elations that it has descended into something quite different. So just because it has a reputation for being honorable does not mean it is going to maintain that level of honor over a long period of time. So some review is required even of those who have high reputations.

Finally you said, "We hope to do more." It is just a play on words perhaps, but I hope you will do better, not more, but better. And I say this in the context that Senator Nunn and I have had the privilege and pleasure of serving on a number of Committees together, this one, the Armed Services Committee, and also the Intelligence Committee during the 1980s. What we found during that period of time with our intelligence agencies, was that they were suffering from informational overload. They had too much information coming in. They did not have any analysts. They had all the information but we could not tell us what it meant because they did not have the people to analyze it effectively and give us a product sufficient to formulate policy on.

It seems to me you have that problem but a different problem as well. You do not have necessarily informational overload. You do not have a collection capability. You have a collection deficiency, it seems to me. So where the agencies were getting lots of information and they could not analyze it, you are not even getting lots of good information. So it is one in which you have got to get better information and do better police work. So when you say, "We hope to do more," I hope you mean you hope to do better.

Mr. LONGANECKER. Your point is well taken.

Senator COHEN. OK.

Chairman NUNN. Thanks, Senator Cohen. I agree with that, and I appreciate all of you being here, Mr. Longanecker and Mr. Thomas and Mr. Wurtz. We appreciate your being here, and I would appreciate your submitting those several different requests to the Subcommittee.

Mr. LONGANECKER. Certainly, and thank you for the opportunity. Chairman NUNN. Tell Secretary Riley we look forward to working with him, and with you.

Mr. LONGANECKER. We will do that.

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Senator.

Chairman NUNN. The Subcommittee had originally planned today to call Rabbi Michoel Meisels, dean of Sara Schenirer Teachers Seminary, and Rabbi Simche Waldman, administrator of Bais Fruma, to testify this morning. These individuals were subpoenaed to appear today, and we were hopeful they could or would provide valuable information to the Subcommittee concerning their respective schools.

In response to these subpoenas, however, attorneys for both Rabbi Meisels and Rabbi Waldman informed the Subcommittee in writing, as well as orally, that their clients would, if called to testify, assert their constitutional privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer any of the Subcommittee's questions regarding the matters under investigation. Without objection, these letters will be made part of the record. 1

1 Exhibit No. 24 retained in Committee files; see Exhibit 41 on page 279.

Chairman NUNN. This Subcommittee respects the right of any individual to avail himself or herself of the rights afforded by the Constitution of the United States. At the same time, we would have liked to have heard the rabbis' testimony. We believe that that testimony could have assisted this Subcommittee in better understanding how these schools have operated within the context of the Federal Pell Grant program.

While individuals have every right to take the Fifth Amendment, when all the officers and directors of an institution refuse to cooperate with a legitimate Government investigation, I do not believe that institution has any right to continue to receive Government funds.

In this regard, I would particularly note the fact that George Meissner, the attorney for Rabbi Waldman, was quoted in the press following yesterday's hearings as stating that the Subcommittee's hearing was "one-sided" and, quoting him in the story, "definitely not the whole story."

I would agree with that. We do not have the whole story. Indeed, Rabbi Waldman and Rabbi Meisels were subpoenaed for the very purpose of affording them the opportunity of providing the other side of the story. In fact, following yesterday's hearing, the Subcommittee once again contacted the attorneys for both Rabbi Meisels and Rabbi Waldman to ascertain whether, in light of the staff's testimony, their clients wished to testify. Unfortunately, they have chosen not to do so but, rather, to assert their constitutional rights. Of course, that is their privilege.

We understand these rights, and we respect them. We do hope that at some point the rabbis will testify fully and truthfully before the Subcommittee, and we reserve the right to call them and others at a later date. And we may well do so.

However, in light of the representations provided to the Subcommittee by their attorneys, we have determined to excuse Rabbi Meisels and Rabbi Waldman from their appearances today.

I would take further note that we were requested this morning by Mr. Leigh Manasevit on behalf of the Council of Judaic Schools, first, to read and then put in the record a letter dated October 27, 1993, on behalf of the Council of Judaic Schools.

