one of the lists.
  Let me describe, among others, the airlines that do not voluntarily 
comply: We do not get this information from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, 
Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, just to name a few. Does anyone here think it 
would be important we would get that information from those countries? 
You better believe it is important. Yet under the voluntary system we 
do not get it.
  I chaired a hearing with the Customs Commissioner and the INS 
Commissioner. We talked about securing this country's borders, among 
other things. Mr. Potter, the Customs Commissioner, said we must make 
this advance passenger information system mandatory. It is now only 
voluntary, and we are not getting all the information we need in order 
to process who is coming into our country. We need all this 
information. We need information on people who are going to visit this 
country from Pakistan, from Saudi Arabia, from Kuwait, and others.
  I introduced a piece of legislation in the Senate that says the 
advanced passenger information system shall be mandatory. The Senate 
passed it. It was part of the counterterrorism bill, which is exactly 
where it should have been because it deals with border security. It 
went to conference with the House of Representatives. Some Members in 
the House of Representatives, citing ``committee jurisdiction,'' 
decided they were going to knock this out. So that bill went to the 
President, the counterterrorism bill, was signed into law, is now the 
law of the land, and does not contain this provision. The result is a 
provision the Senate previously enacted is now not part of the law 
dealing with counterterrorism.
  The result is that today there is an airplane landing from Pakistan, 
airplanes coming from Saudi Arabia, from Kuwait, from Egypt, from 
Jordan, and more, whose passenger list has not been provided to our 
Customs Service, our FBI, and other law enforcement agencies. Why? 
Because those airlines do not comply. It is voluntary. They don't have 
to comply.
  Just yesterday, I understand, Kuwait has signed a memorandum of 
understanding. That is good; that is progress. It seems to me it is 
business as usual for some in this Congress to say: What is most 
important to me is not national security. Some Members say: What is 
important to me is the jurisdiction of my committee. If we didn't bless 
it, if we didn't put our stamp on it, if we didn't have our mitts on it 
in some way, we will not allow it to proceed.

  The entire Senate passed this provision and it got knocked out in 
conference last week. So the President signs a bill that does not 
include this amendment. I have offered it again. Does it belong on an 
appropriations bill? No, it doesn't. But I will offer it on this bill 
and every other bill until it becomes law. It is absurd to think we 
will deal with national security without securing our borders. Securing 
our borders does not mean closing our borders, it means understanding 
who is coming into this country as guests of ours. That is the whole 
approach.
  The visa approach is to say people coming into this country are 
guests of our country. Mr. President, 57 million people come in by air 
every year; 45,000 people today come into this country by commercial 
airliner, 45,000 people whose names are not run against the Customs, 
the FBI, and other lists. Why are those 45,000 names not able to be run 
against those lists? Because we have some people who, in my judgment, 
are thickheaded. Committee jurisdiction is more important to them than 
national security.
  That is strong language, I know. But it upsets me that we are so 
small minded in some parts of this Congress that we cannot see the 
bigger picture. The bigger picture is things have changed. The 
September 11 terrorist attack that murdered thousands of American 
citizens changed a lot in this country. The anthrax letters that have 
now killed some American citizens and caused such chaos and concern 
across this country have changed a lot of things. It apparently has not 
changed the mindset of some who are busily guarding their tiny little 
area of committee jurisdiction.
  With regret to those folks, but not at all apologetic, I say we 
passed this provision once, and I intend to offer it again and again 
and again. I intend to have a vote on it. My hope is it will be 
accepted by voice vote. We will go to conference and get this done in 
this conference. If not, it will be the next conference. If not, then 
it will be the next conference. I simply will not allow people who 
think about jurisdiction over national security to win this issue. This 
ought to be done. It should have been done last week, but it wasn't. It 
ought to be done this afternoon, again, in the Senate to say to those 
who blocked it: You will not block it for long.
  These are extraordinarily difficult times for our country. We face 
two very significant challenges. One challenge deals with national 
security--and that is not an insignificant challenge. It is about as 
tough a challenge as we faced in many decades.
  Second, we face the challenge of dealing with our country's economy. 
My colleague from Minnesota described that. I just came from a caucus 
in which we discussed it for an hour and a half. This country will meet 
those challenges. There are no people in the world better prepared or 
better equipped, no people I have more confidence in than the American 
people to meet any challenge at any time.
  This is not a time for us to shrink back in fear. This is a time for 
us to be bold and to join together in action that we know will prepare 
us and will secure us and will allow us to have the kind of opportunity 
that we want for us and our children.
  One small piece of that is this amendment that is now pending that I 
hope will be approved by the Senate this afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wish to express strong support for what 
our good friend from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, has addressed. I am 
very hopeful it will be successful on whatever legislation he offers 
it, and is signed into law. It is a provision we have included in 
strong bipartisan legislation which Senator Brownback and I have 
introduced. The reasons for it are so compelling. He has outlined those 
reasons this afternoon. I congratulate and thank him for his leadership 
on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the matter now 
before the Senate is the Dorgan amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The matter before the Senate is the Daschle 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2024

