[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 8846-8866]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  NATIONAL SERVICE REAUTHORIZATION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 1388, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1388) to reauthorize and reform the national 
     service laws.

  Pending:

       Mikulski amendment No. 687, in the nature of a substitute.
       Thune amendment No. 716 (to amendment No. 687), to express 
     the sense of the Senate regarding the Federal income tax 
     deduction for charitable giving.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise in support of the Serve America 
Act. I haven't been here for the debate. Wyoming has been under snow, 
particularly

[[Page 8847]]

the part of Wyoming I happened to be in. I thank the people who made it 
possible for me to get back as soon as I have. It has kept me from this 
very important legislation. I am grateful for the leadership of Senator 
Hatch in the management of this bill and keeping the process moving. He 
has played a tremendous role in the drafting of this bill, and it is 
appropriate that he manage the bill and continue to do so.
  I also thank Senator Mikulski for defending the bipartisan process. I 
know it has not been easy. I am sorry I missed my friend Senator 
Kennedy's appearance on Tuesday evening. I look forward to his quick 
return to the day-to-day business of the Senate.
  Let me turn to the issue of the national service reauthorization 
before us. My mother always told me service to others is the rent we 
pay for the space we take up. This bill will help millions of Americans 
fulfill that rent payment. After 16 years, we finally have the 
opportunity to take a hard look at the law surrounding national service 
and making necessary changes to improve accountability, reduce 
bureaucracy, and ensure we get the maximum return on the investment we 
are making.
  Although the process we took to reach this point was rushed, it was 
bipartisan throughout. It is not a perfect agreement, but it includes 
key Republican concepts such as eliminating waste, and it addresses 
serious concerns about the management and operations of the AmeriCorps 
program. Senators Hatch and McCain have been stalwarts in keeping us 
focused on the importance of national service. Each of them has given 
back to their communities and country through their individual 
sacrifices and commitment to service. Without their leadership, we 
would not be here today.
  I also congratulate Senator Mikulski on the work she has done to 
ensure this bipartisan process and her willingness to focus on the 80 
percent we can agree on to get this bill done. We do need to get it 
done.
  Finally, I cannot proceed without acknowledging our friend and 
colleague, Senator Kennedy, and his lifelong commitment to the issue of 
national service. He is dedicated to making sure everyone who is called 
to national service has the opportunity to serve in programs that 
address the needs of their communities. We look forward to his speedy 
recovery and return to the Senate.
  A comprehensive reauthorization of our national service programs is 
long overdue. Congress has not given these programs a hard look for 16 
years. Working across the aisle and with our colleagues in the House, 
we have been able to identify areas where we can enact reforms, 
eliminate waste, and expand our national service efforts responsibly. 
This bill strengthens the management, oversight, and fiscal 
accountability of these Federal programs while it expands accessibility 
and streamlines bureaucracy, which is particularly critical for smaller 
and rural programs.
  As the Senate's only accountant, I am particularly concerned about 
how these programs have struggled to get their financial house in 
order. I am pleased that the bill before us strengthens the role of the 
chief financial officer and the inspector general at the Corporation 
for National and Community Service and moves to fixed price grants that 
will streamline these programs. This bill now requires the 
Corporation's board of directors to review the national service budget 
submission before it goes to OMB.
  Additionally, when the inspector general recovers misspent national 
service funds, the bill requires that those funds go back into the 
national service trust. With these changes, I believe we are creating 
tools that will allow the corporation to better safeguard taxpayer 
dollars.
  I hear from Wyoming constituents about the need to make these 
programs more responsive to the challenges facing small grantees and 
rural communities. In this bill, we have taken steps to reduce Federal 
bureaucracy and improve access for small grantees. By giving the 
corporation the flexibility to use fixed price grants, we are reducing 
the significant paperwork and administrative burdens that have plagued 
these programs in the past. We will really see the impact of 
streamlining access to these programs as the corporation reaches out to 
more effectively help Native American communities and tribal 
governments.
  In the past, a significant portion of the 1 percent set-aside for 
programs serving Native American communities has not been used. Too 
often, these are communities that experience the most extreme needs for 
education, health, and workforce services. I am encouraged that the 
corporation has recently brought on board a strategic adviser for 
Native American affairs. They are bringing to the table the kind of 
focused expertise that can help improve the ability of tribes to access 
the programs in the National and Community Service Act and the Domestic 
Volunteer Service Act.
  These opportunities are critically important. One of the ways youth 
in Wyoming engage in service is through the Congressional Award Council 
which connects them to service opportunities and sponsors an award 
ceremony. In Cheyenne, young people are conducting CPR and first aid 
classes, improving disaster preparedness training in the community. 
That is all on a completely volunteer basis. They get a little medal 
for doing a lot of hours of service. Each year the council sponsors an 
award ceremony where members of the congressional delegation award 
certificates and bronze and silver medals. Gold medal recipients have a 
special opportunity to travel to Washington, DC, in June to receive 
their medals.
  I am also pleased this bill creates a veterans corps that provides 
veterans with an opportunity to use their skills and leadership 
abilities after they leave the military. Participating in this corps is 
a way for Americans to provide the essential support that military 
families need while their husbands, wives, sons, and daughters are 
deployed.
  An opportunity corps has been included to address challenges in 
disadvantaged low-income communities, which is particularly fitting in 
this time of economic uncertainty. As part of this corps, we have 
emphasized the need many Americans have for financial literacy 
education and job placement assistance. I am very supportive of 
provisions in this bill that build connections to the needs of our 
workforce.
  I thank Senator Mikulski for working with me to find a third way to 
resolve the issue of how best to introduce competition into the senior 
corps program. In Wyoming, over 1,000 people a year participate as 
senior companions, foster grandparents, or community volunteers. They 
perform services such as conducting safety patrols and participating in 
environmental cleanup projects. The original proposal around 
competition would have seriously disrupted the important services 
provided by these programs. In this bill, we have arrived at a workable 
solution that will improve the good work being done in these programs 
through technical assistance and responsible competition.
  I also thank Dr. Coburn for his thoughtful contribution to the 
establishment of metrics to be used in evaluating the performance of 
our national service programs. We reached quick agreement around his 
proposal between committee markup and today, and we will be able to 
incorporate his suggestions into this bill.
  I want to focus on that a little bit more because this is a committee 
that has been one of the most contentious and is now one of the most 
productive because of this working together, working through the 
process, and then working after the process. Dr. Coburn brought up 
these important changes that he thought the bill needed. We looked at 
them. They were good ideas. We were able to get the language right and 
get it incorporated into this bill so we will have a better idea of how 
each of these programs is working.
  I understand the concern that we are going too far in expanding these 
programs. I agree it is not a perfect bill. We took out a number of 
programs and put in some ideas that were important

[[Page 8848]]

to Senator Hatch and to Senator Kennedy. It has held the line and 
focused on what needs to be done.
  By being at the table and working in a bipartisan way, we have been 
able to limit the number of new programs and control the proposed 
increases in discretionary spending. We have also added accountability 
and performance measures at every step of the way for each program.
  I also would like to clarify further what this bill does. In exchange 
for an education award and small stipend, we are supporting Americans 
who have made a commitment to mobilize their neighbors to address the 
pressing needs of their communities. We are leveraging the efforts of a 
few to mobilize millions. I am pleased we have worked in a bipartisan 
way to negotiate a bill we can support in the Senate. It should receive 
strong support in the House. The 80 percent we have agreed upon is good 
policy. It reinforces both Democratic and Republican principles, and it 
will benefit disadvantaged communities across the country.
  I am confident the House will concur with the bill ultimately passed 
off of the Senate floor. This bill will then reach the President's desk 
quickly. I do hope we can get finished in an expedited manner. I am 
pleased with the cooperation and the work that people who were not even 
on the committee have done. That will make a difference in getting this 
very important bill to the finish line.
  As I mentioned, it has been 16 years since we took a hard look at 
these programs. The committee, particularly Senator Hatch and Senator 
Mikulski, worked through this bill, along with Senator Kennedy and 
myself. We made some very strong improvements that will make this a 
very workable program and one that we will be proud to move forward.
  I ask Members to restrain amendments and help us get this bill 
finished today.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I believe we need to take a moment to 
recognize the support the Serve America Act has received from leaders 
and organizations throughout the country.
  I actually have in my possession a copy of a letter to the Senate 
leadership signed by 21 Governors from around the country, including 
Gov. Haley Barbour from Mississippi, Gov. M. Jodi Rell from 
Connecticut, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger from California. In the 
letter, these State leaders express their support for the Serve America 
Act and give solid testimony regarding the value of national service, 
particularly of the States' role in our national service programs.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the Governors' 
letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   March 23, 2009.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Speaker Pelosi, and 
     Representative Boehner: We write in support of reauthorizing 
     and expanding AmeriCorps and other national service and 
     volunteer programs that the Corporation for National and 
     Community Service administers. Accordingly, we support the 
     passage of the House Generations Invigorating Volunteerism 
     and Education (GIVE) Act and the Senate Serve America Act. In 
     this difficult time for our country, service remains an 
     enduring American value that brings communities together and 
     reminds us of the strength of our common bond.
       As Governors, we witness firsthand the positive effects 
     that national service and volunteerism have in communities 
     throughout our states. Through outstanding state-federal 
     partnerships, we have a unique opportunity to support service 
     and volunteering through Corporation for National and 
     Community Service programs. Additionally, Governor-appointed 
     state commissions oversee and administer AmeriCorps, promote 
     national service and volunteering, and develop innovative 
     volunteer opportunities to meet the needs of our communities 
     and our states.
       As Governors, we recognize the value of national and 
     community service as a tool in meeting important needs and 
     addressing pressing challenges, and we request the following 
     provisions in the final reauthorization legislation:
       Increase administrative funding to enhance the capacity of 
     state commissions' infrastructure. The proposed legislation 
     will dramatically increase the programming commissions 
     oversee, and additional administrative funding is critical in 
     ensuring appropriate oversight and thoughtful program 
     expansion.
       Streamline the AmeriCorps funding allocation, and at the 
     same time, allow Governors and state commissions to set 
     priorities and indicators. Current legislation revises the 
     program funding allocation model to ensure more effective 
     distribution of funds and coordination at the local level. 
     This revised model will assist our efforts to target national 
     service resources to the most pressing needs of our 
     communities,
       Fully implement fixed amount grants to reduce the burden on 
     programs. This provision will allow AmeriCorps to become more 
     accessible to smaller organizations, especially small faith-
     based programs and those in rural parts of the country. Fixed 
     amount grants will also focus resources on program 
     development, delivery and quality, all while maintaining 
     grantee accountability.
       We strongly embrace the effort of both President Obama and 
     a bi-partisan group of Congressional leaders to improve and 
     expand national and community service opportunities. We 
     support the effort to enhance the capacity of state service 
     commissions and ensure that national service is mission-
     oriented, efficient, and effective. We therefore respectively 
     request your support for the reauthorization and expansion of 
     these vital national service programs.
           Sincerely,
         Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, California; Governor 
           David A. Paterson, New York; Governor Mike Beebe, 
           Arkansas; Governor Bill Ritter, Colorado; Governor M. 
           Jodi Rell, Connecticut; Governor Jack Markell, 
           Delaware; Governor Pat Quinn, Illinois; Governor 
           Chester J. Culver, Iowa; Governor Steven L. Beshear, 
           Kentucky; Governor John E. Baldacci, Maine; Governor 
           Martin O'Malley, Maryland.
         Governor Deval Patrick, Massachusetts; Governor Jennifer 
           M. Granholm, Michigan; Governor Jon Corzine, New 
           Jersey; Governor Bill Richardson, New Mexico; Governor 
           Ted Strickland, Ohio; Governor Donald Carcieri, Rhode 
           Island; Governor Christine 0. Gregoire, Washington; 
           Governor Joe Manchin III, West Virginia; Governor Jim 
           Doyle, Wisconsin; Governor Haley Barbour, Mississippi.

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I also have a copy of a letter sent by 
the ServiceNation coalition. It is signed by 441 nonprofit and 
charitable organizations--all of which support this legislation. They 
vary from faith-based groups such as Catholic Charities to local groups 
such as Volunteer Florida and the Volunteer Center of Kalamazoo. Local 
United Way and Boys & Girls Club chapters have also signed on, as have 
a number of colleges and universities. These are the kinds of groups we 
will be empowering with passage of this legislation. They have built-in 
connections to their communities and know the needs of the people they 
serve. The Serve America Act will help them put even more boots on the 
ground in order to provide much needed services to people all over the 
country.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the ServiceNation 
letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     March 9, 2009
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell: 
     Thank you for your leadership as our nation faces 
     unprecedented economic challenges. We are convinced that as 
     the current crisis deepens--intensifying needs in the 
     nation's most economically vulnerable communities and forcing 
     greater and greater numbers of Americans out of their

[[Page 8849]]

     jobs and homes--it is absolutely crucial that the nation 
     invest in service, social innovation, and the non-profit 
     sector. We strongly support the Serve America Act (S. 277) 
     for precisely this reason.
       The Serve America Act, introduced by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-
     MA) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), features a number of 
     proposals for using service and social innovation to address 
     pressing challenges in areas such as education, public 
     health, poverty, and energy efficiency. It also provides 
     much-needed support for the non-profit sector at a time when 
     the demand for the vital services it provides is rising 
     sharply, even as shrinking revenues decrease capacity and 
     threaten debilitating job losses.
       The Act will strengthen the non-profit sector, empowering 
     it to respond to rising needs in communities across the 
     nation. The Serve America Act will:
       Create four targeted problem-solving corps that will deploy 
     Americans of all ages to increase access to job training and 
     placement resources, help raise high school graduation and 
     college-going rates, enhance energy efficiency and improve 
     natural resources, and improve access to health care;
       Establish Community Solutions Funds to invest in and scale 
     the proven, innovative solutions that are having an impact in 
     communities across our nation. The Fund will promote greater 
     innovation in the social sector and evaluate performance 
     based on results;
       Found Youth Engagement Zones to involve in-school and out-
     of-school youth in high-quality service learning projects and 
     recognize ``Campuses of Service,'' institutions of higher 
     learning that engage students in service activities, 
     integrate service and learning, and promote service careers;
       Draw upon the unique insights and leadership skills of 
     individuals who have completed military and civilian service 
     through Innovation Fellowships. These fellowships will enable 
     such individuals to establish nonprofit organizations that 
     respond to local and national needs. The Act will also call 
     upon Baby Boomers to use their talents to address national 
     challenges through Encore Fellowships;
       Honor the long-standing tradition of community volunteering 
     by creating a Volunteer Generation Fund to increase the 
     number of Americans who are able to work with community and 
     faith-based organizations to meet growing needs; and
       Mobilize skilled Americans to serve in developing countries 
     around the world to tackle urgent problems, such as HIV/AIDS 
     and malaria through Volunteers for Prosperity.
       Notably, the Act also emphasizes the importance of results, 
     accountability and transparency, creates indicators of civic 
     health, and requires that federal investments be matched with 
     significant contributions from private, philanthropic, state, 
     and local sources. In these ways, the Serve America Act 
     ensures that the non-profit sector's response will be both 
     effective and cost-efficient. Moreover, the Act promotes 
     collaboration between the non-profit sector, local government 
     actors, and the State Commissions, which have provided 
     leadership with respect to service since their creation, 
     thereby guaranteeing that programs are tailored to meet state 
     and local needs.
       Most importantly the Act will, as President Obama noted in 
     his address before Congress, ``encourage a renewed spirit of 
     national service for this and future generations.'' It will 
     provide Americans of all ages and backgrounds--who are more 
     eager than ever to help shape this nation's future--with 
     opportunities to confront the challenges facing our country.
       Thank you for your public service and your leadership in 
     this time of crisis. We hope that you will enable greater 
     numbers of Americans to serve with you to collectively 
     strengthen our nation by supporting and fully funding the 
     Serve America Act.
           Sincerely,
       Signed by 441 organizations.