I will put this letter in the record.1 We do not have time to read it now. I will certainly make it available to any members of the news media.

Chairman NUNN. I would also note the irony of the fact that this same attorney who is now speaking on behalf of the Judaic School organization, a number of whose principals are not willing to testify, would not cooperate in the investigation, took the Fifth Amendment during depositions, and again asserted their rights here this morning, that is the content of that. But it is ironic, I think, that this same attorney who wants this statement to be part of the record-and he, indeed, asked that it be read aloud-was the same attorney for Rabbi Jacob Rosenbaum, who was asked by this Subcommittee to be deposed on June 30. There was a deposition taken of Rabbi Jacob Rosenbaum, who was represented by the

1 See Exhibit No. 91 on page 480.

same attorney here, Mr. Leigh Manasevit, and Rabbi Rosenbaum took the Fifth Amendment.

So I find something ironic about this whole series. Having gone through many, many hearings where many people took the Fifth Amendment, I have a hard time reconciling some of this with the overall obligation that institutions have when they are participating in Federal programs. But that is our Constitution, and we will respect those rights. And we will reserve the right to call any or all of these people at a later point in time.

I would hope after the rabbis and their attorneys and the others in the community take full stock of these hearings and think deeply about what they have done themselves and their obligations as American citizens to basically cooperate with the Government of the United States in terms of Federal programs that they are the recipients of, I hope they would reconsider, and I would hope that at some point they would come in and testify fully and truthfully. I would hope they would also understand that every dollar that has been wasted in this Pell Grant program is a dollar that cannot be spent to help some poor person who otherwise would not be able to go to school or would not be able to complete their education because that is what is happening. We do not have an unlimited amount of funds, and dollars wasted here, as we have seen, are coming right out of the pockets of some deserving individual who may not be able to get a full education.

Senator Cohen, I would yield to you for any statement you would like to make on this if you have any observations.

Senator COHEN. No, Mr. Chairman. I have no further statement other than to say I support exactly what you have said. I agree that the Committee should not force the individuals to come forward in front of the cameras and take the Fifth Amendment, and they have already indicated they would do that. But I must say that I find it disconcerting that anyone who is the recipient of Federal money would seek to either hinder the investigation, refuse to answer questions, refuse to cooperate even in the slightest degree with either the Committee staff or GAO or any of the other Federal investigators. I find that an intolerable situation, if an institution is the recipient of a Federal grant, that institution can continue to receive a Federal grant while it is under investigation and refusing to cooperate, I think that is something we have to pursue and remedy if we can.

I support what you have said. Once again, I know that it has been raised, this issue of are we being discriminatory, are we singling out some religious or ethnic group for heightened scrutiny well above that we might apply to any other group or institutions. I would like to categorically say that is not certainly my purpose, and I know it is not the Chairman's purpose. Over the years, we have looked at every conceivable area that we can, a wide spectrum of areas of abuse, waste and fraud. And that is the mandate of this particular Committee, and we are not singling out any group by ethnicity or religious affiliation. We want to find fraud wherever it is and attack it wherever it is. To that extent, Mr. Chairman, I think you have carried the hearings out with fairness and equity. Chairman NUNN. Thank you, Senator Cohen. I would certainly want to consult with members of the Subcommittee before doing

this, one of the matters we consider in this Committee, and I would want the people who refuse to cooperate in this investigation to understand this. We have the power as a Committee to grant immunity and to compel testimony. And we have the authority, if that testimony is not forthcoming, under compulsion after immunity has been granted, to enforce that through either criminal or civil contempt. I am not making that as a threat because those are the things we go into very carefully, and we do so only after deliberations with other members and only when we think the information is of such high value to the legislative purpose that it warrants that kind of unusual procedure, but we do have that authority. I think people ought to bear that in mind. We, in fact, have done that.

On another note, we do have cooperation and we have had full cooperation from Molloy College. And we do not agree with everything in that college's program, and we have made that clear. But I want to thank the witnesses that are appearing here this morning for being willing to appear, not only for being willing to appear but for having cooperated fully with our investigation. I believe Sister Janet Fitzgerald, the president of Molloy College, is going to testify.

