[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 141 (Tuesday, September 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S13329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         REINVENTING AMERICORPS

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I had an opportunity to read in the New 
York Times this morning that the President has been making speeches 
around the country and particularly in response to action yesterday by 
one of our subcommittees of appropriations, because yesterday the 
National Service Corps was zeroed out by the subcommittee. And the 
statement that I do not like is referenced to the fact that we are just 
playing politics when a program like this is zeroed out. I hope I can 
stand before this body as a person who has criticized the National 
Service Corps or AmeriCorps with credibility and say that I can be 
watchful of how the taxpayers' dollars are spent without being accused 
of playing politics. Most of my colleagues would remember that during 
the Reagan and Bush years when we controlled the White House and even 
controlled this body during part of that period of time I was not 
afraid to find fault with my own Presidents--Republican Presidents--
when this was a waste of taxpayers' dollars when it comes to 
expenditures for defense.
  I think I have a consistent record of pointing out boondoggles, 
whether it be in defense or anything else. And I have raised the same 
concerns about AmeriCorps based upon the General Accounting Office 
saying that each position costs $26,650 and that that is about twice 
what the administration said that these would cost. And the poor 
AmeriCorps worker getting $13,000 out of that $26,000 for their 
remuneration so that much of the money is going to administrative 
overhead and bureaucratic waste. And I do not see, when we are trying 
to balance a budget, that we can justify a program that is going to 
have about 50 percent of its costs not going to the people that are 
supposed to benefit from that program. And so I have pointed out to the 
President the General Accounting Office statement. I wrote a letter to 
the President on August 29 of this year, more or less saying reinvent 
the program or it is going to be eliminated.
  I have not heard a response from my letter to the President yet. I 
hope he will respond. But I have suggested that he needs to keep the 
costs of the program within what he said it would cost a couple years 
ago when it was invented, and that most of the benefits of it should go 
to the people that are doing the work, not to administrative overhead.
  And I suggested reinventing it by doing these things. And I will just 
read from the letter six headlines of longer paragraphs that I have 
explaining exactly what I mean.
  No. 1, limit the enormous overhead in the Americorps program.
  No. 2, ensure that the private sector contributes at least 50 percent 
to the cost of AmeriCorps. This was an important point that the 
President was making when the program started, that at least $1 or 50 
percent of the total cost would come from the private sector; $1 of 
taxpayers' money leverages a dollar of private sector investment. I 
doubt if we would find fault with the program if it were to do that. 
Then I also suggested limiting rising program costs by not awarding 
AmeriCorps grants to Federal agencies. They say that they get match on 
this--if EPA has a program with an AmeriCorps worker, that whatever the 
EPA puts in is part of the match. Well, that is the taxpayers' match; 
that is not a private sector match.
  I said funds must be targeted to assist young people in paying for 
college because some of the money is going to volunteers who will 
either drop out or not use the money to go to college.
  Then I said to increase the bang for education bucks by making sure 
that the money is used for those who are going to go to higher 
education.
  Finally, I suggested that if the President wants to reinvent the 
program, to tell us where in the VA budget, VA-HUD appropriations bill 
the money ought to come from because there is a lot of other money 
used. As Senator Bond said yesterday, the money was taken from 
AmeriCorps and put in the community development block grant program.
  I am suggesting to the President that he needs to take into 
consideration--could I have 1 more minute, please?
  Mr. SANTORUM. One additional minute.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggested to the President that he, according to this 
chart, consider the fact that he has 20,000 volunteers of AmeriCorps; 
and we have got 3.9 million Americans who volunteer. These are young 
people, volunteers who do not worry about getting paid anything for 
volunteerism.
  A second thing that the President should consider is that for one 
AmeriCorps worker we can finance 18 low-income people to go to college 
with a Pell grant. Those are some alternatives that the President ought 
to think about as he has a news conference today to expose what he says 
is playing politics with his program.
  When I make a suggestion to the President that he reinvent the 
program according to his own definition of how that program should be 
financed and operated, I mean reinvent it. Just do what the President 
of the United States said the program was going to cost and who it was 
going to benefit or it will be lost. I speak as a person who wants no 
playing of politics, but as a person who wants to make sure that the 
taxpayers' dollars are used well, whether it is in AmeriCorps or 
whether it is in a defense program.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Who yields time to the Senator 
from Oklahoma?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first I would like to compliment my 
colleague and friend from Iowa for his work on AmeriCorps. I hope that 
the American people realize, according to the General Accounting 
Office, that the cost per beneficiary is $27,000. The Senator from Iowa 
has been very diligent in trying to awaken America to this enormously 
expensive program. It is a new program. I understand it is one of 
President Clinton's favorite programs, but it is enormously expensive--
enormously expensive.
  So I compliment my colleague from Iowa for bringing it to the 
attention of this country, and, hopefully, we can stop wasting 
taxpayers' money and maybe do a better job either through the student 
loan program or Pell grants and help lots of people go to school and 
obtain a college education instead of a few select receiving benefits 
in the $20,000-to-$30,000 category.

                          ____________________