  Mr. HATCH. I also have a copy of a letter of support sent by the 
members of the Campus Compact, a group of 1,100 colleges and 
universities that promote efforts to create civically engaged campuses. 
The signees to the letter include the presidents from the great schools 
of my State, including Utah State University, Salt Lake Community 
College, Utah Valley University, College of Eastern Utah, Weber State 
University, Dixie State College, Snow College, Brigham Young 
University, and the University of Utah. I think the administrators of 
these schools recognize the value of engaging young people in community 
and volunteer service. I am proud to see so many schools from Utah on 
the list, and I am quite certain that when this legislation becomes 
law, many students from these schools will benefit from it and, in 
turn, help to benefit others in their communities.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the Campus Compact 
letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               Campus Compact,

                                       Boston, MA, March 20, 2009.
       Dear Members of Congress, as Members of Campus Compact and 
     leaders in higher education, we wish to express our support 
     of the Serve America Act (S 277) introduced by Senator Edward 
     Kennedy and Senator Orrin Hatch. We feel strongly that 
     investment in community service, service-learning, social 
     innovation and the non-profit sector is a winning strategy at 
     this time.
       Campus Compact is a 23 year-old coalition of over 1100 
     college and university presidents that promote the public 
     purposes of higher education through the creation of 
     civically engaged campuses. We have been involved in the 
     evolution of the Serve America Act, serving as one of the 
     original members of the organizing committee for 
     ServiceNation.
       We support the participation of Americans of all ages in 
     innovative service programs that leverage federal funding 
     wisely and bring much-needed relief to our country's most 
     economically vulnerable communities. The Serve America Act 
     strengthens existing national service programs as well as 
     creating new initiatives. These programs include: four new 
     volunteer corps, each focusing on a critical issue facing our 
     nation; designation of up to 30 institutions of higher 
     education as ``Campuses of Service,'' based on their records 
     of student engagement in service and service-learning; and 
     the creation of Youth Engagement Zones to support service-
     learning partnerships between higher education institutions 
     and local education agencies.
       As President Obama said in his speech before Congress on 
     February 24th, the Serve America Act will ``encourage a 
     renewed spirit of national service for this and future 
     generations.'' We ask you to support the Serve America Act, 
     and make it possible for millions of Americans to contribute 
     to the rebuilding of our country in the spirit of service.
           Sincerely,
       National Campus Compact Board Members: John J. DeGioia, 
     President, Georgetown University, Chair of National Campus 
     Compact Board; Toni Murdock, President, Antioch University, 
     Vice Chair of Campus Compact Board: Jane Karas, President, 
     Flathead Valley Community College, Vice Chair of Campus 
     Compact Board; Richard R. Rush, President, California State 
     University Channel Islands, Vice Chair of Campus Compact 
     Board; Louis Albert, President, Pima Community College--West 
     Campus; Lawrence S. Bacow, President, Tufts University; 
     Warrick L. Carter, President, Columbia College Chicago; James 
     B. Dworkin, Chancellor, Purdue University--North Central; 
     David Giunta, President and CEO, Natixis Global Associates; 
     James T. Harris III, President, Widener University; JoAnn 
     Haysbert, President, Langston University; Teresa Iannaconi, 
     Partner, KPMG LLP; Alex Johnson, President, Community College 
     of Allegheny County; John Keating, Chancellor Emeritus, 
     University of Wisconsin--Parkside; Leo Lambert, President, 
     Elon University; John Sirek, Citizenship Program Director, 
     McCormick Foundation; James Votruba, President, Northern 
     Kentucky University.
       Campus Compact Members Stan A. Albrecht, President, Utah 
     State University; Charles M. Ambrose, President, Pfeiffer 
     University; Daniel Asquino, President, Mount Wachusett 
     Community College; Carol Ballantyne, President, Garden City 
     Community College; John Bassett, President, Clark University; 
     Michael S. Bassis, President, Westminster College, Utah, 
     Chair of Utah Campus Compact Board; Michael T. Benson, 
     President, Southern Utah University; Carole M. Berotte 
     Joseph, President, Massachusetts Bay Community College; 
     Daniel Bingham, CEO, The University of Montana-Helena; Laura 
     Bingham, President, Peace College; Cynthia A. Bioteau, 
     President, Salt Lake Community College; Robert J. Birgeneau, 
     Chancellor, University of California, Berkeley; Richard H. 
     Brodhead, President, Duke University; Robert Bruininks, 
     President, University of Minnesota; Jim W. Burnett, 
     President, Western Piedmont Community College; Wayne M. 
     Burton, President, North Shore Community College; Bob Caret, 
     President, Towson University; Richard F. Celeste, President, 
     Colorado College; Carol Christ, President, Smith College; 
     Thomas B. Coburn, President, Naropa University; Joan Coley, 
     President, McDaniel College; Robert Coombe, Chancellor, 
     University of Denver; Robert A. Corrigan, President, San 
     Francisco State University; Carol Cowin, President, Middlesex 
     Community College; Steven Curtis, President, Community 
     College of Philadelphia; George Dennison, President, The 
     University of Montana, Chair of Montana Campus Compact Board; 
     Ray Di Pasquale, President, Community College of Rhode 
     Island, Chair of Rhode Island Campus Compact Board; Rick 
     Dorman, President, Westminster College, Pennsylvania.
       Lorna Edmundson, President, Wilson College; Tom Flynn, 
     President, Alvernia University; Daniel Mark Fogel, President, 
     University of Vermont; Geoff Gamble, President, Montana State 
     University; Frank Gilmore, Chancellor, Montana Tech of the 
     University of Montana; Alvin Goldfarb, President, Western 
     Illinois University, Chair of Illinois Campus Compact Board; 
     Mary K. Grant, President, Massachusetts College of Liberal 
     Arts;

[[Page 8850]]

     Rolf Groseth, Chancellor, MSU-Northern; Karen Gross, 
     President, Southern Vermont College; David Hartleb, 
     President, Northern Essex Community College; Robert Hemenway, 
     Chancellor, University of Kansas; Ralph J. Hexter, President, 
     Hampshire College; Stefani Hicswa, President, Miles Community 
     College; Garrett D. Hinshaw, President, Catawba Valley 
     Community College; Elizabeth Hitch, Interim President, Utah 
     Valley University; Jackie Jenkins-Scott, President, Wheelock 
     College; Mike King, Interim President, College of Eastern 
     Utah; Steve Knapp, President, The George Washington 
     University; Karol LaCroix, President, Granite State College, 
     Chair of Campus Compact for New Hampshire; Jay Lemons, 
     President, Susquehanna University, Chair of Pennsylvania 
     Campus Compact Board; Jean MacCormack, Chancellor, University 
     of Massachusetts Dartmouth; Patricia Maguire Meservey, 
     President, Salem State College; Bette Matkowski, President, 
     Johnson & Wales University--Denver Campus, Chair of Colorado 
     Campus Compact Board; Gene McAllister, President, University 
     of Great Falls; Joe McDonald, President, Salish Kootenai 
     College; Allen C. Meadors, Chancellor, The University of 
     North Carolina-Pembroke; W. Richard Merriman, President, 
     Southwestern College, Chair of Kansas Campus Compact Board; 
     William F. Messner, President, Holyoke Community College; 
     Keith Miller, President, Lock Haven University; F. Ann 
     Millner, President, Weber State University; C.D. Mote, Jr., 
     President, University of Maryland.
       Brian Murphy, President, De Anza College; Stephen D. 
     Nadauld, Interim President, Dixie State College; Gloria 
     Nemerowicz, President, Pine Manor College; Kay Norton, 
     President, University of Northern Colorado; James L. 
     Oblinger, Chancellor, North Carolina State University; J. 
     Michael Ortiz, President, California State Polytechnic 
     University, Pomona; Eduardo Padron, President, Miami Dade 
     College; Kenneth E. Peacock, Chancellor, Appalachian State 
     University, Chair of North Carolina Campus Compact Board; 
     William S. Pfeiffer, President, Warren Wilson College; Tom 
     Powell, President, Mount St. Mary's University; Stephen A. 
     Privett, S.J., President, University of San Francisco; Nido 
     R. Qubein, President, High Point University; Judith Ramaley, 
     President, Winona State University, Chair of Minnesota Campus 
     Compact Board; J. Lawrence Richards, President, LDS Business 
     College; Rollin C. Richmond, President, Humboldt State 
     University; Cecil O. Samuelson, President, Brigham Young 
     University; John J. Sbrega, President, Bristol Community 
     College; Joe Schaffer, CEO, MSU--Great Falls; Irving 
     Schneider, President, Johnson & Wales University--Providence; 
     Art Scott, President, Northampton Community College; Ronald 
     Sexton, Chancellor MSU--Billings; Harold Shapiro, President, 
     Emeritus Princeton University; Rev. Michael J. Sheeran, S.J., 
     President, Regis University, Denver; Richard Storey, 
     Chancellor, The University of Montana--Western; Michael 
     Taylor, President, Stanly Community College; H. Holden Thorp, 
     Chancellor, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; 
     Steven Timmermans, President, Trinity Christian College; 
     Baird Tipson, President, Washington College; Tom Trebon, 
     President, Carroll College; Sandy Ungar, President, Goucher 
     College; Jeffrey von Arx, S.J., President, Fairfield 
     University, Chair of Connecticut Campus Compact Board; 
     Charles O. Warren, Interim President, Defiance College; Jon 
     Wefald, President, Kansas State University; Richard L. White, 
     President, Utah College of Applied Technology; A. Hope 
     Williams, President, North Carolina Independent College and 
     Universities; Scott L. Wyatt, President, Snow College; 
     Michael K. Young, President, University of Utah; Tony Zeiss, 
     President, Central Piedmont Community College.

  Mr. HATCH. I think these letters show the type of thing we are 
dealing with here. It is truly a national movement that has gotten 
behind the bipartisan coalition here in Washington that has been 
pushing to move this bill forward. Once again, I am proud to be a part 
of this effort, and I continue to urge my colleagues to support the 
bill as well.
  Madam President, I would like to take a moment to discuss what I 
think is one of the most important new programs contained in the Serve 
America Act, the ServeAmerica Fellowship program. The ServeAmerica 
Fellowships will basically be vouchers, enabling Americans of all ages 
and interests to work full or part time in service with nonprofit and 
faith-based groups.
  The bill calls for the creation of up to 1,500 fellowships by 2014. 
Here is how it will work: The Corporation for National and Community 
Service will make grants to State Service Commissions to allow them to 
award the ServeAmerica Fellowships. Those receiving the fellowships 
will work with approved service organizations and nonprofits on 
projects directed at those areas of national need identified in the 
bill. Even with these fellowships, we want to make sure our national 
service efforts are aimed at addressing specific needs and solving 
specific problems. The ServeAmerica Fellowships will be administered 
almost entirely at the State level, allowing the States to continue to 
be 50 State laboratories of innovation for volunteer service programs. 
The fellowships will be funded by the corporation at 50 percent of the 
total average annual subsistence allowance provided to VISTA 
volunteers. The host organizations will contribute the additional 
funding so that the fellow receives between 70 and 100 percent of the 
VISTA annual subsistence allowance. Fellows will also receive an 
educational award identical to that which is awarded to other national 
service participants.
  Now let me explain what we are trying to do with these fellowships. I 
believe that smaller nonprofit or faith-based organizations lacking 
large-scale capacity can nonetheless benefit from the efforts and 
presence of national servicemembers. Indeed, committed individual 
volunteers at startup nonprofits of faith-based charitable groups can 
provide the human capital needed to dramatically expand the charities' 
impact and help them recruit other volunteers. Again, this multiplying 
effect is the aim of almost every program under the bill. These 
fellowships will help ensure that faith-based, rural, grassroots, and 
other smaller nonprofits will benefit from this multiplying effect by 
having access to national servicemembers, even if they lack large-scale 
capacity.
  In addition, this program will fulfill one of the main goals we had 
in drafting this legislation, which is allowing the people the 
flexibility to choose their own paths of service. The fellows under 
this program will be chosen for their commitment and ingenuity, and I 
believe we will see some outstanding new service approaches developed 
as a result of this program.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                 Amendment No. 722 to Amendment No. 687

  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Burr] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 722 to amendment No. 687.

  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To strengthen criminal history checks for participants in 
     national service programs working with vulnerable populations)

       On page 213, line 21, strike ``Code.'.'' and insert the 
     following: ``Code.
       ``(d) Special Rule for Individuals Working With Vulnerable 
     Populations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (b) or any 
     other provision of law, on and after the date that is 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of the Serve America Act, a 
     criminal history check under subsection (a) for each 
     individual described in paragraph (2) shall, except in a case 
     approved for good cause by the Corporation, include--
       ``(A) a drug test for controlled substances, as defined in 
     section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802);
       ``(B) the searches described in subsection (b)(1) and 
     subparagraph (A) of subsection (b)(2); and
       ``(C) the background check described in subsection 
     (b)(2)(B).
       ``(2) Individuals with access to vulnerable populations.--
     An individual described in this paragraph is an individual 
     who--
       ``(A) serves in a position in which the individual receives 
     a living allowance, stipend, national service educational 
     award, or salary through a program receiving assistance under 
     the national service laws; and
       ``(B) as a result of such individual's service in such 
     position, has or will have access, on a recurring basis, to--
       ``(i) children age 17 years or younger;
       ``(ii) individuals age 60 years or older; or
       ``(iii) individuals with disabilities.''.

  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I thank you, and I thank the managers of 
this legislation.