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we return to 
the Dorgan amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the two managers are not in the Chamber, but 
there has been an understanding that

[[Page S11264]]

the Dorgan amendment could be accepted by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2024.
  The amendment (No. 2024) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the legislation 
before us, and particularly I want to take this opportunity to thank 
the chairman and ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee, as 
well as members of that subcommittee, because they have included some 
very important pieces in this legislation that deal with issues before 
the Senate Finance Committee of which I am a member. I would like to 
speak about those provisions and explain some of the subsequent action 
we anticipate over the next 12 months.
  This is obviously a very important bill. There are some key 
provisions in it that relate to the work of the Finance Committee. 
First, I thank the Appropriations Committee for its action on the 
social services block grant. Earlier this year, I wrote a letter to the 
committee leaders requesting that funding for this key program be 
restored to the levels agreed to in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act.
  State and local governments rely on this key block grant, that we 
call the social services block grant, to address a range of human 
service needs, particularly for vulnerable children, families, elderly, 
and persons with disabilities.
  The bill before us would give States needed flexibility to transfer 
some of the funds they receive under the Temporary Assistance to Needy 
Families Program to the Social Services Block Grant Program. Many 
Governors have asked for this flexibility. I am glad that the 
Appropriations Committee has acted accordingly.
  I also note the bill's report language favoring improved health care 
in rural America, including more equitable Medicare payments. While the 
appropriations report language is not binding on the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services within the Department of Health and 
Human Services, I appreciate the support for the Finance Committee's 
efforts to make Medicare payments more fair for providers in rural 
America.

  For years I have worked, along with other colleagues, to sustain and 
support rural communities. As a result, Medicare legislation has passed 
in recent years to take significant steps to bring greater equity to 
rural America but still not enough equity, hence the report language, 
and hence the need for the Finance Committee to do greater work in this 
area.
  I will give an example. My Finance Committee colleagues and I have 
successfully worked to make the Critical Access Hospital designation 
more widely available, allowing small rural hospitals to actually keep 
their doors open; otherwise, they would be out of business and we would 
not have health care in those parts of rural America.
  As a second point, we worked to begin eliminating the bias of the 
Medicare Disproportionate Share Program against rural hospitals, and, 
lastly, to protect small rural facilities against adverse effects from 
the new outpatient payment system.
  As I said, we still have a long way to go. So I am working with my 
Finance Committee colleagues to craft further legislation that will 
make Medicare more equitable as part of our broader efforts to 
strengthen Medicare. I plan to work to ensure Finance Committee 
approval of such legislation next year, in 2002. And I look forward to 
the support of Appropriations Committee members when it reaches the 
floor of the Senate.
  On another point, appropriators have recognized the importance of 
enhancing education opportunities for Medicare providers, an issue I 
have been working on for the past 10 months with colleagues on my own 
Finance Committee. There is broad recognition that health care 
providers participating in Medicare should have access to timely and 
clear information about changes to the program.
  Before the Senate leaves for the year, I expect to introduce some of 
this legislation on which we have reached agreement, after these months 
of work with Senators Murkowski, Baucus, and Kerry, to enhance Medicare 
provider education, improve communication between Health and Human 
Services and health care providers out in the field, and streamline 
paperwork burdens among other things this bill does.
  Providing more money to the Medicare Integrity Program for provider 
education is one aspect of the legislation, and the Appropriations 
Committee affirmed their support in its committee report of the bill 
that is now before us.
  I applaud, specifically, the efforts of Senator Bayh of Indiana--
there are others who worked with him whom I will not name--to require 
the General Accounting Office report to the committees of jurisdiction 
on the status of HIPAA's administrative simplification regulations. 
Obviously, I look forward to receiving that report in the Finance 
Committee, and working with my colleagues to implement administrative 
simplification in a commonsense, rational way so that well-intended 
legislation will actually accomplish its goals without hurting innocent 
programs, peoples, or facilities.
  For today, the good news is that we have already taken steps in the 
Finance Committee to address immediate problems with administrative 
simplification. Senator Baucus and I have worked closely with Senator 
Craig of Idaho and Senator Dorgan of North Dakota to introduce 
legislation--and we did this just yesterday--allowing States, counties, 
health care providers, and health plans a much needed additional 1 year 
to comply with the ``transactions and code sets'' regulation.

