[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5110-S5113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge the Senate to support 
an effort to restore funding to the Corporation for National and 
Community Service. The case for national service depends on 
understanding that it uniquely offers a triple investment in the future 
productive capacity of our people and our communities: First, the 
service performed; second, the service experienced; and third, the 
postservice educational benefit.
  I know the word ``investment'' has been abused and debated on the 
Senate floor over the years. For some, it is just a code word for 
Government spending. We must not, however, become so cynical that we do 
not see a real investment when a payoff is staring us in the face.
  The first component of benefit of this investment is the word in the 
name of the organization--service. Critics have tried to attack 
national service in a number of ways.
  During the debate on the authorizing legislation, we heard cries 
about how many more Pell grants we could fund with the money, or how 
many more job training programs we could fund with the same money. 
Though these criticisms make valid points as far as they go, they lose 
sight of the crucial fact that national service does not exist to 
provide student aid or job training. The most important benefit of this 
program is the service provided by AmeriCorps members.
  Mr. President, I visited a number of these AmeriCorps projects, and 
before that, the national service projects that were the pilot projects 
authorized before this program. I have seen young people in a small 
town of Vidalia, GA, helping teach Spanish to young students that did 
not understand basic Spanish. Most importantly, these students were 
filling a huge void where there were no Spanish teachers in the 
community by helping immigrants learn to speak English, because they 
had no way of learning without someone who could converse with them.
  I have seen young people also in the same community and in Thomson, 
GA, helping in nursing homes in crucial kinds of occupations with our 
elderly citizens. I have seen them in homes for the elderly. I have 
seen them helping the elderly stay in their own homes, which is most 
important in terms of both their quality of life and in terms of 
actually saving taxpayers' dollars.
  I have seen them in tutoring and mentoring positions for young 
kindergarten, first, second and third graders in inner-city schools. 
And I have seen them in connection with Habitat for Humanity building 
new homes for needy families and have begun construction on many other 
homes.
  I have seen them in many other occupations, as have others who have 
observed this program throughout the United States.
  The second kind of benefit national service provides is the personal 
and civic development of the participants. In recent years, too many 
Americans have forgotten the relationship between rights and 
responsibilities. We often see reports in the news media about various 
groups or individuals proclaiming that this Government service or that 
protection is a right. We are all so often reminded of the rights all 
Americans should enjoy that we lose sight too often of the other side 
of the same coin: The responsibilities that we share in order to make 
the rights possible.
  Just as we have rights to freedom, to life, liberty and the pursuit 
of happiness, those sacred rights carry with them equally sacred 
responsibilities.
  National service is reconnecting the relationship between the two 
fundamental tenets--rights and responsibilities--of our democracy for 
thousands of young people. This program provides young people with 
opportunities to fulfill that obligation to give something back to 
their country and to their communities.
  The third kind of benefit which is derived from the national service 
program is the postservice educational benefit. As most of my 
colleagues will agree, education is the best indicator we have of 
upward mobility. Not only does the participant increase his or her 
potential to get a high-paying job and become a contributing taxpaying 
member of the community, the community also benefits from citizens who 
run businesses, citizens who pay taxes,
 citizens who participate in civic organizations, and citizens who 
contribute to the community.

  This sort of educational assistance becomes even more important in a 
time when our more traditional forms of educational financial 
assistance are facing severe funding restrictions and reductions.
  I hope all of my colleagues understand this is not a program which 
fills members' time doing calisthenics or singing ``Kum Bah Yah'' 
around the campfire. They perform hard work desperately needed by local 
citizens, governments and businesses that is not being performed by 
others in the community.
   [[Page S5111]] They get their hands dirty. They are tired at the end 
of the day. They occasionally pound a thumb with a hammer in the 
building occupations which many of them are doing.
  The bottom line is that the work they do is needed by our 
communities. Along the way, they acquire real world skills and maturity 
that will make them better citizens and help the country.
  For Congress to decimate this program at a time when it has only 
begun, before any organized results can be compiled, would be to sell 
this program, and I believe our young people, and our Nation short.
  There is a good analogy, Mr. President, to be found between national 
service and our Nation's Armed Forces. We do not maintain Armed Forces 
in order to provide valuable skills and develop good character in young 
men and women. Rather, Armed Forces personnel develop skills and 
character in the military as they carry out their primary mission of 
providing for our Nation's security. The same is true of national 
service. Members perform crucial important services in their 
communities, and along the way they gain important life skills.
  Additionally, we often hear from some critics who attack national 
service as coerced voluntarism--as if the provision of a stipend for 
living expenses somehow cheapens the service performed or stains the 
motives of the participant.