[[Page 8851]]

  It was my hope I could come to the floor with another amendment that 
was acceptable on both sides, and I am still anxious and optimistic 
that we can do it because the spirit of this amendment is not for the 
purpose of a poison pill to the bill. It was the recognition that when 
we deal with an expansion of these volunteer efforts that we reach out 
in a much bigger way and cast a much bigger net to Americans.
  Let me say this: To offer this amendment is not to imply that those 
who work in AmeriCorps today in any way are criminals or nefarious 
individuals; it is to recognize the fact that we are creating an 
architecture to take care of the American people, and that includes 
specifically children, individuals over the age of 60 who are in the 
senior years of their lives, and individuals who are classified as 
disabled and have some deficiencies, and we owe it to them and we owe 
it to the general population to take into consideration as we, the 
Federal Government, allow a funding mechanism for people to come in and 
to participate.
  So let me explain for my colleagues simply what this amendment does. 
What we do is apply this to individuals who, on a continual basis--a 
recurring basis; let me make that correction--on a recurring basis work 
with vulnerable populations: kids, the elderly, and the disabled. The 
amendment allows a 2-year period to ramp up this program before 
becoming effective. We understand rulemaking will most likely be 
needed, and we know it doesn't happen overnight in this town. Three, 
this legislation retains the good cause exemption language.
  Now, let me explain. We are asking that individuals who work with 
vulnerable populations be fingerprinted. We would like them to go 
through the FBI check process. We would like to know there is no 
criminal history, that there is not a reason for us to be suspect if 
they are with our children, our parents, or with a vulnerable person 
who is disabled.
  The good exception clause is there and very broadly written, and I 
might go to the language. It says ``shall except in a case approved for 
good cause by the Corporation''--``shall'' not ``will''; it is not 
mandatory--``shall go through a fingerprint process, good cause 
exception, for good cause,'' very loosely defined. That could be the 
size of the corporation, no access to FBI fingerprint check, it could 
be the size of the entity without the financial capabilities to go 
through it.
  Now, I added something overnight to this bill. I didn't want to do 
it, but I did. I added drug testing. Drug testing is a very applicable 
thing, I say to my good friend, the manager on the majority side. This 
is not in stone for me. It wasn't in my original amendment. I think it 
shows my frustration that I went through last night, not being able to 
work out something that made unbelievable common sense to me.
  I would think this would be a threshold we would set. I would prefer 
to do it in a bipartisan way versus just to have a vote because I know 
today the vote would be on a motion to table, I would lose, and this 
initiative would not be in place. Although my children aren't old 
enough, my father is. If, in fact, there was any volunteer who came 
into the facility he lives in and works with him, I would like to have 
the comfort of knowing at least somebody said: Let's make sure the 
individuals, in fact, don't have criminal backgrounds, that they have 
gone into this with a truly volunteer reason versus for some aspect of 
criminal intent.
  Now, my chief concern and the reason for wanting this is kids, the 
elderly, and the disabled. It is no more than that. We know a vast 
majority of folks who work in these programs do it because they believe 
in it. They want to have an effect, a positive effect on somebody's 
life, and that is what they have chosen to do. I think it is important 
for us to realize that it doesn't matter whether it is AmeriCorps for 
title I schools or childcare centers or an entity that accepts CDBG 
subsidies. When parents leave their children in the hands of somebody 
every day while they are at work to look after their kids, they want to 
know the volunteers who are there meet the threshold, the standard they 
would expect. We really wouldn't have an investment except we are 
talking about Federal Government funding, and I think the American 
people expect us to uphold what their expectations are; and that is, 
people who shouldn't be there aren't there.
  So I say to my colleagues on both sides, it is my hope we can come to 
an agreement. It is my hope this can be whittled down to FBI checks 
only. It is my hope we will all understand the full latitude of the 
clause for the exception and the word ``shall'' versus ``will.'' It is 
my hope we can pass the bigger bill with an amendment that resembles 
what I have offered so we can look at every American family and say: We 
have looked at those who are the most vulnerable, and to the best of 
our ability we have tried to make sure somebody who shouldn't be there 
isn't there.
  Now, as every American realizes, even the FBI fingerprint check is 
not perfect. There is no way for us to look at the population and say 
nothing can ever happen. But I would suggest today that the standard 
America holds us to is that we should do something, not nothing; that 
we should attempt, not just roll over and play dead. If, in fact, we 
come to the tabling of this, we are going to roll over and play dead. 
We are not going to take it on. I don't think this requirement chases 
anybody away except the individuals who shouldn't be in the program to 
start with, who might not pass the threshold, who might be found to be 
in one of those databases, so that we certainly wouldn't want them to 
participate in this program.
  So at this time, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I wish to respond to the amendment of 
my colleague from North Carolina and reach out a hand to him as well in 
terms of seeing if we could come up with a consensus.
  First of all, I support the goals of what the Senator from North 
Carolina wishes to achieve. There is no one from our side of the aisle 
who would want to expose anyone in a vulnerable population--children, 
the elderly, those with disabilities--to a sexual predator, to a 
druggie, to a pill head, whatever terms we want to use, because the 
whole idea of AmeriCorps is to have people who will volunteer their 
services, and out of that will be able to help to uplift these 
vulnerable populations. So we are on the same broadband in terms of 
that.
  Actually, remember: This bill has not been reauthorized in more than 
a decade, and in reauthorizing the bill, we actually examined these 
situations. The bill before the Senate actually requires that national 
service programs to run a background check through either a State 
criminal registry or send fingerprints to the FBI for a background 
check. It does not deal with drug testing. That is a new concept 
introduced by our colleague.
  I wish to reiterate that the new legislation, the Serve America Act, 
already requires a criminal background check for programs serving 
children, the elderly, disabled individuals, or any other vulnerable 
population. It requires that every employee and every volunteer undergo 
a criminal history check in order to participate in federally funded 
programs.
  We also want to go the extra mile in our bill by prohibiting sex 
offenders from serving as volunteers. No registered sex offender can 
serve as either a foster grandparent, a senior companion, or 
participate in any activity involved in exposure to children as a 
school volunteer. Our approach is consistent with the comprehensive 
rules promulgated by the corporation in 2007 following extensive 
consultation with the Department of Justice and public comment. So we 
took what they did through rule-making and we have codified it in this 
bill exactly to deal with the deep and grave and authentic concerns 
voiced by the Senator from North Carolina.
  So our comments to the Senator from North Carolina are, No. 1, we 
don't think the amendment is necessary because we think we have dealt 
with it in the bill. Also, I am going to suggest that he and I confer 
off the

[[Page 8852]]

Senate floor so we can review the bill and see if it accomplishes his 
objectives and deal with the issue of drug testing which is in the 
amendment the Senator has offered today.
  If staff on our side of the aisle did not respond to the Senator's 
inquiry, I apologize for that. We are going to have that staff here, 
supervised by my staff and Senator Kennedy's staff, to see what we can 
work out.
  I have worked with the Senator from North Carolina on so many issues, 
including on the Health Committee where he was a stalwart ally in 
moving the Higher Education Act. We have worked together in the area of 
intelligence. We do know about bad guys--bad guys and gals over there 
and possibly bad guys and gals here. We both want to accomplish the 
same policy objectives. Let's see if we can't have a conversation.
  If our failure to respond in some way needlessly triggered an 
amendment, I again wish to apologize. So what I would like to do is 
leave the amendment pending, and let's have a conversation and see what 
we can work out. But I can assure my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle that we want to make sure no vulnerable population is exposed to 
an AmeriCorps volunteer or any other volunteer receiving Federal funds 
in this bill who in any way would jeopardize their health, their 
safety, and their well-being.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for her 
remarks. She is right. I think we can come to a suitable agreement. I 
can assure her that if I did not think it was necessary to do an 
amendment, I would not have done it. It might not be the first time I 
have been wrong, my wife tells me that frequently. But in my 
understanding of it, the teeth that are in the bill are not the teeth I 
have in this amendment as it relates to the FBI background check.
  Make no mistake about it. I am not married to the drug testing, 
though I will tell my colleague this: I think a lot of Americans 
listening to this would probably say: Why not? But I think in the 
spirit of how I started this negotiation, it is not an area I believe 
is important to make as a foundation of this amendment. So I accept the 
Senator's offer. I will bring my staff over immediately, even though I 
won't be able to stay, and we will both then be briefed by our staffs 
and know exactly what we are dealing with.
  If, in fact, we have misinterpreted what the content of the bill 
says, and we believe the appropriate protections are in it, I will be 
the first to ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate that, as we have engaged with each other 
on so many other occasions. Therefore, I think that is an excellent way 
to proceed.
  I have only two concerns. One is already in the bill, and the other 
could be onerous costs to very small agencies. I think we can deal with 
it and approach it the way we always have--rationally, civilly, and 
with a commitment to get the job done.
  Mr. BURR. I hope the Senator will interpret it the same way I have 
spelled out the exception clause, and that exception clause could be 
interpreted, and has been interpreted, to mean the lack of financial 
capability for a company to engage.
  I thank the Senator and yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 716

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the amendment offered by the Senator 
from South Dakota would state the sense of the Senate that the tax law 
should not be changed in any way that would discourage taxpayers from 
making charitable contributions and gifts.
  This country has a proud tradition of charitable giving. We are proud 
of that tradition. We are proud that we give to those in need, and we 
should encourage people to keep on giving. One of the best ways to do 
that is through the itemized deduction for charitable giving.
  We very much support the itemized deduction for charitable giving. 
But the Senator's amendment is overbroad. It would put the Senate on 
record as favoring the preservation of incentives for charitable giving 
over all other priorities.
  Let me talk about a few other priorities the Senate might want to 
consider.
  What about cracking down on tax cheats? What about balancing the 
budget? What about repealing the so-called death tax? The Senator's 
amendment could be read as conflicting with each of those other 
priorities.
  Let me explain. Let's say a tax cheat sets up a charity that is 
really a scam. Should the IRS be able to crack down on that scam? Of 
course it should. But the Senator's amendment says we should preserve 
the full income tax deduction.
  Let's say we want to repeal the estate tax--some call it the death 
tax. There is pretty wide agreement that it is a disagreeable tax. But 
studies have also shown that repeal of that death tax would decrease 
charitable giving. Should we not scale back the estate tax anyway? Of 
course we should. But the Senator's amendment would put the Senate on 
record that we always want to encourage charitable giving rather than 
discourage it, which would put a big limitation on reducing the death 
tax.
  What if we reach a bipartisan budget agreement to limit the deficit 
and help balance the budget? Might we want to consider limiting the 
ability of upper income taxpayers to take their full deductions?
  This is not so farfetched an idea. Under current law, itemized 
deductions are already limited for high-income givers--taxpayers with 
more than $166,800 in income. Congress enacted that change as part of a 
bipartisan budget agreement, negotiated by OMB Director Dick Darman, 
and signed into law by the first President Bush. Yet these Americans 
still give. Americans who itemize deductions, as well as those who 
don't itemize deductions, continue to give.
  According to the CRS, only 30 percent of taxpayers claim a deduction 
for charitable giving. Yet we know many more give to charity. The group 
Independent Sector found that 70 percent of households give.
  Thankfully, many taxpayers make charitable contributions, even though 
they are not getting any tax benefit at all. Indeed, one might say the 
greatest charity is when someone gives from the heart rather than just 
when it is tax deductible. So we do not need the extreme statement in 
the Senator's sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
  I have offered a side-by-side amendment that emphasizes Congress's 
continued support of tax incentives for giving. Let's show our support 
for charitable giving without making the categorical statement in the 
Thune amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Thune amendment and support the 
Baucus amendment.


                 Amendment No. 721 to Amendment No. 687

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all pending 
amendments be temporarily laid aside so that I may call up amendment 
No. 721.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) proposes an amendment 
     numbered 721 to amendment No. 687.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

[[Page 8853]]



