[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 100 (Tuesday, July 15, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5289-H5290]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          A CLARIFICATION ON THE TIAHRT AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2158

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, the debate that we just concluded was 
about the Corporation for National Service. It was about the Tiahrt 
amendment. As the chairman for the oversight subcommittee, I just want 
to share with my colleagues some of the information that the oversight 
subcommittee has uncovered over the last 2 to 3 years in dealing with 
the Corporation for National Service. I visited a Corporation for 
National Service site yesterday. I met with some AmeriCorps volunteers. 
I have no doubt that they are doing good work, they are doing good work 
in this project.
  But I think it is time to also take a look at this agency. I have no 
doubt that in the future, if AmeriCorps survives in 10 or 15 years, we 
would say that without the Corporation for National Service, we would 
not have volunteerism in America, just like we say we would not have 
arts in America without the National Endowment for the Arts.
  But we have to recognize that we do have volunteerism in America. It 
is thriving. Volunteers in America are active in all of our 
communities, making heroic efforts to improve the quality of life in 
their local communities.
  Now let us take a look at the Corporation for National Service. This 
was an organization that I voted for in 1993, believing that it could 
do well, that it could make an impact, and reading the document and 
reading what the President said about this program, believing what the 
authors of that bill suggested, that the Corporation for National 
Service would become the model for Federal Government agencies, that it 
would model its performance after the private sector.
  When I assumed as chairman of the oversight subcommittee, we found 
some very troubling things. Remember, this is an organization that the 
AmeriCorps portion spends about $400 million per year. What did we 
find? In October of 1995 Arthur Andersen, a major accounting firm, 
reported that the corporation's financial reports were unauditable; 
listen, unauditable, meaning that they had 99 management control and 
accounting weaknesses, 33 of which they determined to be material, the 
worst classification for a weakness. What does that mean? It means that 
the Corporation for National Service could not tell us where the money 
was going that we were sending it, and what they were spending it for.
  A follow-up report issued in December of last year noted that the 
corporation had not corrected 71 of the 99 identified management 
control and accounting problems, this despite congressional hearings 
and assurances from Mr. Wofford and the corporation that these problems 
were being fixed.
  Now we find in a report that was issued yesterday, so we have moved 
from October of 1995 to July of 1997, and where are we? Arthur Andersen 
in their update states that the corporation has again to fix 33 of the 
99 material weaknesses. They also have an additional 9 other accounting 
or managerial weaknesses.
  The bottom line, what does it mean? It means that the Corporation for 
National Service, the agency that was going to be modeled after the 
private sector, spending $400 million to $600 million of taxpayer 
dollars, cannot produce auditable results for 1994. They cannot produce 
them for 1995. They cannot produce them for 1996. Now it appears they 
will not be able to produce them for 1997, and still with major 
accounting weaknesses, as I predicted earlier, they probably will not 
be able to produce auditable books for 1998. That is unacceptable.
  Mr. Speaker, a second problem is as we have AmeriCorps volunteers, we 
are trying to match up the education awards with individual volunteers; 
a brand new program, a brand new agency, and what happens? A report 
released by Peat Marwick 4 months ago noted that the corporation has 
failed to keep adequate management controls and records relating to the 
trust fund, the National Service Trust Funds. What does this mean? It 
means that the Corporation for National Service does not have an 
accounting system in place that will enable it to match up young people 
who have worked in the corporation, who have worked in AmeriCorps, with 
their stipend. We are now putting student scholarships at risk.
  There are other troubling activities within the corporation. Mr. 
Huang has worked at the corporation, or the activities of his fund-
raising have reached into the Corporation for National Service.
  There are other questions about five executives for the Corporation 
for National Service that were kept on despite the fact that their jobs 
had been eliminated.

[[Page H5290]]

  There is concern about close to $400,000 that the Corporation for 
National Service has spent in training and development funds. We are 
going to be having hearings next week to take a look at the $13 million 
that the Corporation for National Service spends every year in training 
and technical assistance.
  There are fundamental weaknesses at the corporation. This is not 
debating whether the kids and the young people are doing good work, but 
they are doing it for an agency that does not have good financial 
controls, and they are doing it at a very expensive cost. The average 
cost for an AmeriCorps volunteer is about $27,000 per member.

                          ____________________