  Our bill will give everyone covered by the rule additional time to 
plan, implement, and finance the systems changes required under that 
rule. This is especially important for State and local offices, the 
public health infrastructure, and, most importantly, the patients who 
we all want to serve so that they continue to receive timely access to 
these benefits.
  I pledge my full support to consider the General Accounting Office's 
recommendations on administrative simplification in the Finance 
Committee next year.
  I also continue to applaud appropriators for their decision to 
increase funding for survey and certification activities of the Centers 
for Medicare and Medicaid Services. For years, I have called attention 
to the need for nursing homes to be examined more carefully. And this 
cannot be done without the additional funding. The committee's 
allocation for this purpose represents an $18.5 million increase over 
the 2001 year level.
  I am pleased to note that the bill proposes a $20 million increase in 
funding to the Administration on Aging for the Family Caregiver 
Program, which supports our Nation's everyday heroes--family 
caregivers--to a level of $140 million. As the author of this 
legislation that was passed as part of the Older Americans Act 
reauthorization last year, I thank the appropriators for their 
continued support of what I consider an important program that puts us 
well on the way of recognizing the economic contribution, as well as 
the quality of life contribution of family caregivers.
  Finally, I commend the appropriators for their support of the Safe 
and Stable Families Act. This is a broadly supported program that 
provides crucial services to at-risk families. I look forward to 
working with Chairman Baucus to reauthorize that program this year with 
increased funding levels.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak for 10 minutes and that we move from the pending 
amendment so I may offer another amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, that Alabama accent got me toward the end. 
What did the Senator say?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I asked unanimous consent to move from debate on the 
pending amendment so I may offer a new amendment, one that is approved 
on the list.

[[Page S11265]]

  Mr. REID. Madam President, the two managers are not here, but I am 
sure they would agree to this. It is my understanding that at the 
appropriate time the Senator from Alabama will withdraw his amendment. 
Is that the one that is now pending?
  Mr. SESSIONS. On the previous one, I do expect that I will not ask 
for a vote. On the one I am offering today, I believe we have reached 
an accord by altering my original language and it will be accepted.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding the Senator wanted to speak for 10 
minutes and then offer an amendment after that.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2045

