[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 146 (Tuesday, September 19, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1807]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE ETHIC OF SERVICE

                        HON. ANDREW JACOBS, JR.

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, September 19, 1995

  Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, Leslie Lenkowsky, president of the Hudson 
Institute and member of the board of directors of the Corporation for 
National Service, has written a most enlightened and thoughtful article 
which was published by the Washington Times on August 4, 1995.
  I insert the article in the Record.

               [From the Washington Times, Aug. 4, 1995]

                          The Ethic of Service

                         (By Leslie Lenkowsky)

       Today, the General Accounting Office is scheduled to issue 
     the draft report of its analysis of AmeriCorps, the 10-month-
     old national service program.
       If some in Congress had their way, this year would be 
     AmeriCorps' last--the House voted Monday to provide no 
     further funding. The GAO report, and my own experience as a 
     member of the board of directors overseeing AmeriCorps, 
     suggest the Senate should take a second look.
       Here's what GAO concludes: AmeriCorps itself is investing 
     slightly less per participant than originally estimated. 
     Other parts of the federal government are also providing 
     support, in nearly exactly the amounts AmeriCorps had 
     predicted.
       Parts of the GAO Report will trigger debates between 
     supporters and directors of AmeriCorps--including whether 
     private sector contributions, or state and local support, are 
     a valuable benefit or just an addition to cost. But the 
     bottom line for Congress' consideration should be that over 
     which it has responsibility--the federal contribution--and 
     there, AmeriCorps is right on budget.
       GAO suggests that AmeriCorps is also on mission. The audit 
     teams found local programs doing exactly what Congress had 
     intended: rehabilitating housing, tutoring, analyzing crime 
     statistics and developing prevention measures, strengthening 
     communities, encouraging responsibility and expanding 
     opportunity.
       These findings track an earlier cost/benefit study done by 
     an impressive team of economists. Like GAO, the economists 
     didn't establish either AmeriCorps' costs or its benefits--
     but did present a well-reasoned estimate of what AmeriCorps 
     may produce, if programs are held to their contractual 
     objectives.
       Therein lies Congress' challenge. GAO shows that it would 
     be disingenuous to kill AmeriCorps on the basis of cost. It 
     isn't costing the taxpayer any more than was intended, and it 
     is difficult to premise fiscal salvation on a savings that 
     amounts to less than one-thirtieth of a penny on a tax 
     dollar.
       Nor is it fair to attack AmeriCorps as the death-knell of 
     selfless charity. AmeriCorps is too small for that, and 
     Americans are too big. In the main, AmeriCorps members 
     provide local charities with useful resources that can make 
     more effective the voluntary assistance you and I can 
     provide.
       So should we worry about AmeriCorps being a political 
     Trojan Horse--or at least a stalking horse for Clinton-Gore 
     '96. I have to admit that I have been watching this topic 
     very carefully. One test of intent and not rhetoric came in 
     the willingness to examine the activities of ACORN Housing 
     Corporation, an investigation I pushed for as a Board Member. 
     The Corporation for National Service did the right and 
     thorough thing--and even the Washington Times praised the 
     outcome.
       Politics can be expected to intrude upon nearly every 
     policy debate. But Republicans have alternative to killing 
     AmeriCorps. They can recognize that the initiative's 
     foundations--responsibility, opportunity and citizenship--are 
     distinctly Republican ideals (advanced with eloquence in 
     William F. Buckley's ``Gratitude,'' although not an 
     endorsement of a new program). And AmeriCorps' structure 
     places the bulk of the money and much of the decisionmaking 
     in the hands of the states--thanks to Republican efforts when 
     the legislation was drafted in 1993. Finally, despite the 
     fracas within the Beltway, in the heartland this thing is 
     wildly popular--with Republican governors like New 
     Hampshire's Steve Merrill and many others; with businessmen 
     who like the results they see in their own markets; with 
     ordinary voters who (in Wall Street Journal polls) have 
     wanted to defend AmeriCorps even more than Big Bird.
       No, AmeriCorps won't revolutionize America--whether it's 
     Newt Gingrich's revolution or Bill Clinton's. But it is 
     making a difference for America in a distinctly American way. 
     And it deserves both time and constructive criticism. As the 
     Congress and the president do the job they have been elected 
     to do--set national budget priorities--I would encourage them 
     to emphasize innovative ways of using government to 
     strengthen (not overpower) communities and encourage the 
     ethic of service. Those goals can provide real meaning to the 
     search for common ground.

                          ____________________