[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E765]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                             [[Page E765]]

               AMERICORPS: ANOTHER FAILED ELITIST PROGRAM

                                 ______


                        HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, April 4, 1995
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, in typical liberal fashion, the President 2 
years ago chose to respond to declining voluntarism by throwing Federal 
money and bureaucrats at the problem. At the time, I warned against 
this wasteful use of limited tax dollars because it would jeopardize 
worthwhile and necessary projects.
  Lo and behold, 2 years later, that is exactly what happened. 
President Clinton's pet project was funded at the expense of needed 
veterans' health care projects. Mr. Speaker, veterans are people who 
know all there is to know about national service and deserve the 
assistance our limited resources can provide. To that end, my good 
friend and chairman of the Veterans' Committee, Bob Stump, and I 
sponsored an amendment to restore the funding for VA outpatient clinics 
by rescinding funds from AmeriCorps.
  Like all other liberal programs, AmeriCorps is wrought with abuse and 
spends half its money on bureaucracies and paperwork. Just like their 
School Lunch Program, which supports bureaucrats instead of feeding 
hungry children, this volunteer program, intended to provide student 
aid, funds even more bureaucrats rather than directly aiding students. 
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the liberals and President Clinton have 
succeeded in exacerbating the problem of voluntarism by throwing money 
at it. Their volunteers receive more money and benefits than many of 
our hard-working citizens. On top of that, the tax dollars funding this 
program often go to wealthy families, maintaining their elitist pool of 
feel-gooders instead of inspiring do-gooders. Supporting existing 
community based groups who already perform charitable duties would 
incite civic virtue and activism amongst others.
  Mr. Speaker, since my warning 2 years ago wasn't enough to discourage 
my fellow Members from creating another wasteful, bureaucratic program, 
I would like to offer the following article that appeared in the Hill 
newspaper as evidence of its failure. ``AmeriCorps: Rhetoric vs. 
Reality'' provides justification for rescinding valuable tax dollars 
from this misguided program.
                     [From the Hill, Mar. 29, 1995]

                    AmeriCorps: Rhetoric vs. Reality

                          (By Allyson Tucker)

       Thanks to a $1.7 million public relations budget, 
     AmeriCorps, the Clinton administration's national service 
     program created in 1993, remains a sacred cow despite a cost 
     of $30,400 per ``volunteer'' and abundant evidence of waste 
     and abuse.
       Consider the facts. In 1993-1994 AmeriCorps had about 
     20,000 ``volunteers'' who the Clinton administration promised 
     would be working as teachers, doctors and police officers to 
     help improve communities. The reality, however, is that the 
     majority of these highly paid ``volunteers'' work in federal 
     or state bureaucracies, government-funded programs or even 
     political action organizations.
       For example, more than 2,800 AmeriCorps participants work 
     in federal departments or agencies, including 1,200 in the 
     U.S. Department of Agriculture, 525 in the Interior 
     Department, 210 in the U.S. Department of Justice, 135 at the 
     Environmental Protection Agency and 60 at the National 
     Endowment of the Arts.
       The federally funded Legal Service Corporation, the chief 
     litigator for the welfare state (which for example, 
     represents drug dealers when they are threatened with 
     eviction from public housing), was awarded 44 AmeriCorps 
     volunteers, cost the U.S. taxpayer $959,000 plus an 
     additional $1,242,784 in ``matching funds.'' In San 
     Francisco, the AmeriCorps ``Summer of Safety'' program 
     organized 40 groups to rally against the federal crime bill's 
     ``three strikes and you're out'' provision.
       More than half of the money spent on AmeriCorps ends up 
     funding bureaucracies and paperwork. `Educrats' at 
     Northwestern University, for example, were given $140,000 by 
     AmeriCorps to develop ``a plan to complete for more 
     AmeriCorps money next year,'' without funding a single 
     ``volunteer.'' Similarly, Americorps gave bureaucrats a 
     $100,000 planning grant to study a volunteer corps in the 
     Virgin Islands and gave the Council of Great City Schools, 
     which is devoted to the ``advancement of education in inner-
     city public schools through public and legislative 
     advocacy,'' a $200,000 planning grant. Again, none of this 
     money went to help students pay for college.
       Despite the rhetoric, AmeriCorps does little to help 
     working families pay for college. At a 1993-94 price tag of 
     $155.5 million, about one-tenth of one percent of the 16 
     million students enrolled in post-secondary education 
     participated in AmeriCorps. Even if Congress expands the 
     program to 150,000 participants by 1997 as the Clinton 
     administration has requested, less than one percent of 
     students will be able to participate.
       Furthermore, the majority of the students recruited come 
     from wealthy, not poor or needy, households. The AmeriCorps 
     program is not means-tested (the liberals in Congress 
     defeated conservative efforts to develop a means test). Thus, 
     the children of wealthy and influential people can elbow out 
     poor students for participants in the program. As Sen. Robert 
     Byrd (D-W.V.) noted on the Senate floor, instead of sending 
     one AmeriCorp participant (who may or may not need financial 
     assistance) to college, five needy students could qualify for 
     Pell Grants.
       Nor does AmeriCorps promote ``volunteerism''. Each 
     AmeriCorps ``volunteer'' is paid a $7,400 stipend and a 
     $4,750 tuition credit, worth approximately $7.27 per hour, 
     plus medical benefits and free child care. The total, tax-
     free AmeriCorps package is worth nearly $20,000 annually, 
     more than the income of 39.3 million working Americans. The 
     total, non-taxable income of an AmeriCorps ``volunteer'' 
     exceeds the median income of workers in the private sector, 
     including those with years of experience. The educational 
     benefits also exceed those available to veterans. In 
     addition, at least $15,000 per participant goes for overhead 
     and administration.
       Worse than President Clinton's good intentions gone awry 
     and the litany of waste and abuse is AmeriCorps' effect on 
     the essence of volunteerism. Private sector community service 
     is thriving. The Labor Department estimates that there are 
     currently three million unpaid volunteers between the ages of 
     18 and 25, most of whom work for religious organizations, the 
     backbone of community activism.
       The laudable goals of AmeriCorps do not match its reality. 
     If the goal is to expand educational opportunity, the 
     AmeriCorps budget would be better spent on direct aid to 
     students. If the goal is to stimulate service, Congress 
     should amend the tax code to allow for tax credits or 
     increased deductions for those who donate their time and 
     money.
     

                          ____________________