  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the Federal 
              income tax deduction for charitable giving)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. --. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) President John F. Kennedy said, ``The raising of 
     extraordinarily large sums of money, given voluntarily and 
     freely by millions of our fellow Americans, is a unique 
     American tradition . . . Philanthropy, charity, giving 
     voluntarily and freely . . . call it what you like, but it is 
     truly a jewel of an American tradition''.
       (2) Americans gave more than $300,000,000,000 to charitable 
     causes in 2007, an amount equal to roughly 2 percent of the 
     gross domestic product.
       (3) The vast majority of those donations, roughly 75 
     percent or $229,000,000,000, came from individuals.
       (4) Studies have shown that Americans give far more to 
     charity than the people of any other industrialized nation--
     more than twice as much, measured as a share of gross 
     domestic product, than the citizens of Great Britain, and 10 
     times more than the citizens of France.
       (5) 7 out of 10 American households donate to charities to 
     support a wide range of religious, educational, cultural, 
     health care, and environmental goals.
       (6) These charities provide innumerable valuable public 
     services to society's most vulnerable citizens during 
     difficult economic times.
       (7) Congress has provided incentives through the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage charitable giving by 
     allowing individuals to deduct contributions made to tax-
     exempt charities.
       (8) 41,000,000 American households, constituting 86 percent 
     of taxpayers who itemize deductions, took advantage of this 
     deduction to give to the charities of their choice.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that Congress should preserve the income tax deduction for 
     charitable contributions through the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 and look for additional ways to encourage charitable 
     giving.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, if I might, I will speak to the amendment 
I have filed, which is pending and to which the Senator has now offered 
a side-by-side.
  I want to point out, in terms of the way charitable giving works in 
the country today, how the deduction applies, if you are in, say, a 35-
percent tax bracket, a high-income-tax payer, and if you give $10,000 
to a charity, it is actually only costing you $6,500. You are getting a 
35-percent tax break.
  What the administration's proposed budget would do is reduce the 
favorable tax treatment an individual who gives to a charitable 
organization would get in the 35-percent tax bracket down to 28 
percent. In other words, if somebody gives $10,000 to a charity--say a 
religious organization or some university--the benefit they would 
derive, in terms of tax treatment, would go from $3,500 to $2,800. In 
other words, instead of costing them $6,500 for that charitable 
contribution of $10,000, it would cost them $7,200. So you would see an 
increase of 10.8 percent in the amount it would cost someone to make a 
$10,000 contribution. After the tax treatment is applied, it would cost 
them $7,200 under the proposed budget we have seen from the 
administration.
  What my amendment simply does is say we ought to keep current law in 
place with regard to the tax treatment that is applied to charitable 
contributions. Here is why it is important--particularly now. We have 
an economy that is struggling. We have lots of charitable organizations 
that are noticing a dropoff in their contributions because of the 
economy. People are seeing a reduction in the values of many of the 
assets they have had, and people are losing jobs. There are a lot of 
reasons charitable giving is dropping off, and many of the 
organizations are faced now with a very difficult challenge in order to 
be able to keep up and meet the needs they are meeting out there across 
this great country.
  We rely, as a nation, significantly on the good-heartedness of the 
American people when it comes to contributing to many of these fine 
organizations that are doing good work. I think we ought to keep that 
same incentive in place--particularly now more than ever. The timing is 
critical because you are talking about taking away a tax benefit from 
people who give to charitable organizations at a time when those 
organizations are already suffering from a drop off in giving.
  So my argument would be--and there is a substantial body of evidence 
out there that suggests this--that when you reduce the tax benefits for 
charitable giving, say, by about 10 percent, you get about a 10-percent 
dropoff in giving. In other words, if you did take the 35 percent that 
currently would apply--if somebody is in the 30-percent tax bracket and 
makes a $10,000 contribution and deducts that on their income taxes, 
they get a 35-percent benefit on that, which means a $3,500 savings or, 
in other words, the actual $10,000 is only costing them $6,500.
  But if you change the tax treatment, as is being proposed by the 
administration, and make that a 28-percent tax benefit, you then 
increase the amount the $10,000 contribution is costing the giver, the 
contributor, to $7,200, which is a 10.8-percent increase in the actual 
cost of that contribution.
  As I said, if the data that is out there is accurate--and I believe 
it is because I think it is substantial--when you reduce that tax 
benefit by 10 percent, you also get a 10-percent reduction in the 
amount that individual would give. I think that is significant, 
particularly now when you look at the amount the American public gives 
to charitable organizations. You are talking about anywhere from $8 
billion to $16 billion a year in reduced charitable giving in this 
country. Multiplied over a long period of time--5 to 10 years--you are 
talking about $160 billion, and potentially over 10, that would not be 
going into these charitable organizations that are serving great 
purposes across this country.
  I think it is fitting right now to have this discussion. People say: 
Why don't you do this next week on the budget? We probably will because 
this is a part of the budget proposal. It is also important to talk 
about this now because we are talking about expanding programs that the 
government runs right now, which are designed to do good things out 
there, and to hire volunteers to do charitable work and perform tasks 
that are contributing to the greater good. Since that debate is focused 
on what the government can do, I think it is fitting to talk about what 
people in this country are already doing in the private sector--
individuals who have been blessed by this country and are willing to 
give something back. I think we ought to encourage more of that not 
take away from the incentive to do that today.
  As I said yesterday in my remarks when I offered this amendment, I 
don't believe anybody makes a charitable contribution simply because of 
tax policy. I think people give because they want to give. I do, 
however, believe tax policy influences the amount of giving an 
individual makes. The statistics bear that out.
  If you have a 10-percent reduction in a tax benefit accorded to 
somebody who is making a charitable contribution, you are going to see 
about a 10-percent reduction in the amount of their contribution. That 
could cost charities significantly all across the country. That is why 
so many of them have weighed in and suggested that they think it would 
be a very bad time to go ahead and make this change in tax policy.
  My amendment expresses the sense of the Senate--nothing more or 
less--that puts this body on record saying we ought to keep the full 
deductibility of charitable contributions as a matter of tax policy in 
this country.
  I think that is a debate that, again, hopefully we will have next 
week as we debate the President's budget. But I think the President's 
goal in this is to try to find ways to generate revenue to do other 
things in their budget. I think this is a bad place to get it. I do not 
think the savings you are achieving as a result of taking away this tax 
benefit to charitable giving in the long run is going to in any way 
offset the decrease we are going to see from people across this country 
who might otherwise make charitable contributions who, because you take 
away that tax benefit, are going to see the actual cost of those 
contributions go up and therefore

[[Page 8854]]

affect the amount they might otherwise give.
  I hope the Senate will go on record. The side-by-side offered by my 
colleague from Montana affirms the deductibility of charitable 
contributions from income tax but takes out the word ``full.'' What my 
amendment does is retains what we have today in terms of tax law, tax 
policy in its treatment of charitable giving, charitable contributions, 
and retains the full deductibility of those charitable contributions.
  It is important that the sense-of-the-Senate amendment I offered that 
expresses the view of this body about the deductibility of charitable 
contributions be the one that we vote on and that we reject the side-
by-side that is being offered by the Senator from Montana because it 
does take away the word ``full,'' which opens the door for changes that 
will occur in the budget that is going to be offered next week and 
would reduce the amount--the tax benefit that is accorded to those who 
make charitable contributions.
  I hope when we get to the vote--it does not sound as if it is going 
to occur until later this afternoon--the Senate will support the Thune 
amendment, the sense of the Senate affirming support of the Senate for 
the full deductibility of charitable contributions, and reject the 
side-by-side offered by the Senator from Montana which does not include 
the affirmation of full deductibility of that tax benefit. Bear in 
mind, this is a sense of the Senate. It is not binding, it is not law, 
but I do think it puts the Senate on record in terms of our full 
support of full deductibility of charitable contributions.
  As I mentioned, timing is important. Right now, with what is 
happening in the economy and how it is impacting charitable giving to 
charitable organizations, this is the absolute worst time to be talking 
about taking away the tax benefit that has produced so much giving and 
added to the giving people might otherwise do by providing favorable 
tax treatment. It is an incentive that has worked. It has worked in 
spades if you look at the amount of giving that occurred in this 
country in 2007. The number I used in the amendment is $300 billion--2 
percent of the GDP--American people contributed to causes greater than 
themselves. We ought to encourage it, not discourage it. Adopting my 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment would do that. I hope my colleagues will 
support it.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                 Amendment No. 705 to Amendment No. 687

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 705.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter ] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 705 to amendment No. 687.

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit ACORN, or organizations affiliated or co-located 
         with ACORN, from receiving assistance under this Act)

       On page 128, strike line 6 and insert the following:
       ``(c) Ineligible Organizations.--
       ``(1) In general.--No assistance provided under this 
     subtitle may be provided (including for the participation 
     under this subtitle of a participant in an approved national 
     service position in activities conducted by such an 
     organization) to--
       ``(A) an organization described in paragraph (2); or
       ``(B) to an organization that is co-located on the same 
     premises as an organization described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Organizations.--An organization referred to in 
     paragraph (1) means--
       ``(A) the Association of Community Organizations for Reform 
     Now (ACORN); or
       ``(B) an entity that is under the control of such 
     Association, as demonstrated by--
       ``(i)(I) such Association directly owning or controlling, 
     or holding with power to vote, 25 percent or more the voting 
     shares of such other entity;
       ``(II) such other entity directly owning or controlling, or 
     holding with power to vote, 25 percent of more of the voting 
     shares of such Association; or
       ``(III) a third entity directly owning or controlling, or 
     holding with power to vote, 25 percent or more of the voting 
     shares of such Association and such other entity;
       ``(ii)(I) such Association controlling, in any manner, a 
     majority of the board of directors of such other entity;
       ``(II) such other entity controlling, in any manner, a 
     majority of the board of directors of such Association; or
       ``(III) a third entity controlling, in any manner, a 
     majority of the board of directors of such Association and 
     such other entity;
       ``(iii) individuals serving in a similar capacity as 
     officers, executives, or staff of both such Association and 
     such other entity;
       ``(iv) such Association and such other entity sharing 
     office space, supplies, resources, or marketing materials, 
     including communications through the Internet and other forms 
     of public communication; or
       ``(v) such Association and such other entity exhibiting 
     another indicia of control over, control by, or common 
     control with, such other entity or such Association, 
     respectively, as may be set forth in regulation by the 
     Corporation.
       ``(d) Nondisplacement of Employed Workers

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, my amendment is very simple and 
straightforward. While it may on the face of it appear narrow, it 
actually goes to the center of this debate and to a central concern a 
lot of folks sincerely have about this bill.
  What does my amendment do? My amendment simply states that no money 
in this program can go to ACORN or any of its affiliate organizations 
in any way. As I say, on the face of it, that seems like a very 
specific, very focused amendment, and it is. We are talking about one 
organization that has done an enormous amount of suspect political 
activity in the past about which many people in this Chamber--more 
importantly, many people around the country--have deep reservations.
  The amendment also goes to the heart of this debate, and the heart of 
this debate is whether this new Federal bureaucracy would, in effect, 
politicize charitable activity around the country, which we certainly 
do not want. I believe this is a very simple test about that central 
question, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this 
amendment--Democrats and Republicans--to pass this simple test and to 
say: No, this is more proof that we are not going to allow this program 
to politicize charitable giving and charitable activity around the 
country.
  As I say, this is a very simple, basic test of that question. The 
proponents of this bill say this is about furthering charitable 
activity, this is about leveraging charitable activity, expanding that, 
not politicizing it, not bringing it under Government control. Surely, 
if we are serious about that, if we are serious about having mainstream 
consensus support for that, surely ACORN cannot be part of the picture. 
Surely none of ACORN's affiliate organizations can be part of this 
funding given recent history.
  Some proponents of this bill will immediately jump up and say we 
don't need this amendment because there cannot be political activity 
funded in this program. For me, just speaking for myself, that isn't 
good enough. That assurance does not nearly cover the waterfront of my 
concerns with regard to ACORN because ACORN has always done both 
hyperpolitical activity, such as their fraudulent voter registration 
drives last fall, and has also done what they characterize as pure 
charitable activity. To fund the latter, to pour millions or even tens 
of millions of dollars of taxpayer funding into ACORN so-called 
charitable activity is certainly to underwrite the organization and 
certainly to support indirectly, if not directly, their very 
politicized activity with which so many folks in this Chamber and 
around the country have deep problems.
  This is not a theoretical concern. This is proven out in practice 
that it is a legitimate concern.
  First of all, this bill authorizes major Federal spending--$5.7 
billion over 5 years.
  Second, we know from practice, from history, from clear concrete 
example that ACORN is in the business of trying to get lots of taxpayer 
money to underwrite its activity, including

[[Page 8855]]

through so-called nonpolitical projects. ACORN has received significant 
funding directly from the Federal Government. Their so-called 
charitable affiliates have received conservatively over $31 million of 
taxpayer dollars from 1998 to 2007. In 2008 alone, the next year, ACORN 
affiliates received almost $10 million in Federal taxpayer funding. 
This includes numerous subgrants, indirect funding to ACORN from the 
Federal Government. Over $7 million was awarded to the ACORN Housing 
Corporation, AHC, in 2008, from the National Foreclosure Mitigation 
Program administered by NeighborWorks America. Almost $800,000 was 
awarded to ACORN by the Fannie Mae Foundation from 1992 to 2004. And, 
of course, these are just two examples. There are many more.
  Just speaking for myself, for proponents of the bill to say this is 
not an issue, this is not a problem because we prohibit political 
activity in this pot of money, in this Federal program, that is not 
nearly enough reassurance for me. We have seen from actual practice, 
from actual history that ACORN can reap millions, tens of millions of 
taxpayer dollars through their so-called charitable affiliates.
  Why do I have a problem with that? Because clearly that money 
underwrites ACORN in general and supports all of their activities, 
including their very political and, in many cases, fraudulent voter 
registration activities.
  We all know the stories from the past campaign, the registering of 
thousands of voters who were either asked to register multiple times by 
ACORN or who were voters being registered without their knowledge or 
registering voters who outright did not exist. That was a common and 
documented practice of this organization. For instance, the St. 
Petersburg Times in Florida reported that ACORN tried to register 
Mickey Mouse in that jurisdiction. In July 2008, at least three ACORN 
workers were convicted of voter fraud in Kansas City. One is awaiting 
trial. These ACORN workers in Kansas City flooded voter registration 
rolls with over 35,000 false or questionable registration forms. In 
March 2008, an ACORN worker was sentenced in Berks County, PA, to 146 
days to 23 months for making 29 phony voter registration forms in order 
to collect a cash bonus. And in Washington, felony charges were filed 
against several paid employees and supervisors of ACORN. Over 1,700 
fraudulent registrations turned in by the employees were revoked in one 
of the largest instances of voting fraud in the United States. This is 
documented. This happened. If we caught these instances, if we 
prevented these instances of fraud, how many more slipped through the 
cracks and proceeded on to the voter registration rolls?
  The question is very simple: Are we going to create this new Federal 
program, $5.7 billion of authorization, that could either directly or 
indirectly fund organizations such as ACORN? Right now, under the 
current version of this bill, that could absolutely happen. If this 
bill passes into law, my prediction is it would absolutely happen.
  My amendment with regard to ACORN would stop that because it is very 
simple, it is very direct. There are no ifs, ands, or buts. None of the 
money could go to ACORN or any of its affiliate organizations. None of 
the money could support ACORN activities directly or indirectly. That 
is the reassurance a lot of us need, that this is not an attempt to 
politicize volunteer activity, this is not an attempt to put the 
Federal Government and whoever its political masters are at the time in 
charge of directing volunteer activity across our Nation.
  In the 19th century, a Frenchman visited America and wrote a very 
significant book about it. That was de Tocqueville, and the book was 
``Democracy in America.'' The fundamental thing he observed in all of 
his travels, as documented in that important book, was that America is 
great because America is good. In saying that, he wasn't talking about 
Government and he wasn't talking about what we do in Congress or what 
any level of government does around the country. He was talking about 
individual citizens banding together in local communities across our 
land to address real needs to help neighbors, to help feed hungry 
people, to help meet important community priorities in a purely 
voluntary way, the civic-mindedness of individual Americans creating 
these purely voluntary organizations. He said that was the most 
significant reason for America's greatness, which had to do with the 
goodness of its people and that activity which is more vital here than 
in any other country in the world.
  I am concerned about putting Government more in charge of that 
activity. I am concerned about politicizing that aspect of our country 
which is so fundamental to our historic greatness. My amendment is a 
very simple but I think important test about whether this bill could 
threaten that. If we are serious about avoiding that at all costs, then 
surely a large majority of this body--Democrats and Republicans--will 
come together, adopt this amendment, and take that threat with regard 
to ACORN off the table.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise in objection to the Vitter 
amendment No. 705 to single out ACORN, and actually, inadvertently, 
target other organizations that have no involvement whatsoever with 
ACORN.
  The Senator's amendment prohibits ACORN or organizations affiliated 
or which are colocated with ACORN from receiving assistance under this 
act. First, I want to address this colocating. For whatever you feel 
about ACORN--and I believe it is the one organization being singled 
out--this amendment would prohibit AmeriCorps funds to any organization 
simply because they rented space in the same building as ACORN.
  Well, in my hometown, many nonprofits are often within the same 
buildings as other organizations. So there might be a building in 
Baltimore or Baton Rouge or Fargo, ND, or in New Orleans, where in the 
very same building that ACORN might be located St. Ambrose Housing 
Counseling Service might also rent a floor; or it might be the 
community law center renting another floor in that building; or it 
might also be the St. Franciscan nuns who might have office space for 
their outreach to the senior community. So when you are in the same 
building as ACORN, this amendment would mean you could not get 
AmeriCorps volunteers.
  I am so sorry my rebuttal was considered so insignificant, so 
trivial, that the Senator didn't even stay to hear it, but maybe 
everybody listening will hear it. The fact is, in the examples I have 
given--St. Ambrose Housing Counseling Service might be giving very 
important financial service counseling to people on financial literacy, 
and also helping them screen what they can afford or not afford; and on 
another floor the community law center might be working with our new 
task force organized by the U.S. attorney to go after mortgage fraud; 
and the community law center might be working with that task force 
because so many of our poor, in my community, have been a victim of 
predatory lending, and we are trying to track down the scams and the 
schemes and the bums to get rid of them--those organizations might have 
some AmeriCorps volunteers working with the community to help 
accomplish our public policies. But simply because they share the same 
building, they are going to be penalized and not have access to 
AmeriCorps volunteers.
  I think that is wrong, I think it is irrational, I think it is harsh, 
I think it is punitive, and I think this amendment should be defeated.
  The other part of the amendment singles out ACORN for exclusion from 
AmeriCorps. We want to make it clear that the amendment prohibits 
funding for one single organization. Whatever you think about ACORN, 
know that they do work in 110 different cities, and they do a variety 
of other kinds of things--such as weatherization. The gentleman from 
Louisiana might be interested to know that after Hurricane Katrina, 
ACORN volunteers--hundreds of them--went to Louisiana to rehabilitate 
3,500 homes.