If there is anyone else that is going to testify here this morning, then I would ask each of you to hold up your right hand and I will give you the oath.

Is this an attorney?

Mr. SCHURE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman NUNN. Maybe you could introduce yourself and the people you are representing here this morning and tell us who is going to testify and then we will swear those witnesses in.

Mr. SCHURE. Yes, sir. I am Richard J. Schure, the firm of Bennett, Pape, Rice & Schure in Rockville Centre, New York, which is the home of Molloy College. On my immediate left is Sister Janet Fitzgerald, the president of the college; and on her left is Sister Patricia Morris, who is the vice president of academic affairs.

Chairman NUNN. Good. Now, will both Sisters be testifying this morning?

Mr. SCHURE. Yes, they will, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman NUNN. All right. If both of you would hold up your right hands, I will give you the oath. Do you swear the testimony you give before the Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Sister FITZGERALD. I do.

Sister MORRIS. I do.

Chairman NUNN. Thank you.

Mr. SCHURE. Mr. Chairman, may I say a few words before they submit their statement?

Chairman NUNN. Yes. Could I get the spelling on your name, last name?

Mr. SCHURE. Yes. It is Richard Schure, S-c-h-u-r-e.

Chairman NUNN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SCHURE. I just wanted to say that it is a source of some distress to Molloy

Chairman NUNN. Mr. Schure, you are speaking as an attorney here now. If you are going to testify

Mr. SCHURE. I am not testifying, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman NUNN. All right.

Mr. SCHURE. I just wanted to say that Molloy College has been put on the same panel with those who have defied subpoenas, those who have maybe destroyed records, those who have left the country, those who have not cooperated. And if you are judged by the company you keep, we find that very difficult to accept.

Molloy College is fully accredited. It is licensed. It is eligible for the program. And they have always been cooperative with your staff. And Sister Janet Fitzgerald would now like to give her statement. But I just wanted to point out that we did receive the staff report yesterday, and we find significant disagreement with it. But I will let Sister Janet Fitzgerald give her statement.

Chairman NUNN. Thank you, sir. And I would agree with you that you should not in any way be associated with those who have not cooperated because you have cooperated. Both Sisters have and the people at your school have. I tried to make that very clear yesterday, said it on several occasions, and I have said it again this morning. And I will again stipulate that Molloy College has completely and fully cooperated with our investigation, and we appreciate your being here this morning.

Actually, you are not on the same panel. In the same panel, we would have people all at the same table. But we just have 2 days of hearings, so this was the day that we really had to call you.

Let me give a couple of words of introduction here. Our witness this morning is Sister Janet Fitzgerald, the president of Molloy College. Molloy College is a traditional college which offers associate degree and bachelor's degree and master's degree programs. In 1987, this private school entered into agreements with outside groups to have a Molloy associate's degree program offered to recent immigrant students at off-site locations in New York City, and that was the scope of our investigation.

Sister Janet Fitzgerald, we welcome you this morning. We would be glad to have your testimony.

TESTIMONY OF SISTER JANET FITZGERALD,1 PRESIDENT, MOLLOY COLLEGE, ROCKVILLE CENTRE, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK, ACCOMPANIED BY SISTER PATRICIA MORRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF ACADEMIC AFFAIRS; AND RICHARD J. SCHURE, ESQUIRE

Sister FITZGERALD. Thank you, Senator Nunn.

Senator Nunn, Senator Cohen, and staff of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, it is an honor for me to be allowed the privilege to address you briefly today on a matter of extreme importance-not only to all Americans but to Molloy College, Rockville Centre, New York. I have provided you with copies of my own vita and that of Sister Patricia Morris, the academic vice president of Molloy College. I do that to take none of the precious time allowed to me this morning, but I would like to call to your attention some very important personal facts.

I have been a Sister of St. Dominic for 40 years and have taught and ministered in the field of education for 38 of them. I am from

1 The prepared statement of Sister Fitzgerald appears on page 229.