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, in this country, I have come to 
realize we have a very large student loan program which provides great 
benefits to a lot of American children and students who are not 
children in college. I am offering an amendment today that will deal 
with one of the more serious problems in that program that has created 
quite a good deal of fraud.
  The amendment I submit would require the General Accounting Office to 
conduct a study on Federal student loan disbursements to students who 
attend foreign schools and ask them to report on the fraud, waste, and 
abuse in the Federal Family Education Loan Program as it relates to 
students receiving funding in order to attend foreign schools.
  Study abroad can certainly be a wonderful experience for students, 
one we ought to encourage. It is something of which more and more 
students are availing themselves. I certainly celebrate that and 
encourage it. I do not oppose, as we do today, some form of student 
loan aid to students who wish to participate in the foreign educational 
experience. It can be a very enriching time for a student.
  We do need to ensure, however, that the program involves study and 
not a European vacation at the expense of hard-working American 
taxpayers for whom a visit to the ballpark may be beyond their budget.
  In recent years, there have been a number of criminal cases of so-
called students falsely claiming they are attending foreign schools, 
directing that their student loan checks be paid directly to them as 
the law will allow and not to the school, and then taking the money and 
spending it on themselves and not even attending the foreign school at 
all.
  This fraud has been documented with many examples listed in the 1997 
Department of Education inspector general's report. I believe the 
Federal Family Education Loan Program is at great risk of fraud unless 
we institute some sound controls immediately.
  In the United States, student loan checks, if you go to a college in 
the United States, are made out to the school and the student. If the 
school doesn't get the check and tuition is not paid, they don't 
endorse it; the check can't be cashed. Both the student and the school 
have to endorse the check, and the tuition is thereby paid with 
certainty.
  With regard to foreign schools, the checks are made out simply to the 
students routinely. Since 1995, there have been at least 25 felony 
convictions of students who fraudulently claimed they were attending a 
foreign school and then they just cashed the Government loan check and 
simply did not attend class.
  Of course, these are only the students who were caught in this 
fraudulent activity. I have no doubt that there are many more who have 
not been apprehended.
  This is why we should take action. We must prevent cases such as this 
one. Mr. Conrad Cortez claimed to be such a student. He applied for 
student loans. In March of 2000, he admitted to charges of submitting 
19 fraudulent student loan applications over a 3-year period. He pled 
guilty before a Federal judge to numerous counts of mail fraud, bank 
fraud, and Social Security account number fraud in the State of 
Massachusetts. The prosecutor in that case told the court that Cortez 
was responsible for dozens of auto loans filed outside Massachusetts, 
in Florida and in Texas.
  The absolute disregard for the American taxpayers is epitomized by 
the activities of Mr. Conrad Cortez. He was living high at the expense 
of American taxpayers and in violation of law by filing false documents 
to receive loans and money from the Federal Government.
  During the period from 1996 through 1999, he bought gifts for his 
friends, including jewelry and cars, paid for private tennis lessons--I 
guess he might have thought that was educational--made a downpayment on 
a house, sent some money back to his native Colombia, ate in the best 
restaurants, and even paid restitution for a previous charge of 
defrauding the Government, all with taxpayers' money. It was a 
fraudulent loan he had claimed.
  His fraud only ended when he was turned in by his sister's boyfriend 
who claimed that Mr. Cortez had used his identity to obtain additional 
loans. In fact, Mr. Cortez was about to help himself to $800,000 worth 
of loans that you and I would pay for out of our Federal income tax. He 
had filed 37 false claims in all, spending the money as fast as it 
arrived.
  The inspector general's office of the Department of Education, with 
the FBI and the attorney general's office in Boston, combined forces to 
apprehend him before he could get all of the money he had claimed 
through these false loans. He did, however, pocket about $300,000 
before he was caught.
  This is a perfect example of how this program is at risk and is not 
being managed properly. Currently the methodology for approving and 
releasing student loan funds is vulnerable. Current law says that a 
student may request a check be issued directly to him or her when 
claiming that they are attending a foreign school, and a check will be 
sent directly to them without the requirement of a cosignature by the 
school.
  The Office of Inspector General at the Department of Education found 
that the number of students claiming to attend foreign schools and 
applying for loans increased each academic year from 1993 through 1997 
and went from 4,594 students to 10,715 students in just 4 years, more 
than doubling.