[[Page 8856]]

  Now, I know the Senator from Louisiana is concerned that money not go 
to organizations to conduct voter registration, and I understand that. 
But this is where the amendment is unnecessary: First, ACORN hasn't 
received any AmeriCorps funds in a decade. Let me repeat: ACORN hasn't 
received any AmeriCorps funds in a decade. Also, if ACORN does ever in 
the future participate in AmeriCorps, they will not be able to use 
AmeriCorps volunteers to conduct voter registration drives or 
legislative advocacy. But that is not only ACORN. None of our groups 
can do voter registration or legislative advocacy.
  The other point is that ACORN and any other group would become 
ineligible if they were ever convicted of a Federal crime. As you know, 
in the last election, ACORN was viewed in a controversial way. There 
was an indictment against them. And, by the way, that indictment charge 
was dismissed, so, therefore, ACORN has never, to my knowledge, been 
convicted of a Federal crime.
  So when we look at the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Louisiana, it is punitive toward other organizations that might be in 
the same building as ACORN, even though it might be a totally different 
organization. It could be health care for the homeless, it could be a 
hot line for battered women dealing with violence against women. They 
would be prohibited from getting AmeriCorps volunteers simply because 
they are in that building.
  As I said, this singles out ACORN, yet ACORN hasn't received any 
AmeriCorps funds in over a decade. And if AmeriCorps should ever get 
Federal funds, they would be prohibited from doing any of the 
activities that would give the other side of the aisle pause or 
concern. We would have that same pause or concern of, No. 1, no 
national service participants receiving funds can engage in legislative 
advocacy and, No. 2, an absolute red light would be if anyone applying 
for AmeriCorps volunteers--any organization applying for AmeriCorps 
support--would have been convicted of a Federal crime.
  So I oppose the Vitter amendment. Later on today, we will be voting 
on the Vitter amendment. We expect that vote to occur around 2:30, and 
I ask my colleagues to reject that amendment.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 
p.m. today, the Senate resume consideration of amendment No. 721; that 
upon disposition of that amendment, the Senate resume amendment No. 
716; that upon the disposition of that amendment, the Senate then 
resume amendment No. 705; that prior to a vote in relation to each 
amendment, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled 
in the usual form; and that no amendments be in order to any of the 
amendments in this agreement, prior to a vote in relation thereto; that 
after the first vote in this sequence, the remaining votes be limited 
to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. To put that in plain English, Madam President, it means 
that we will be voting on Senator Thune's sense of the Senate on 
charitable giving. Senator Baucus has an alternative, or a side-by-
side, and we will be voting on that. We will also be voting on the 
Vitter amendment related to ACORN. So those will be the three votes.
  For the interest of our colleagues and others as to how this bill is 
progressing, we are doing very well, and we thank our colleagues for 
coming down and offering amendments and debating them. All amendments 
need to be filed by 1 p.m. today. Upon getting that list, we hope to 
then work down those that can be easily disposed of, but we will also 
be reaching out to colleagues for them to come and offer the amendments 
on the floor so at such time later on this afternoon we can have 
substantive votes.
  We want to have substantive debate all afternoon. So if our 
colleagues could file their amendments by 1 p.m., on both sides of the 
aisle, we will be expeditiously dealing with them, and then we will be 
inviting colleagues to offer them and then voting on them later on 
today.
  It would be our hope, and the hope, I believe, of the leaders on both 
sides of the aisle, that we could conclude the debate and the vote on 
final passage on this bill today. That would be my goal, and I know the 
goal of Senator Kennedy. I know the goal is shared by Senators Enzi and 
Hatch. With the cooperation of colleagues, we will certainly be able to 
do it, and we thank them already for their excellent cooperation.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WEBB. I ask consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Webb and Mr. Specter pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 714 are located in today's Record under ``Statements 
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of S. 
717 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.


                             RECONCILIATION

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Texas for 
those remarks, but my reaction is, would that it were so, because I 
have in mind what is happening now in the Budget Committee--which we 
will all be focused on tomorrow--namely, the passage of a budget out of 
the committee that we will be taking up in this body next week.
  I know it is usual for us to rotate between Republican and Democrat. 
If my colleague from New York was waiting to speak, I can advise here I 
will just be about 3 minutes. Let me just make this point.
  There are a lot of Democratic colleagues who have said they oppose 
using the reconciliation process to enact an energy tax or nationalized 
health care because they rightly want to reach bipartisan agreement on 
big issues. They emphasize that the Senate version of the budget does 
not include reconciliation instructions--and that is correct. But all 
of those Senators and the American people need to know that the House 
version of the budget does include reconciliation and even includes a 
placeholder for Senate reconciliation instructions to be inserted in 
conference.
  The House has only one reason to do this. It does not need 
reconciliation to pass its legislation because, of course, the House 
operates on a purely majority-rule principle. The only reason to 
include it is so that the House Speaker and the Senate Democratic 
leader can force a national energy tax through the Senate, a tax that 
could cost every household more than $3,000 a year.

[[Page 8857]]

  Unlike the House, the Senate operates with a supermajority principle. 
That means anything controversial requires 60 votes. But reconciliation 
is a special rule, never intended to create new energy or health care 
policy for our country--issues that are so significant that our regular 
order should prevail. Indeed, that is the only way to have a bipartisan 
resolution of these issues. Reconciliation would turn these issues into 
purely partisan exercises.
  If any kind of reconciliation instruction is given to either the 
Finance Committee or the Environment and Public Works Committee, we can 
be sure that a new national energy tax, a tax that will hit all 
American families, is the goal. Reconciliation instructions are, in 
effect, the Trojan horse for a national energy tax. You don't have to 
take my word for it. Senator Reid said yesterday, in a conference call 
with reporters, that he would be willing to move a national energy tax 
through the Senate to pay for sweeping Government health care via 
reconciliation.
  It is easy to say these are just arcane budget rules and 
technicalities, but we should all be crystal clear about the 
consequences of reconciliation. If the final budget includes 
reconciliation instructions for the Senate, Senate Republicans will 
have no recourse for stopping Democrats from enacting this national 
energy tax or nationalized health care system. We will be forced to 
deal with the Democratic majority in a partisan way that I thought the 
President wanted to avoid. The Senate Parliamentarian has confirmed 
that if the final budget includes the special budget reconciliation 
provision, it could be used for any tax increase, regardless of what 
Democratic leadership promises.
  Senate Democrats who have expressed concerns about reconciliation 
should not take any comfort from statements that there is not 
reconciliation in the Senate budget. Now, after Senator Reid's 
statement, they are on notice that the special rule will be used for a 
national energy tax.
  I hope they would indicate that they would not support a conference 
report that included reconciliation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the 
Serve America Act. This important legislation will engage hundreds of 
thousands of Americans, from our young people to our seniors, in a new 
era of public service. This act represents the best in the American 
tradition.
  I have seen the wonderful work it has already done throughout New 
York. More than 76,000 New Yorkers are working to meet local needs, 
strengthen and repair communities, and increase civic involvement 
through 233 national service projects all across New York. These New 
Yorkers tutor and mentor children, manage and staff afterschool 
programs, patrol neighborhoods, provide disaster response, and work to 
protect our environment and build nonprofit groups all around our 
communities.
  Just yesterday, I met with 30 nuns who came from Long Island to visit 
with me, and the work they had done in our community was for those who 
really need the help the most. They were helping our seniors, and they 
were helping women who have English as a second language who need to 
learn English, and they were advocating for world peace.
  What is so great about this act is it is for all of us who are not 
nuns. This act brings a new wave of community activism to bear on our 
country's needs. It inspires me when I think about all the wonderful 
diversity of people and projects this will deploy to all parts of our 
country.
  The Serve America Act will provide more than 250,000 opportunities 
nationwide by investing approximately $6 billion in new service 
initiatives and existing service programs. These programs include a 
brandnew national service program to create Youth Engagement Zones to 
Strengthen Communities program, providing competitive grants to assist 
programs targeted at high-need, low-income communities and community-
based or State entities to engage students and out-of-school youth in 
service learning and addressing the specific challenges of each of 
their communities.
  The Learn and Serve America Program provides grants to schools, 
colleges, not-for-profit groups, and it currently engages more than 
38,000 New York students in community services linked to academic 
achievement and the development of civic skills.
  Third, we have the Summer of Service Program, which is a national 
coalition of major youth-serving organizations that is committed to 
engaging youth in service during summer months.
  In this act, we would be allowing our veterans who still want to 
serve their country the chance to lend a hand in supporting our 
deployed troops and their families. We also give our seniors, our most 
experienced citizens, the chance to work with and teach our children. 
We will improve the opportunities for at-risk urban youth, giving them 
additional volunteer and educational programs to teach them skills and 
build their self-confidence. It also gives young people career paths in 
the professions where we really need their leadership and their time 
and talents--in math, science, engineering, and health care.
  This bill starts a chain reaction of promise, service, achievement, 
knowledge, and advancement. It is the future of our country.
  I have seen so many people in areas around New York where their 
options are limited. This legislation will provide paths to service and 
excellence for the young people in these neighborhoods.
  Just last month, I was visiting students at Nazareth High School in 
Brooklyn, NY, and I met with parents who had lost their child to gun 
violence. I also met with students who lost their classmate. What the 
students said was: Senator, we have problems with gangs here in our 
community, and we need an answer to those gangs. We think the best 
thing you could do is help us with afterschool programming, giving us 
opportunities to learn new skills, help with our homework, to do arts 
and crafts, to do sports, to have opportunities to have job training, 
to learn about public service.
  That is exactly what this act does. It authorizes the grants programs 
that help these kids in these low-income areas to do things after 
school until their parents come home from work. It gives them the 
opportunity to work with their seniors, to clean up their 
neighborhoods, to create new mentoring relationships, to work with 
YMCAs and girls clubs and faith-based groups. From our urban youth to 
our most experienced citizens, this legislation will help all of them 
give more back to their communities.
  This legislation helps retirees who are willing to be involved in 
public service. It will enhance the incentives for our retirees to give 
a year of service and allow educational awards to be transferred to 
their children or their grandchildren. It also establishes Encore 
Fellowships to help our retirees transition to longer term service by 
helping them work in the not-for-profit sector as a second career.
  Our veterans, who have so proudly served this country, also want to 
continue to give of themselves. This bill allows them to help support 
our deployed Armed Forces and their families, helping young people at 
risk, and assists our veterans in developing educational opportunities.
  We also are going to fill the needs that are essential for our 
country's economic future. Everywhere I travel around my State, from 
Buffalo to Brooklyn, everyone is talking about the need for job 
creation. This bill allows us to invest in the new areas of renewable 
fuels, energy independence, technology, and medicine so we can begin to 
focus our youth on the math, science, engineering, and technology they 
need to be at the forefront of these new careers. What this act does is 
provide those opportunities for these students to participate in 
service projects that help them learn the skills they need in these 
green jobs and in the health care and technology arenas.
  In this time of economic crisis and uncertainty, so many people feel 
the

[[Page 8858]]

need to contribute to the greater good. We will harness these millions 
of hearts and minds to do exactly that, to allow America to reach its 
potential. It is a critical step in moving forward the promise of our 
citizens and of our country as embodied in the Serve America act. I 
encourage all Senators to support it fully.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          Amendment No. 690, as Modified, to Amendment No. 687

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I now call up the Ensign amendment, No. 690, and I ask 
that the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk and that 
the amendment, as modified, be agreed to and the motion to reconsider 
be laid on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 690), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

(Purpose: To improve the provisions relating to erroneous or incorrect 
                            certifications)

       On page 145, strike lines 4 through 10 and insert the 
     following:

     shall assess against the national service program a charge 
     for the amount of any associated payment or potential payment 
     from the National Service Trust. In assessing the amount of 
     the charge, the Corporation shall consider the full facts and 
     circumstances surrounding the erroneous or incorrect 
     certification.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, 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. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 721

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote on amendment No. 
721, offered by the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus.
  The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senate is about to vote on two 
amendments on the tax treatment of charitable giving. The first is my 
amendment. My amendment would put the Senate on record supporting 
charities. It says Congress should look for ways to encourage 
charitable giving. I hope my colleagues can support it.
  The second amendment is the Thune amendment. The Thune amendment 
favors preservation of full taxing incentives for charitable giving, 
over all other priorities. That is overbroad. That is extreme. I will 
have more to say about that in a few minutes.
  But the first vote is now on my amendment to state that the Senate's 
strong support for charitable giving. I encourage my colleagues to 
support that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I encourage all time to be yielded back.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, we will yield back the time on the Republican 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Dorgan) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 112 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--41

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dorgan
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 721) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 716

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 716, 
offered by the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune.
  The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, my amendment simply expresses the sense of 
the Senate that we maintain present law with regard to the 
deductibility of charitable contributions, that we allow or maintain 
the current tax treatment practice with regard to charitable 
contributions, and that is to allow full deductibility. The amendment 
we just voted on by the Senator from Montana opens the door to 
something less than full deductibility. I think it is important for the 
Senate to be on record, particularly in light of the challenges being 
faced by many charitable organizations these days to keep up with 
giving.
  There was a story in the New York Times this morning that says only 
12 percent of charitable organizations expect to end the year with an 
operating surplus.
  Dianne Aviv, president of Independent Sector, a national membership 
organization of charities, said any decrease in charitable giving 
caused by Obama's proposal, no matter how small, would be ``seen as a 
stake in the heart.''