  I note the critics seldom raise the same objections to our Nation's 
All-Volunteer military force. I believe these points are made very 
clear in a recent op-ed by Charlie Moskos, a respected sociologist at 
Northwestern University, and I ask unanimous consent that this op-ed 
piece be reprinted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Chicago Tribune, Mar. 14, 1995]

              Building a Constituency for National Service

                          (By Charles Moskos)

       My first and only meeting with Newt Gingrich was in the 
     spring of 1981. The second-term congressman already had a 
     reputation for new ideas and he wanted to talk about national 
     service for young people. He certainly seemed supportive of 
     the concept. Yet, Speaker Gingrich is now quoted as 
     ``totally, unequivocally opposed to national service.'' He 
     lambasted the newly established AmeriCorps as ``coerced 
     voluntarism'' and ``gimmickry.''
       The quick explanation for this turn-around is that the 
     Republican leader is making points against one of the most 
     significant accomplishments of the Clinton administration. 
     With a GOP majority on Capitol Hill, national service is 
     targeted for elimination in the next budget authorization. 
     Gingrich's present hostility to national service also has an 
     upside, however. Now is the time to refocus public attention 
     on the philosophy and program of AmeriCorps. To bring 
     Gingrich back on board, supporters of national service should 
     be responsive rather than confrontational.
       First, clarify the terminology. AmeriCorps members are not 
     ``volunteers.'' They receive a minimum-wage stipend and a 
     modest education benefit--$4,725--for each year of service 
     completed. AmeriCorps participants should be called corps 
     members, servers or enrollees.
       Gingrich's designation of ``coerced volunteerism'' is an 
     oxymoron that misses the point. Does he object when we call 
     our military an ``All-Volunteer Force'' where soldiers earn a 
     decent salary? Or that a member of the Peace Corps is 
     officially called a ``Peace Corps Volunteer'' when paid a 
     stipend equivalent to that of an AmeriCorps server? And, 
     while on the subject, let us not forget volunteerism does not 
     always come free, either. In its first year of operation, the 
     volunteerism-boosting Points of Light Foundation, a George 
     Bush pet project, granted $4 million to service organizations 
     while spending $22 million on promotions and administrative 
     expenses.
       AmeriCorps was set up to be run mainly through local 
     agencies and non-profit organizations. But national service 
     faces a core paradox. Everyone is for local control and 
     decentralization, but only federally-run and centralized 
     organizations have name recognition and credibility. The 
     blunt fact is that not many Americans have never heard of 
     AmeriCorps and even fewer know what it is doing. Contrast 
     this with Franklin Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps, 
     John Kennedy's Peace Corps and even Lyndon Johnson's VISTA. 
     National service is, after all, national.
       Even though the membership of AmeriCorps in its first year, 
     20,000, is greater than that of the Peace Corps at any time, 
     its visibility does not faintly approach the Peace Corps. 
     More striking, the glow of the highly centralized and Army-
     run CCC remains strong in the national consciousness, even 
     though it expired a half century ago. Yet, the National Youth 
     Administration, the larger but decentralized contemporary of 
     the CCC, is all but forgotten.
       Two changes are needed if AmeriCorps is to capture the 
     public imagination. At the federal level, the National 
     Civilian Community Corps, presently a minor component of 
     AmeriCorps, must become a modern version of the CCC, one of 
     the most successful programs of the New Deal era.
       At the local level, AmeriCorps must focus its mission. 
     Currently, it does too many things leaving a diffuse image. 
     An impressive example of what national service can do comes 
     from Germany. Conscientious objectors to the draft perform 
     alternative service. One key duty--meals on wheels, 
     transportation to shopping and medical facilities--allows the 
     elderly to continue to live in their own homes. Savings are 
     tremendous. The value of each server is estimated at more 
     than $25,000 per year above costs. These ``civilian servers'' 
     are now so highly valued that they are used as an argument to 
     maintain military conscription.
       Whether federally or locally organized, the emphasis in 
     national service must always be on the service delivered, not 
     on the good done for the server. AmeriCorps tends to get 
     mushy--or, as Gingrich puts it, ``gimmicky''--on this score. 
     Proponents of AmeriCorps too often stress how community 
     service benefits the young person, rather than what the 
     server is exactly doing. Young people doing calisthenics in 
     youth corps T-shirts is not the way to guild a constituency 
     for national service.
       We do not have armed forces to mature young men and women. 
     But the military performs these functions well precisely 
     because it is not defined as remedial organization. The same 
     must be the case for civilian service. We should remember 
     that when FDR introduced the CCC, he stressed the concrete 
     works that would be accomplished not the self-improvement of 
     the corps members. The standard for AmeriCorps should be 
     simple: If the server disappeared would anybody miss her or 
     him?