  The later figures since that date of 1997 indicate that the loan 
numbers for foreign education continue to increase. Indeed, in 1998 to 
1999, there were 12,000 loan applications from American students 
claiming to attend foreign schools.
  The question then comes, Why are we paying to send students to 
foreign schools at all? These are American taxpayers' dollars flowing 
to foreign economies where the standard of education often is not as 
good as the education we have.
  Certainly, our education system in the United States--our colleges 
and universities--is not overcrowded. It certainly has the capacity to 
handle more students. We need to ask that question to some degree.
  I would support some assistance in the form of loans or aid to people 
who would attend school in a foreign country for a year or two. But I 
have serious doubts about whether this country ought to pay for a full 
degree course, 4, 5, 6 years, through subsidized loans and grant 
programs to students who choose to further their education in another 
country where they will not be accredited according to the standards of 
the United States.
  I had attempted to raise that issue. I do believe we have not had 
sufficient hearings on it. We have not gone into this in some depth. 
Certainly educating young people through allowing them to be exposed to 
foreign education programs can have some benefit. But I think we need 
to look at curtailing that. As a matter of comity and working with the 
managers of this bill, they did not think this was the appropriate time 
to move forward on a limit of just how many years a person ought to be 
able to get Federal subsidies to attend foreign universities. So I have 
taken that out of this amendment.
  Basically, what our amendment would do would be to require a GAO 
study to find out exactly what is going wrong with this program and to 
make sure that it is tightened up so that these fraudulent activities 
cannot continue.
  This report will compare the oversight controls for loans dispensed 
to students attending foreign schools and domestic institutions and 
examine the default rates at foreign schools that

[[Page S11266]]

enroll American students receiving federally guaranteed student loans 
to determine the number of students that are receiving loans for 
multiple years.
  My amendment will also require the GAO to make recommendations for 
legislative changes that would be required to ensure the integrity of 
the Federal Family Educational Loan Program. It will help us to get 
this information we need so that we can have a complete and accurate 
picture and then Congress should be able to take legislative action to 
stop this abuse.
  We have now, as I understand it, an agreement to spend over $600 
billion in discretionary money in this year's budget. By any standard, 
that is a lot of money. I think sometimes we see the big billion dollar 
numbers so often that we are not impressed at all when somebody comes 
up and says, well, this person got $300,000 fraudulently. We just don't 
pay attention to it.

  I was a Federal prosecutor for almost 15 years, and I put a lot of 
people in jail for defrauding the Federal Government. I know there are 
good laws that work to help apprehend thieves. I know there are some 
areas in which our laws are weak. I know there are procedural methods 
by which Federal agencies can make it much more difficult to allow a 
person to defraud the Government. I am sure this person who got 
$300,000 is not going to be able to pay restitution of $300,000 unless 
he can figure out a third way to defraud the Government to pay 
restitution. He is not going to pay us back, the truth be known. We 
will never get that money back. It is lost. Decent, honest people who 
do not get a vacation to Disney World will be paying for his 
extravagant lifestyle, his fraudulent activities, and we ought to 
tighten up these procedures. Every day that I come to work I have in my 
mind a commitment to make sure that we have as much accountability in 
our Federal system as possible. I think sometimes we pay too little 
attention to it. I have a program I call ``Integrity Watch,'' and it is 
just a way I focus on abuses in the system that I think could be 
corrected. And we will try to move to correct those problems.
  I thank the Chair for the time. I yield the floor.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I offer my amendment I referred to 
previously.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2045.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the Inspector General of the Department of Health 
  and Human Services to audit all Federal amounts allocated for AIDS 
   prevention programs and to report to Congress concerning programs 
    offering sexually explicit workshops using any of such amounts)

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) according to the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, over 765,000 people in the United States have 
     been diagnosed with the virus that causes AIDS since 1981, 
     and over 442,000 deaths have occurred in the United States as 
     a result of the disease;
       (2) Federal AIDS prevention funds should be used to provide 
     resources, training, technical assistance, and infrastructure 
     to national, regional, and community-based organizations 
     working to educate the public on the virus that causes AIDS 
     and stopping the spread of the disease;
       (3) recent reports from the Associated Press highlight the 
     use of Federal AIDS prevention money to conduct sexually 
     explicit workshops for homosexual men and women;
       (4) such sexually explicit workshops teach homosexual men 
     and women how to write erotic love stories and how to use sex 
     toys for solo and partner sex; and
       (5) Federal AIDS prevention funds should not be used to 
     promote sexual activity and behavior and potentially transmit 
     the disease that such funds were allocated to fight.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Health and Human Services shall conduct an 
     audit of all Federal amounts allocated for AIDS prevention 
     programs and report to Congress concerning programs offering 
     sexually explicit workshops using such dollars.

  Mr. SESSIONS. I offer the amendment and note that it has eliminated 
certain language from it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

                          ____________________