       With all other means of income down, the idea that there 
     will be another potential cut to the income of those 
     nonprofit organizations feels catastrophic. It is utterly 
     unacceptable.

  We have an opportunity to make a statement here expressing the view 
of the Senate confirming the current tax treatment for charitable 
contributions, full deductibility.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Thune amendment says: Preserve full 
tax incentives for charitable giving, over all other priorities.
  This is a shot at President Obama's proposal to limit deductions for 
those making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year.
  But the Senator's amendment is broader than that. It is overbroad.
  Should the tax law be able to crack down on charities that are 
actually scams? Of course, it should.
  But the Thune amendment says: Preserve the full income tax deduction, 
no matter what.
  Should we scale back the estate tax, even if it would decrease 
charitable giving? Of course, we should.
  But the Thune amendment says: Don't discourage charitable giving.
  This amendment is overbroad. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

[[Page 8859]]


  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Dorgan) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 113 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Wicker

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dorgan
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 716) was rejected.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 705

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 705, 
offered by the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, my amendment is very simple. It says no 
money under this program could go to ACORN or any of its affiliates. 
Although it is about that one organization, I think the amendment goes 
to the heart of this debate.
  A lot of us are concerned this bill could politicize and put too much 
Government involvement in charitable work across the country. Some 
folks may like ACORN, other folks may not, but nobody can argue that 
ACORN isn't at its core political and ideological. It should not get 
money under this program. The language in the bill that says you can't 
do political activity with the money clearly isn't good enough, because 
ACORN and other very political and ideological groups would simply have 
charitable offshoots that could accept the money and be underwritten 
indirectly in that way.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I vigorously, unabashedly, 
unreservedly oppose this amendment. This amendment is absolutely not 
needed.
  First, ACORN hasn't received AmeriCorps money in over a decade. Now, 
we would deny--deny--to groups who happen to be in the same building as 
ACORN access to AmeriCorps funds. It is harsh, punitive, and I believe 
makes no sense in terms of being able to deliver a service. It means if 
the Franciscan nuns had a floor in the building where ACORN operated, 
they couldn't do outreach to the poor. It means if there is a hotline 
for battered women to call, and they happen to be in the same building 
as ACORN, they couldn't get AmeriCorps funds.
  I think this is an amendment that has no purpose and has Draconian 
consequences if passed. I therefore object to this amendment.
  Madam President, I yield back my time, and I move to table this 
Vitter amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Burris), 
the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan) and the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Burris) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 114 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Burris
     Dorgan
     Kennedy
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.


                      Amendment No. 722 Withdrawn

  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
amendment No. 722.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 727 to Amendment No. 687

  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment that I 
filed on behalf of myself and Senator Mikulski.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator in North Carolina [Mr. Burr], for himself and 
     Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 727 to Amendment 
     No. 687.

  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strengthen criminal history checks for individuals working 
          with vulnerable populations and for other purposes)

       On page 213, after line 21, insert the following:

     SEC. 1613. CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECKS FOR INDIVIDUALS WORKING 
                   WITH VULNERABLE POPULATIONS.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 189D, as added by section 1612, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Special Rule for Individuals Working With Vulnerable 
     Populations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (b), on and 
     after the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of 
     the Serve America Act, a criminal history check under 
     subsection (a) for each individual described in paragraph (2) 
     shall, except for an entity described in paragraph (3), 
     include--
       ``(A) a name-based search of the National Sex Offender 
     Registry established under the Adam Walsh Child Protection 
     and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.);

[[Page 8860]]

       ``(B) a search of the State criminal registry or repository 
     in the State in which the program is operating and the State 
     in which the individual resides at the time of application; 
     and
       ``(C) submitting fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation for a national criminal history background 
     check.
       ``(2) Individuals with access to vulnerable populations.--
     An individual described in this paragraph is an individual 
     age 18 or older who--
       ``(A) serves in a position in which the individual receives 
     a living allowance, stipend, national service educational 
     award, or salary through a program receiving assistance under 
     the national service laws; and
       ``(B) as a result of such individual's service in such 
     position, has or will have access, on a recurring basis, to--
       ``(i) children age 17 years or younger;
       ``(ii) individuals age 60 years or older; or
       ``(iii) individuals with disabilities.
       ``(3) Exceptions.--The provisions of this subsection shall 
     not apply to an entity--
       ``(A) where the service provided by individuals serving 
     with the entity to a vulnerable population described in 
     paragraph (2)(B) is episodic in nature or for a 1-day period;
       ``(B) where the cost to the entity of complying with this 
     subsection is prohibitive;
       ``(C) where the entity is not authorized, or is otherwise 
     unable, under State law, to access the national criminal 
     history background check system of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation;
       ``(D) where the entity is not authorized, or is otherwise 
     unable, under Federal law, to access the national criminal 
     history background check system of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation; or
       ``(E) to which the Corporation otherwise provides an 
     exemption from this subsection for good cause.''.
       (b) Feasibility Study for a System of Criminal History 
     Checks for Employees and Volunteers.--
       (1) Feasibility study on efficiency and effectiveness 
     regarding criminal history check.--The Attorney General of 
     the United States shall conduct a study that shall examine, 
     to the extent discernible and as of the date of the study, 
     the following:
       (A) The state of criminal history checks (including the use 
     of fingerprint collection) at the State and local level, 
     including--
       (i) the available infrastructure for conducting criminal 
     history checks;
       (ii) the State system capacities to conduct such criminal 
     history checks; and
       (iii) the time required for each State to process an 
     individual's fingerprints for a national criminal history 
     background check through the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
     from the time of fingerprint collection to the submission to 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       (B) The likelihood that each State would participate in a 
     nationwide system of criminal history checks to provide 
     information regarding participants to entities receiving 
     assistance under the national service laws.
       (C) The number of participants that would require a 
     fingerprint-based national criminal history background check 
     under the national service laws.
       (D) The impact of the national service laws on the 
     Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System of the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation in terms of capacity and 
     impact on other users of the system, including the effect on 
     the work practices and staffing levels of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation.
       (E) The fees charged by the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, States, local agencies, and private companies 
     to collect and process fingerprints and conduct criminal 
     history checks.
       (F) The existence of model or best practice programs 
     regarding conducting criminal history checks that could 
     easily be expanded and duplicated in other States.
       (G) The extent to which private companies are currently 
     performing criminal history checks, and the possibility of 
     using private companies in the future to perform any of the 
     criminal history check process, including the collection and 
     transmission of fingerprints and fitness determinations.
       (H) The cost of development and operation of the technology 
     and the infrastructure necessary to establish a nationwide 
     fingerprint-based and other criminal background check system.
       (I) The extent of State participation in the procedures for 
     background checks under the National Child Protection Act of 
     1993 (42 U.S.C. 5119 et seq.).
       (J) The extent to which States provide access to nationwide 
     criminal history checks to organizations that serve children.
       (K) The extent to which States permit volunteers and other 
     individuals to appeal adverse fitness determinations, and 
     whether similar procedures are required at the Federal level.
       (L) Any privacy concerns that may arise from nationwide 
     criminal background checks for participants.
       (M) Any other information determined relevant by the 
     Attorney General.
       (2) Interim report.--Based on the findings of the study 
     under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall, not later 
     than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     submit to the appropriate committees of Congress an interim 
     report, which may include recommendations regarding criminal 
     history checks for individuals that seek to volunteer with 
     organizations that work with children, the elderly, or 
     individuals with disabilities.
       (3) Final report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to 
     the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Education and 
     Labor of the House of Representatives, a final report 
     including recommendations regarding criminal history checks 
     for participants under the national service laws, which may 
     include--
       (A) a proposal for grants to States to develop or improve 
     programs to collect fingerprints and perform criminal history 
     checks for individuals that seek to volunteer with 
     organizations that work with children, the elderly, or 
     individuals with disabilities; and
       (B) recommendations for amendments to the National Child 
     Protection Act of 1993 and the Volunteers for Children Act so 
     that entities receiving assistance under the national service 
     laws can promptly and affordably conduct nationwide criminal 
     history background checks on their employees and volunteers.
       (4) Definitions.--In this subsection, the terms 
     ``authorizing committees'', ``participants'', and ``national 
     service laws'' have the meanings given such terms in section 
     101 of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 12511).
       (c) Effective Date.--Notwithstanding section 6101, 
     subsection (b) shall take effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

  Mr. BURR. Madam President, again, I offer this amendment on behalf of 
Senator Mikulski and myself. We worked diligently over the last several 
hours to try to fix a previous amendment. We have come to that 
agreement.
  I remind my colleagues that what we have done is clearly targeted at 
individuals who, on a recurring basis, deal with vulnerable 
populations, including children, the elderly, and the disabled. We have 
allowed the 2-year ramp-up to remain in the bill. In addition, we have 
left the ``for good cause'' exemption and added specific additional 
exemptions to the bill.
  This is a good piece of legislation. It should give every Member a 
strong belief that we are doing everything we can to protect those 
individual populations by making sure those who volunteer, in fact, 
meet the threshold we think is appropriate.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise as an enthusiastic cosponsor of 
the Burr-Mikulski amendment. I do so because I believe what we have 
been able to achieve is to ensure that our vulnerable populations will 
not ever be exposed to people who could jeopardize their health or 
well-being if they work in the service of America.
  Our amendment affirms very clearly that our bill will require 
criminal history checks on all employees and volunteers participating 
in these programs. Volunteers will be checked through the national sex 
offender data base. No sexual predators will participate.
  Also, we will be doing, where appropriate, FBI and State database 
criminal data checking. We agree with Senator Burr there should be 
mandatory FBI fingerprint background checks of all volunteers working 
with children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities.
  Our amendment makes our bill even tougher by adding Senator Burr's 
requirement that volunteer organizations check with that FBI data base 
so that no criminals are ever working around these populations. We are 
also making sure there is the opportunity for flexibility of these 
groups, particularly where the entity is not authorized or is unable 
under State law to access these national history background checks, and 
some other technicals.
  We are going to go a step further and ask the Attorney General to 
report back within a year if we need to do more to strengthen these 
background checks. We will work to get whatever we need to get the job 
done.
  I want to take this opportunity to thank Senator Burr for reaffirming 
a strong commitment in this area. I have worked with him on his 
Committee and on the Intelligence Committee. I thank him for his 
approach in protecting vulnerable populations. I am glad we can

[[Page 8861]]

work together to find a sensible center so we can get the job done. It 
shows if we listen to each other, we can work and govern together and, 
at the end of the day, the bill is better because of our efforts.
  I thank the Senator for his cooperation, his civility, and a very 
good idea. If the Senator from North Carolina would like, we could move 
to a voice vote on the amendment.
  Mr. BURR. That would be fine.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask that this amendment be adopted 
by a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 727) was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I want to report the status. We have 
concluded action on three amendments by a formal vote. We just 
completed another matter on a voice vote, as staff continues to iron 
out modest wrinkles on very few outstanding issues. Besides those 
issues, I am not aware of any other matter that needs to be considered.
  I want Members to be aware the national service train will soon be 
leaving the station. If any Senator now wishes to offer an amendment or 
bring something to our attention, now is the time.
  I am not in a position to ask unanimous consent for a time for final 
passage, but I alert our colleagues that after the national security 
briefings that all Senators will shortly be attending, we would like to 
be ready to move toward final passage.
  Let's continue to work the way we are, and I think we can get the job 
done.


                 Amendment No. 714 to Amendment No. 687

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Warner of 
Virginia, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 714, and 
that once that is reported, the amendment be agreed to, and the motion 
to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for Mr. Warner, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 714 to amendment No. 687.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To conduct a study regarding the establishment of a Volunteer 
                       Management Corps program)

         On page 235, between lines 9 and 10, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1713. VOLUNTEER MANAGEMENT CORPS STUDY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Many managers seek opportunities to give back to their 
     communities and address the Nation's challenges.
       (2) Managers possess business and technical skills that 
     make them especially suited to help nonprofit organizations 
     and State and local governments create efficiencies and cost 
     savings and develop programs to serve communities in need.
       (3) There are currently a large number of businesses and 
     firms who are seeking to identify savings through sabbatical 
     opportunities for senior employees.
       (b) Study and Plan.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Corporation shall--
       (1) conduct a study on how best to establish and implement 
     a Volunteer Management Corps program; and
       (2) submit a plan regarding the establishment of such 
     program to Congress and to the President.
       (c) Consultation.--In carrying out the study described in 
     subsection (b)(1), the Corporation may consult with experts 
     in the private and nonprofit sectors.
       (d) Effective Date.--Notwithstanding section 6101, this 
     section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is 
agreed to, and the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid on 
the table.
  The amendment (No. 714) was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 728 to Amendment No. 687

  Ms. MIKULSKI. On behalf of myself and Senator Enzi, I call up an 
amendment of technical changes, which is at the desk, and I ask 
unanimous consent that it be considered and agreed to, and the motion 
to reconsider be laid on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for herself and 
     Mr. Enzi, proposes an amendment numbered 728 to amendment No. 
     687.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 26, line 25, strike ``for this part'' and insert 
     ``for this subtitle''.
       On page 60, line 11, strike ``the report'' and insert ``the 
     report described in subsection (c)''.
       On page 67, line 15, strike ``places'' and insert 
     ``place''.
       On page 81, line 4, insert before the semicolon the 
     following: ``, and sending care packages to Members of the 
     Armed Forces who are deployed''.
       On page 92, line 25, strike ``heath'' and insert 
     ``health''.
       On page 103, lines 16 and 17, strike ``subtitles B and C'' 
     and insert ``subtitle B''.
       On page 272, line 17, strike ``be focused'' and insert 
     ``propose to focus''.
       On page 272, line 21, strike ``be focused'' and insert 
     ``propose to focus''.
       On page 276, line 6, strike ``the highest'' and insert 
     ``high''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is 
agreed to, and the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid on 
the table.
  The amendment (No. 728) was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair.