       Another trouble spot must be pointed out--a skewed 
     political base. Support for youth corps is by no means to 
     come across that way. After all, it was the centrist 
     Democratic Leadership Council that initiated the contemporary 
     move to national service. Conservative icon William F. 
     Buckley Jr. has long been an eloquent advocate for the cause. 
     Liberal proponents of AmeriCorps must practice diversity when 
     they seek counsel on national service. Bipartisan input is a 
     prerequisite of bipartisan support.
       One more thing liberals ought to raise with Newt Gingrich. 
     Without AmeriCorps who will staff all those orphanages coming 
     on line?

  Mr. NUNN. We call the military services now a volunteer force, but 
they are paid substantially more, even at entry levels, than any of the 
young people in national service. I think that is appropriate.
  The educational benefits are also higher, substantially higher, than 
the national service educational benefits. If we add educational 
benefit to the total pay package, there is no real comparison between 
the pay and benefits of the military, which is much higher than 
national service, and that is the way it should be, because military 
personnel are also in harm's way on many occasions.
  It is a different occupation, but the thing that is very similar is 
that they are both called voluntary and they both are voluntary. No one 
is compelled to take either occupation or either program.
  I think we should be very careful in saying on the one hand that 
national service is not voluntary because these young people are being 
paid, and the military is voluntary because they are also being paid 
and they are also in many of the occupations, getting special bonuses. 
They are still volunteers.
  Considering all the benefits national service provides, at the 
community level, it is difficult to see why some of our colleagues 
object to it. Indeed, given the debates we have heard on unfunded 
mandates legislation and the, I think, justifiable move for continued 
devolution of responsibilities from the Federal to State and local 
governments in this body, I would hope that our colleagues would agree 
that national service represents the type of government we ought to 
support.
  National service is not a Federal mandate for any specific type of 
service. That is left up to the communities, and the communities decide 
whether they want to participate at all. National service gives 
communities and service organizations the chance to voluntarily 
identify and perform the kind of service which best meets the local 
need, with the Federal Government providing most, but not all, of the 
funding.
  At the same time, it allows young people to serve their communities 
and 
[[Page S5112]] to address real problems without Federal 
micromanagement.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would make the point that the proposed 
rescission of national service funds is, to say the least, premature. 
The first full funding year is only half complete and the data on the 
programs' accomplishments is only available in anecdotal form.
  We need analysis on the program. Rather than making a decision to cut 
this program based on incomplete information now available to the 
appropriations process, we should save this debate on the scope and the 
direction of the program for the authorizing committee next year, when 
more complete information is available.
  I am confident that the program, if given a chance to do so, will 
admirably prove its worth. At least we should give it a chance.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to restore funding of the 
national service program. I urge them not to fail the students and the 
young people who are learning maturity and life skills through their 
service in the program. Most important, I urge them not to fail the 
communities, the churches, the schools, the businesses, and the 
individuals who benefit from the hard work of our young people. I thank 
the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANTORUM. 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. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask to speak 5 minutes as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to respond to the 
Senator from Georgia, who I have the utmost amount of respect for, and 
respect his views on the national service plan. I just happen to 
disagree with them. I wanted to comment on a couple of the points he 
made.
  I have heard often this analogy that national service corps members 
are volunteers as much as people who are in our military are volunteers 
because we have an all-volunteer force. The reason we call it an all 
volunteer force, it is the only area that I am aware of where we have 
the Government authority that can force people to do something they 
would not otherwise do. Force people to work. In other words, work in 
the military.
  The Government, through our authority as a Government, can if we so 
choose, force people, conscript people into the military.
  As I am sure the Senator from georgia knows, there is a whole body of 
employment law out there that says an employer cannot force an employee 
to perform for the employer. If I am an employer outside of the 
government, outside of the military--not just outside of the 
government, outside the military--I cannot force someone to go to work 
for me. If a person wants to leave my employment, I cannot force them 
to stay.
  So the reason it is called a volunteer army is because the military 
has the authority to make a person work for them even if they do not 
want to.
  To suggest that AmeriCorps and national service is volunteer, based 
on that motto, makes me a volunteer. No one forced me to run for the 
U.S. Senate. So I guess I volunteered for it. So I guess people could 
call me a volunteer. The young lady standing in front of me who is 
taking down my words, is, in fact, a volunteer. No one made her take 
this job. She took it because she volunteered for it.
  So we are all volunteers. Well, that is nice. That is sort of fuzzy 
and makes the waters a little murky. If we are all volunteers, then--
none of us are volunteers, really. And that is really the point. This 
is no more a volunteer than any other job in any other agency of the 
Federal Government.