                           Teach for America

  Mr. ALEXANDER. I would like to commend Senator Mikulski for all the 
hard work that you, Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch and Senator Enzi 
have put into crafting this bipartisan legislation. In a time when we 
are seeing record numbers of Americans looking to give their time and 
energy to service, I am pleased that we are strengthening and expanding 
national service programs to create more opportunities for those 
willing to serve. I thank the Senator for her work on this effort.
  In particular, I am pleased with the creation of the new national 
service corps, which will address educational, health, veteran, and 
environmental needs. One professional education corps currently in 
operation, Teach For America, has been an AmeriCorps program since 1994 
and is the Nation's largest professional service corps. Teach For 
America recruits top-college graduates of all backgrounds and career 
interests to commit to teach for at least 2 years in our Nation's most 
underserved classrooms. To date, 20,000 Teach For America corps members 
have enriched the lives of more than 3 million low income students at 
our Nation's lowest performing schools. I am very encouraged by the 
fact that while only 1 in 10 Teach For America corps members initially 
planned on a career in education, two-thirds of them remain in the 
field in some capacity. This demonstrates the life-changing impact that 
this kind of service can have on an individual.
  Teach For America is also experiencing remarkable growth as more and 
more Americans look to give back to their communities. Applications 
were up 40 percent this year, with 35,000 people applying to serve 
through Teach For America alone.
  However, I am concerned that there may be some confusion about the 
ability of Teach for America participants to serve in the Education 
Corps that we are creating with this bill. As I understand it, Teach 
For America will continue to be eligible under the national service 
corps description in section 122(c)(1)(D) and that because of that 
eligibility will be eligible as a program model for service corps for 
funding under the Education Corps and any of the newly created corps 
programs under section 122. Is this understanding correct?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator. I appreciate the Senator raising 
the issue of Teach For America. As the Senator knows, I am a very 
strong supporter of Teach For America and am

[[Page 8862]]

very proud of the successes that its corps members have in the 
classroom. Teach For America has 240 corps members in Maryland this 
year, and by next year you will have 140 in Tennessee, which is very 
exciting. Nationally, over 6100 corps members are enriching the lives 
of more than 450,000 underserved students in our Nation's lowest 
performing schools. And with more than 14,000 alumni working in all 
fields to combat educational inequity, I am confident that the impact 
of this program and its corps members will only continue to grow.
  I am proud to be a longtime supporter of this innovative and dynamic 
program, and I am pleased to say that they will continue to be eligible 
to participate in AmeriCorps through the newly created national service 
corps. Teach For America has demonstrated measurable effectiveness in 
the classroom, and it is exactly this type of measurable success that 
we are looking to scale up.
  I would like to reiterate it as clearly and simply as I can so that 
there is no confusion:
  Teach for America is eligible to receive funding under this 
legislation as a program model for service corps.
  Participants in the national service corps program models are allowed 
to serve in the Education Corps--or any of the other corps--that we are 
allowing for the creation of with the passage of this law, as long as 
they are focused on improving the appropriate outcomes.
  And Teach for America will be eligible to serve in the Education 
Corps.


                    Retired Senior volunteer Program

  Mr. ENZI. I would like to thank Senator Mikulski for all the hard 
work that she, Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch have put into crafting 
this bipartisan legislation. After 16 years we finally have the 
opportunity to take a hard look at the laws surrounding national 
service, and we are making necessary changes to improve accountability, 
reduce bureaucracy, and ensure that we get maximum return on the 
taxpayer's investment.
  Early in this process we recognized that an important challenge we 
would face in the reauthorization of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act 
was the desire of many to inject more competition into the SeniorCorps 
programs.
  These programs provide important services in every one of our States. 
In Wyoming there are more than 1,300 older Americans who are working to 
meet the needs of their communities in one of three Senior Corps 
programs: Retired Senior Volunteers, Senior Companion, and Foster 
Grandparents. In the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program--RSVP--
volunteers are working in Casper and Cheyenne to conduct safety 
patrols, participate in environmental projects, and provide tutoring 
and mentoring services.
  We have included performance indicators throughout the bill that will 
help us to evaluate the work of these programs. In the RSVP program, we 
reached bipartisan agreement to phase in a competitive grant process 
that provides incentives for organizations to improve their 
coordination with other community-based organizations, to increase 
their compliance with program requirements, and to assess their 
strengths and areas in need of improvement.
  We have included requirements that this new process put transparency 
first. The process by which the Corporation develops regulations and 
performance measures should be open and inclusive. As the Corporation 
for National Community Service moves through the regulatory process, we 
expect them to take seriously the public comments they receive for how 
best to move forward with greater competition in this program. There is 
a lot of on-the-ground expertise within the community of RSVP 
directors, and we expect the Corporation will listen to their 
recommendations, the recommendations of the National Association of 
RSVP Directors, and involve representatives from these communities in 
the peer review process.
  Finally, I understand that this new process has the potential for 
creating some new paperwork and administrative burdens on grantees in 
the RSVP program. Does the Senator see a way for those concerns to be 
addressed?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator. I appreciate the Senator raising 
the issue of competition in the SeniorCorps programs. As the Senator 
knows, I am a very strong supporter of the work that these programs 
perform in the communities in my State. More than 7,400 seniors 
participate in these programs. Our Foster Grandparents serving as 
tutors and mentors, our Senior Companions are providing services to 
homebound seniors, and our Retired and Senior Volunteers are working in 
hundreds of community-based organizations across Maryland.
  I believe that the language we have agreed upon provides 
opportunities to address some of the additional administrative burdens 
that may present a challenge for some of our small and rural programs. 
While this bill requires that RSVP programs undergo evaluations to 
gauge their performance levels, it also includes requirements for the 
Corporation to provide technical assistance to those programs that are 
struggling. It is important that as these organizations work to improve 
their performance they are able to obtain the support that they need 
from the Corporation to be successful. We have built in sufficient time 
so that the process is not rushed, and the legislation also ensures 
that every effort be made to minimize disruption to the volunteers and 
the communities they serve.
  And it is also important to note that we have directed the 
Corporation to make available an online resource guide. This resource 
guide will spell out the Corporation's expectations for high performing 
programs, provide examples of best practices, and help demystify the 
meaningful outcome measures that we expect to be applied to these 
programs. We are charting a path forward that will result in the RSVP 
volunteers providing better services to the communities in which they 
serve.


                           roosevelt scholars

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I wish to join Senator Kennedy and 
Senator Voinovich in a colloquy about the importance of government 
service and the potential of the Roosevelt Scholars program to bring 
more talented young Americans into the Federal workforce.
  The important legislation before us today focuses its attention on 
volunteerism and community service. I commend Senators Kennedy, Hatch 
and of course, my colleague Senator Mikulski, who has so ably guided 
the Senate's consideration of the Serve America Act. I suggest that it 
would be wise for this body to address the value of government service 
with the same resolve and bipartisanship with which we have engaged on 
the volunteer service legislation before us today.
  Advancing service legislation without a government service component 
would be unfortunate in ordinary times, but it is doubly so given the 
extraordinary demands being placed on our government in a time of 
national crisis. It is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that we are 
building new pipelines of talent into the Federal workforce to ensure 
that our government is able to meet its responsibilities to the 
American people.
  The Roosevelt Scholars Act is a smart and efficient way to add one of 
these new--and needed--pipelines. The proposal is to create a 
scholarship program in mission-critical fields in exchange for a 
Federal service commitment. The Roosevelt Scholars program would 
provide tuition, support for room and board and a stipend for study in 
occupations critical to our government's success, including 
engineering, public health, science, foreign languages, accounting and 
information technology, to name but a few. In exchange for this 
support, Roosevelt Scholars would complete an internship in a Federal 
agency and, upon graduation, would be expected to complete a minimum of 
three years of Federal service. A Roosevelt Scholars Foundation would 
be established to administer all aspects of the program.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. Since my election 
to the Senate, I have made improving the Federal workforce a priority. 
I know from 18 years of experience as both a mayor and a Governor that 
you simply cannot have effective government without the right people to 
get the job done.

[[Page 8863]]

  The Oversight of Government Management and the Federal Workforce 
Subcommittee, which I chaired and of which I am now the ranking member, 
has held dozens of hearings on issues related to attracting and 
retaining talented people in government service. Roughly one-third of 
government's top scientists, engineers, physicians, mathematicians, 
economists, and other highly specialized professionals will be leaving 
government service in the next 5 years. The labor needs of government 
are becoming more professional and specialized than ever before. 
Unfortunately, the same is true of the overall U.S. labor market and an 
insufficient number of citizens are pursuing study in high need areas. 
We need programs like Roosevelt Scholars to help address this shortage 
of skilled talent.
  I am pleased to join the Senator as a cosponsor of the Roosevelt 
Scholars proposal so more of our talented young people who answer the 
call to service will have government service as an option.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate the remarks of my colleague and look to my 
colleague from the State of Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, for some 
assurance that he regards government service as public service, as I 
do, and that the HELP Committee on which we both serve will pursue the 
Roosevelt Scholars Act as one way to enable more Americans to answer 
the call to national service.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank my colleague from New Mexico and also my 
colleague from Ohio. I certainly agree that government service is 
public service. I also agree that we need to do more to encourage 
talented young men and women to serve in the government and make it 
financially possible for them to do so. We took a significant step to 
do so in the last Congress, with the public service loan forgiveness 
program in the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. I would be 
pleased to work with the Senator and our colleagues in the HELP 
Committee to see that the proposed Roosevelt Scholars Act and its 
emphasis on building new pipelines to bring talent into government 
service receive a full hearing and consideration by the committee.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate is moving 
forward to vote on final passage of the bipartisan Serve America Act. 
Practical participation in the goals and ideals of our country through 
service is a cornerstone of our success as the world's most enduring 
democracy, and we must continue to work together to promote such 
volunteerism on a national level. Senator Kennedy has worked tirelessly 
to promote national service by authoring and passing the National and 
Community Service Trust Act, which created AmeriCorps. Senator 
Kennedy's career of public service serves as an example to so many 
Americans, and I am proud to have joined alongside him as a cosponsor 
of this legislation.
  For dozens of years, programs aimed at assisting Americans of all 
ages to participate in year-long service activities have thrived and 
national service applications are higher than they have ever been. This 
bill would expand the opportunities for Americans to serve by boosting 
AmeriCorps programs over 8 years to a goal of 250,000 volunteers, 
engaging youth and low-income individuals to participate in Summer of 
Service or Semester of Service programs, making expansions to programs 
for retirees, and authorizing a program for short-term international 
service opportunities. These programs have helped thousands engage in 
their communities and become involved in civic life and we should 
encourage even greater participation by passing this bill.
  In this time of economic hardship, Americans are struggling to pay 
the high costs of tuition and those who do make it through school are 
struggling to find ways to pay the bills. Many that may be drawn toward 
year-of-service programs are unable to commit because they cannot 
afford to do so. The Serve America Act increases the education award 
for volunteers to $5,350 to keep up with education costs and to link it 
to Pell Grants in order to help it increase in the future.
  The dedicated young people who have answered the honorable call to 
national service contribute enormously to the strength of our 
communities. Whether they are helping to house the homeless, feed the 
hungry, or keep disadvantaged youth safe in fun and educational after-
school activities, they are often filling a sorely needed gap that the 
community cannot otherwise fill. Since AmeriCorps' inception in 1994, 
more than 2,900 Vermonters have qualified for education loans through 
the program, allowing about 390 Vermont students to serve each year. 
Additionally, 2,800 Vermont seniors contribute their time to the Senior 
Corps program by becoming foster grandparents, senior companions for 
homebound seniors, or by serving in the Retired and Senior Volunteer 
Program. The expansion of the year-of-service opportunities this bill 
contains will greatly increase the capacity of Vermonters to join 
national service programs.
  Last week, a large group of volunteers from YouthBuild came to 
Washington to participate in Green Building Service Day to build an 
energy efficient home on the National Mall. YouthBuild volunteers have 
been participating in similar projects for more than 20 years. Several 
members of YouthBuild Burlington came to Washington to participate in 
Green Building Service Day and described how the program turned around 
their lives and how they are inspired to continue public service after 
their time with YouthBuild is completed. National service programs such 
as YouthBuild are not merely volunteer programs, but programs that 
invigorate the spirit of national service that will influence 
volunteers for a lifetime.
  We must work to make this vital part of our social safety net in 
Vermont and across the nation. Service to our country is not only 
noble, but it enriches the lives of those served as well as the 
volunteers who commit their time to helping others. I urge support of 
this bill as the Senate prepares to vote.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise today to express my support for 
this important bipartisan bill, the Serve America Act.
  Voluntarism is at the core of the ``American'' spirit. It was 
something that impressed Alexis de Tocqueville when he first visited 
the new American democracy in the early nineteenth century, and it is a 
trait that continues to improve the world around us every second of 
every day.
  Now, more than ever, we need to do what we can to keep the flame of 
public service burning bright in America to give our schools, our 
churches and temples, and our communities hope that prosperity and 
economic recovery for all is just around the corner.
  This legislation that we are considering today does just that.
  The Serve America Act reauthorizes and broadens our national service 
laws and creates a framework to develop national service programs that 
will improve American communities and enrich the lives of all of those 
who answer the call to serve.
  Now is the time for us to come together to reach out a helping hand 
to one another. This is what makes our country great, it is our spirit 
of community, our willingness to hunker down and help one another.
  The Serve America Act creates a continuum of service opportunities 
for Americans of all ages and walks of life--from middle school kids 
through seniors enjoying retirement.
  Today, I want to highlight a particular provision in this bill, the 
9/11 Day of Service and Remembrance.
  I thank Senators Kennedy, Mikulski, Hatch and Enzi for including this 
important provision at my urging.
  This provision will create a new national campaign to promote public 
service and encourage Americans to observe September 11 as a National 
Day of Service and Remembrance.
  This is important not only to all the families and loved ones 
affected by that terrible tragedy, but also to the next generation of 
Americans--so that we will never forget what happened on that day, and 
we will honor those who were killed with our own act of selflessness 
and public service.
  I want to acknowledge several of my fellow New Yorkers who have 
worked

[[Page 8864]]

tirelessly on this issue: Jay Winuk, cofounder and vice president of 
MyGoodDeed.org and the brother of attorney and 9/11 rescuer Glenn Winuk 
and David Paine, president and founder of MyGoodDeed.org.
  Glenn Winuk is just one of many New Yorkers who this provision will 
honor. On September 11, 2001, Glenn was working in his law office near 
the World Trade Center when the first plane hit.
  Glenn was a volunteer fire fighter and EMT and he helped evacuate his 
building, and then headed toward the chaos, grabbing a mask and a pair 
of gloves on the way. Tragically, Glenn died when the second tower 
collapsed.
  The nonprofit My Good Deed, started by his brother and friend, was 
founded to transform the anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 
2001 into an annually observed national day of service and good deeds.
  In 2007, more than 300,000 good deeds were posted on the 
organization's website by participants from all 50 U.S. states and150 
different countries and territories.
  The good deeds come in all forms--large and small.
  Giving a homeless woman a blanket on a cold night, donating blood 
regularly, sending care packages to our troops, and helping friends and 
neighbors by babysitting.
  There is a tremendous story from 2007 of John Feal who founded the 
Feal Good Foundation. John donated a kidney to a stranger to help a 
seriously ill 9/11 rescue worker. What a wonderful act of selflessness.
  We want to encourage more stories and acts of generosity like this.
  Establishing 9/11 as a national service day also has the potential to 
inspire many people to consider community service for the first time--a 
key goal of President Obama's administration.
  MyGoodDeed.org, the nonprofit that has been leading the eight year 
effort to designate 9/11 as a national day of service, found that two-
thirds of those who have participated in the unofficial 9/11 day of 
service observance to date--more than three million people a year by 
its estimates--describe themselves as relatively new or new to 
volunteering.
  Commemorating 9/11 with a good deed to help another American in need 
will honor great New Yorkers like John Sferazo and his organization 
``Unsung Heroes Helping Heroes''--who have already stepped up to the 
plate and volunteered their time to help their fellow countrymen.
  John was an ironworker who sacrificed his health at Ground Zero--and 
he and the Unsung Heroes have been helping out other first responders 
ever since.
  September 11 should not only be a day for mourning--it should be a 
day to think about our neighbors, our community, and our country.
  We can take a tragic day in our Nation's history and turn it into a 
force for good. We can make it a day on which we can give back in 
remembrance of those who lost their lives.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)

 Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of 
the Serve America Act, and I am glad the Senate is taking up this 
important bill this week. This legislation will provide better 
opportunities for all Americans to be involved in their communities. By 
engaging Americans of all ages in volunteer service opportunities, we 
can address some of our most pressing national challenges.
  In North Dakota, people understand the importance of civic duty and 
lending a hand to help a neighbor or their community. In fact, as we 
are debating this legislation on the Senate floor, there is a major 
volunteer effort going on in North Dakota.
  As I described in some detail yesterday, we are facing a major flood 
threat up and down the Red River Valley as well as in Bismarck and 
other communities around the state. The Red River is expected to rise 
to a record level in Fargo on Saturday. The community is working around 
the clock to fill sandbags, raise dikes and do their best to prepare. 
We are also facing several ice jams on the Missouri River that, if they 
break too fast, could flood our capital city of Bismarck in a matter of 
hours.
  Yesterday I met with President Obama, along with Senator Conrad, 
Congressman Pomeroy, and our two colleagues from Minnesota, Senator 
Klobuchar and Congressman Peterson, to brief the President on the 
situation. The President pledged the full support of the Federal 
Government and signed an emergency disaster declaration to immediately 
deliver Federal aid to the region.
  I am heading to North Dakota today to meet with Federal, State and 
local officials as we make the final push to prepare for the flood. I 
am sorry that I am going to miss the final series of votes on this 
bill, but I need to be on the ground in North Dakota.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise today in support of S. 277, the 
Serve America Act. First, let me thank Chairman Kennedy, Senator 
Mikulski, and Senators Hatch and Enzi, for their leadership and their 
vision in crafting this bipartisan legislation. I am proud to be an 
original cosponsor of this bill, because it will foster the best of 
what it means to be an American--our sense of community and shared 
responsibility for one another.
  This bill helps Americans respond to the call to national service. In 
the 63 days since President Obama took office, nowhere have we seen a 
more vibrant example than that set by the First Lady, Michelle Obama. 
Just last week, Mrs. Obama brought a diverse group of successful women 
to the White House--among them an astronaut, musicians, actors, 
businesswomen, scientists, authors--before dispersing them to 
Washington, DC, Maryland, and Virginia schools to meet with students 
and help them to aspire to greatness as well. Three weeks ago, on March 
5, she served lunch to homeless men and women at a soup kitchen in 
downtown Washington. The menu for the day featured fruit salad made 
with donations from White House employees. Mrs. Obama's message was 
simple and eloquent--that times are tough and people need a helping 
hand. She said that those who could not donate food or money should try 
to donate time instead. These are but two examples of how Mrs. Obama 
has inspired civic interest and engagement in others. But one need not 
be First Lady or even a celebrity to serve the community and that is 
what S. 277, the Serve America Act, is all about.
  The Serve America Act promotes public service as one avenue to 
address the most pressing challenges facing America. Who can help keep 
our children in school and out of gangs? Mentors provided through 
Education Corps. How can a single mother without insurance get her 
children basic dental care? Through oral health access programs offered 
through Healthy Futures Corps. How can a retiree better afford her 
heating bills? The Clean Energy Service Corps can weatherize her house 
to improve energy efficiency. How can a veteran recently returned from 
Afghanistan readjust to life at home? By working with volunteers at the 
Veterans Corps to pursue educational opportunities and professional 
certification. How can a recently laid-off father get gainful 
employment? Through the job-training and job-placement services and 
financial literacy programs offered through Opportunity Corps. These 
are just a few examples of how this legislation builds on the success 
of AmeriCorps to develop a volunteer base of civic engagement. It would 
reauthorize the basic AmeriCorps program with the goal of increasing 
the number of volunteers from 75,000 up to 250,000.
  As our recession has spread and deepened, I have talked with many of 
Maryland's nonprofit service organizations, and the message is the 
same: our communities' need for services has increased, while donations 
have decreased. But true to the American spirit, the number of 
volunteers eager to serve has increased. People are willing to donate 
their time, even though they might be less able to afford monetary 
donations. And for many affected by layoffs and cutbacks, time is all 
they have to give. When I visit with high school and college students, 
I find they are more enthusiastic than ever about

[[Page 8865]]

the notion of public service. S. 277 will harness that enthusiasm and 
help translate their interest into action.
  By promoting the involvement of Americans of all ages, this bill 
supports a lifetime of service. It strengthens the current Learn and 
Serve America program to engage middle and high school students in 
meeting community needs. The bill establishes youth engagement zones--
low-income, high-need districts where community based service learning 
projects can be coordinated for secondary school students. For college 
students, in addition to AmeriCorps service opportunities, the bill 
allows institutions of higher education to include service-learning as 
a component of other curriculae such as nursing and criminal justice. 
The bill also creates a ``Campuses of Service'' program, through which 
up to 25 colleges and universities can receive grants to provide 
service learning programs, or to share their programs with other 
institutions.
  In addition, the bill provides opportunities for America's seniors. 
Our Nation can benefit from seniors' many years of experience as we 
confront today's problems. S. 277 will enhance current Senior Corps 
programs and offer incentives for service. It will also allow 
participants to transfer any earned educational benefits to their 
children or grandchildren.
  I want to draw particular attention to the Healthy Futures Corps. 
This program will provide grants to the states and nonprofit 
organizations so they can fund national service in low-income 
communities. Healthy Futures Corps members will address certain health 
indicators, including chronic diseases, such as diabetes, and other 
conditions where we know there are socioeconomic, geographic, and 
racial and ethnic disparities. It will allow us to put into action 
tools that can help close the gaps in health status--prevention and 
health promotion. For too long, we have acknowledged health 
disparities, studied them, written reports about them. This bill will 
help us eliminate them through community-based interventions. I want to 
express my deep appreciation to the committee for adding language 
specifying oral health as an area of focus. Often overlooked when we 
consider health care, oral health is an essential component of health 
throughout life. No one can be truly considered healthy if they have 
untreated cavities, periodontal disease, or other dental problems. 
Maryland learned that lesson two years ago when 12 year old Prince 
George's County resident Deamonte Driver died of a brain infection 
brought on by an untreated tooth abscess. This measure will help 
recruit young people to work in the dental profession, where there are 
severe shortages of providers in many urban and rural areas. It will 
fund the work of individuals who can help parents find available oral 
health services for themselves and their children. It will make a 
difference in the lives of the Healthy Futures Corps members who work 
in underserved communities and in the lives and health of those who get 
access to care, and so I want to thank the committee for this addition 
to the bill.
  I am proud to say that Maryland already has a great track record in 
public service. The Corporation for National and Community Service 
reports that more than 170,000 Marylanders now participate through 115 
national service projects across our State. But there is always room 
for more. This legislation gives our State and the Nation additional 
tools to answer the call to service. I urge my colleagues to support 
this bill and it is my hope that it will receive the unanimous support 
of the Senate.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I rise today in strong 
support of the Serve America Act. This bill has broad, bipartisan 
support--and it should. One of my colleagues said earlier that it 
combines the best of liberal and conservative. I would say that it 
appeals to something that transcends political labels--a core belief 
that if citizens want to serve our country, we should help them.
  But there are a few opponents of this bill, and I want to speak 
briefly to their concerns.
  The basic argument against this legislation--as I understand it--is 
that government should not have to pay for voluntarism. I understand 
that argument. But I think it represents a basic misunderstanding of 
what public service is all about.
  The AmeriCorps Web site says that that program offers young people an 
``opportunity'' to serve.
  And it is true. Community service is an opportunity. We could spend 
hours listing prominent public careers that started in the public 
service program. One of our colleagues got his start that way, and I 
know he appreciated that first opportunity to serve.
  Alexis de Tocqueville--probably the most famous observer of American 
civil society--referred to our volunteer organizations as ``schools of 
democracy.'' And they are.
  Volunteers learn to be citizens--in the fullest and truest sense of 
that word. A Teach for America volunteer in Gallup doesn't just teach 
his students. He learns a new culture. He learns compassion for a 
community that is not his own. And he learns how to take responsibility 
for himself and for others.
  Imagine, briefly, if we accepted the idea that the Government should 
not pay for national service. Incoming AmeriCorps volunteers would be 
asked if they or their parents can afford to pay for a year's worth of 
food, clothes, and housing. Peace Corps volunteers would need enough 
money to spend a year abroad with no source of income. Our communities 
would not be served. And America's schools of democracy would be closed 
to all but the wealthiest Americans.
  I do not want to live in a country where willing volunteers are 
denied the opportunity to serve because it is unaffordable.
  The Serve America Act reflects the belief that we should encourage 
all our citizens to serve. We should give them more opportunities to be 
active citizens. Because a nation of volunteers does not just have 
better social services--it has a better citizenry and a stronger 
democracy.
  I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the Serve America 
Act.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I am pleased that the Serve America bill 
was considered through the regular legislative process. We held a 
hearing and a markup in the HELP Committee and reported it to the 
floor. Amendments have been offered, debated and dealt with, and we are 
about to vote to pass the bill. Although we have had to work faster 
than most of us would have preferred, it has been a bipartisan process 
every step of the way. While this is not a perfect bill, it is a better 
bill because we have followed regular order. The result is good policy 
with bipartisan support.
  We have finally taken a hard look at the laws surrounding national 
service, and made necessary changes to improve accountability, reduce 
bureaucracy, and ensure that we get maximum return on the investment 
we're making. The bill includes key Republican concepts such as 
eliminating waste, and addressing serious concerns about the management 
and operations of the AmeriCorps programs. It strengthens the oversight 
and fiscal accountability of these Federal programs, while it expands 
accessibility and streamlines bureaucracy, which is particularly 
critical for smaller and rural programs.
  The role of the chief financial officer and the inspector general at 
the Corporation for National and Community Service are strengthened. 
Additionally, the Corporation's board of directors is required to 
review the national service budget submission before it goes to OMB, 
and recovered misspent funds must go back to the national service 
trust.
  As the only accountant in the Senate I wanted to make sure that we 
provided the Corporation with the tools it needs to be on sound 
financial ground as it moves forward. I believe that with the changes 
we have made, the Corporation for National and Community Service will 
be a better steward of the taxpayers' money, and we will see ever 
increasing numbers of Americans serving in their communities to address 
locally determined needs and challenges.

[[Page 8866]]

  This bill is good for Wyoming because it makes programs more 
responsive to rural needs. It reduces paperwork and administrative 
burdens through fixed price grants so that so that programs can work 
better for small and rural communities.
  The impact of streamlining access to these programs will allow the 
Corporation to reach out more effectively to Native American 
communities and tribal governments, particularly now that it has 
brought on board a strategic adviser for Native American Affairs. Often 
these communities are the ones experiencing the most extreme needs for 
education, health and workforce services. With these changes I am 
hopeful that the increased set-aside for programs serving Native 
American communities will not be underutilized and used more 
efficiently.
  During the course of this debate we have heard about the many other 
important changes and improvements that we have made to the national 
service programs. I am glad that we have been able to improve the bill 
even more through the amendment process.
  This bill represents a landmark bipartisan achievement in a time of 
fierce partisanship. By working in a bipartisan way we have limited the 
number of new programs and controlled increases in discretionary 
spending. We have also added accountability and performance measures at 
every step of the way for each program. This bill will mobilize 
millions of faith-based organizations, church groups, nonprofits, and 
individuals to volunteer their time and energy freely to serve their 
communities. It does not include any mandates of any kind for 
individuals or groups to volunteer.
  I am pleased that this bill creates a Veterans Corps that provides 
services so important for returning veterans and their families. The 
bill establishes an Opportunity Corps to address issues in 
disadvantaged, low income communities, emphasizing financial literacy, 
education and job placement assistance, which are particularly fitting 
in this time of economic uncertainty. I am very supportive of 
provisions in this bill that build connections to the needs of our 
workforce.
  With Senator Mikulski I believe that we have found a way to introduce 
responsible competition into the SeniorCorps programs. The original 
proposal around competition would have seriously disrupted the 
important services provided by these programs. Finding a solution was 
particularly important in Wyoming as over 1,000 people a year 
participate as senior companions, foster grandparents or community 
volunteers.
  This is a bill that deserves our support, and I encourage my 
colleagues to vote for it. What we have agreed upon is good policy that 
reinforces Republican principles and will benefit disadvantaged 
communities across the country. I am confident that the House will 
concur with what we have done, pass the bill quickly, and send it to 
the President for his signature.
  As debate on this legislation comes to a close it is necessary to 
thank those who have worked long and hard on this bill. First and 
foremost I would like to thank Chairman Kennedy and Senator Hatch for 
agreeing to work together on designing the Serve America Act. It is a 
fine example of the importance of working together. I want to further 
acknowledge our friend and colleague Senator Kennedy. His is a life of 
dedication to national service and commitment to the issue of national 
service. I am sorry that I missed him when he was here earlier this 
week. However, I know that we all look forward to his complete recovery 
and return to the Senate.
  I also want to thank Senator Hatch for his management and leadership 
in shepherding this bill over the past few days. He has kept us focused 
on the importance of national service through his actions and 
dedication.
  And I want to congratulate Senator Mikulski for the work she has done 
to ensure a bipartisan process and her willingness to work round the 
clock to get this bill done.
  I would like to thank everyone on my staff who has worked tirelessly 
to get us to this point. In particular I would like to thank Frank 
Macchiarola, Greg Dean, Adam Briddell and Beth Buehlmann. I would also 
like to thank members of Senator Kennedy's and Senator Mikulski's staff 
for their hard work--Michael Myers, Portia Wu and Emma Vadehra, and 
Mario Cardona and Ben Gruenbaum. Thank you also to Senator Hatch's 
staff, Chris Campbell and Bryan Hickman. I also want to thank Liz King 
and Kristin Romero, the excellent legislative counsels who worked many 
long hours to carefully draft bill language. Finally, I thank all of 
the members of the HELP Committee and their staffs for their hard work.

                          ____________________