  In fact, I believe the Senator from Missouri who came up here 
yesterday, Senator Bond, had a chart that showed that about 10 percent, 
or 15 percent of AmeriCorps employees work for the Federal Government, 
work for the Department of the Interior, the Department of Justice, the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Energy, the 
Department of Agriculture, the National Endowment for the Arts. A lot 
of them are, in fact, plain old Government employees, paid for through 
this AmeriCorps Program.
  I just hope we get the rhetoric right here. This is not voluntarism. 
There really is not any other example that would suggest that someone 
who is making what an AmeriCorps volunteer makes is a volunteer.
  Senator Grassley was on the floor yesterday talking about employees 
from ACORN, which is a housing organization, funded with $1 million for 
Americorps. The average cost for each AmeriCorps volunteer is $41,000. 
That is what each ACORN volunteer is paid in compensation packages, 
from the Federal Government.
  The Legal Services Corporation has a $1 million AmeriCorps grant. 
These volunteers make $48,000 a year. Now, it is hard to sell, at least 
to me and I think a lot of Americans, that people making that amount of 
money are truly volunteers.
  What the Senator from Georgia did say that I agree with is that there 
are worthwhile projects going on within Americorps. I do not think 
there is any question there certainly is a need to help children learn 
how to read or help people who need some assistance. The AmeriCorps 
program does fill in some gaps and holes and can be very helpful.
  What I have suggested in the past, and I suggest to the Senator from 
Georgia, is that there will be a bill coming to the floor of the Senate 
this year, and it is a welfare reform bill that is going to have work 
programs in place for people who truly are in need of the work 
experience, the training, the education. Those people are the folks we 
should be targeting these kinds of projects on, these kinds of duties 
that can be done by people who truly need them.
  The problem with AmeriCorps is you do not have to be poor to be in 
AmeriCorps. You do not have to be young. You always hear people 
defending AmeriCorps, saying, ``All these young people, we need to help 
them.'' You can be in AmeriCorps if you are 60 years of age. You can be 
in AmeriCorps if you are a millionaire. There is no age limitation up 
to 60; there is no limitation on income. In fact, 25 percent of the 
people already in AmeriCorps have family incomes of $50,000 or more.
  So when you hear of all these wonderful images of poor young children 
out there doing these things and this is what these programs are for, 
that is just a few examples. That is not the norm. What we should do is 
take this idea of community service, which is a very beneficial one, 
and focus it on the people who need it the most and create those work 
programs for the people who are already receiving the Government 
benefit, and that is people on welfare who desperately need, 
desperately need the opportunities that these kinds of worthwhile 
jobs--and many of them are worthwhile jobs--would have.
  So I am not against community service. I do not think anybody who 
stands up here says we are against community service. We believe 
community service is a laudable thing. We also believe it should still 
be a volunteer thing, not a paid position.
  I think it undermines the whole volunteer spirit in America if you 
take a selected class of people and say these people are somehow better 
volunteers, and therefore should be paid, than those who are not.
  So again, I commend the Senator from Georgia for his idealism, but I 
think we can better focus it on the people who are in need, the people 
who already receive Government assistance, the people who need the 
opportunity to move forward as opposed to folks who are being targeted 
for the AmeriCorps Program today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, the leaders of both parties have been 
meeting and working on an agreement and I believe we are about ready to 
make some requests here. I understand perhaps we will be ready to go 
with that in just a moment. So in order to facilitate the distinguished 
Democratic leader, if I could at this point observe the absence of a 
quorum so we could get this unanimous-consent agreement put in.
  Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  [[Page S5113]] Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield for a question. We 
want to get this unanimous-consent request as quickly as possible, but 
I will be glad to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. EXON. Do I understand from the Senator from Mississippi that 
finally, at long last, the two leaders are working and are, according 
to the information that he has, about to come on the floor to outline 
some unanimous-consent type of agreement that will move the process 
ahead?
  Mr. LOTT. I believe that has been occurring. I know the leaders met 
within the last few minutes and they are looking over an agreement 
which we hope to be able to announce momentarily. I see the 
distinguished Democratic leader is here, so maybe we are ready. We are 
not quite ready yet?
  Mr. EXON. I was about ready to try to get the amendment before us set 
aside for the purpose of calling up an amendment that I first presented 
at the desk way back last week, sometime Friday. I had it ready 
Wednesday, almost a week ago, and have been trying to accommodate 
everybody else. But there does not seem to be much accommodation.
  But I guess I can wait for another 10 minutes to see whether or not 
we can bring some reality out of the morass that we seem to be in from 
the standpoint of procedure in the Senate as of now.
  Mr. LOTT. I believe the Senate is underway and I thank the 
distinguished Senator from Nebraska for his patience.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Snowe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________