THE CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL

AND COMMUNITY SERVICE 

HEARING

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT EDUCATION 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 11, 2002 

Serial No. 107-57 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

81-199 pdf 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 

 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
ii

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin GEORGE MILLER, California 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California PATSY MINK, Hawaii 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

CHARLIE W. NORWOOD, JR., Georgia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee RON KIND, Wisconsin 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia DAVID WU, Oregon 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania SUSAN DAVIS, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

 TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

 JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

 VACANCY 

Paula Nowakowski, Chief of Staff 

 John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director

 __________ 

 SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT EDUCATION 

 PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan, Chairman

PATRICK TIBERI, Vice Chairman TIM ROEMER, Indiana

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

CHARLIE W. NORWOOD, JR., Georgia SUSAN DAVIS, California 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 
iii

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents............................................................................................................................. i 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PETER HOEKSTRA, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

SELECT EDUCATION, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC........................................................... 2 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER TIM ROEMER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT EDUCATION, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC ....................... 4 

STATEMENT OF LESLIE LENKOWSKY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CORPORATION 

FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C................................ 6 

STATEMENT OF ALAN KHAZEI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CITY YEAR, INC., 

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS .................................................................................................. 26 

APPENDIX A - WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PETER HOEKSTRA, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT EDUCATION, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC ..................... 37 

APPENDIX B - WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, 

TIM ROEMER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT EDUCATION, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, DC.................................................................................................................... 41 

APPENDIX C - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF LESLIE LENKOWSKY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................................... 45 

APPENDIX D - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ALAN KHAZEI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, CITY YEAR, INC., BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS............................................... 79 

Table of Indexes............................................................................................................................ 93 
iv
1

HEARING ON THE CORPORATION FOR 

NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE 

Thursday, April 11, 2002 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Select Education, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

 The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn House 

Office Building, Hon. Peter Hoekstra [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

 Present: Representatives Hoekstra, Roemer, Scott, Holt, Davis, and McCollum. 

 Staff present: Scott Galupo, Communications Specialist; Blake Hegeman, Legislative 

Assistant; Patrick Lyden, Professional Staff Member; Whitney Rhoades, Professional Staff 

Member; Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Rich Stombres, Professional 

Staff Member; Heather Valentine, Press Secretary; James Kvaal, Minority Legislative 

Associate/Education; Maggie McDow, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; and Joe 

Novotny, Minority Staff Assistant/Education. 

Chairman Hoekstra. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on Select Education will come 

to order. 

 Today we're meeting to hear testimony on the Corporation for National and Community 

Service. Under committee rule 12(b), opening statements are limited to the chairman and the 

ranking minority member of the subcommittee. Therefore, if other members have statements, they 

may be and will be included in the hearing record. 

 With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain open 14 days to allow 

member statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in 
2

the official hearing record. 

 Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. Roemer. Without objection. 

Chairman Hoekstra. Thank you, Mr. Roemer. 

Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Hoekstra. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PETER HOEKSTRA, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT EDUCATION, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC 

Chairman Hoekstra. I notice Mr. Roemer is drinking his Pepsi this morning, but it's caffeine-free, 

so that's the signal that this will be a great hearing and a bipartisan hearing. 

 Just to kind of set the tone, Mr. Roemer and I have been working on this and talking about 

it for quite some time. We have been involved in the process of meeting with the Corporation for 

National and Community Service, their board, and last fall, we met with Les a couple times - most 

recently yesterday. We are optimistic that we can move this legislation relatively quickly and do so 

in a bipartisan basis. 

 We have established through this subcommittee an ability to work on some easy issues on a 

bipartisan basis, but we have also established the ability to work on some tough issues on a 

bipartisan basis. We expect that we're going to be able to do this one together. The dialogue and the 

discussion we've had with the administration indicates that we think we can all be equal partners in 

writing a reauthorization bill, in writing a bill that we can all agree on and that we can move 

through committee and that we can move through the House on a relatively accelerated basis. 

 We think that's a great way to start the process and we expect that, when we end the 

process, that's exactly where we will have been. 

 We've recognized that this is a priority for the President. This will be one of the things that 

he is going to be talking about consistently. We know that this has been a priority for a number of 

our colleagues in the House to get this reauthorization up and running, and we've been talking with 

our colleagues about how exactly we are going to be able to make that happen. 

 The administration's proposals are a set of proposals that talk about reforming and updating 

the Corporation for National and Community Service. This is legislation that was originally passed 

in 1993. The authorization expired in 1996. It has obviously continued to be funded since that 

time. 
3

 It was a bill that I voted for in 1993. I've not always been pleased with what has happened 

through the Corporation since that time, but I am looking forward to reforming it, enhancing it, and 

updating the law based on what we've learned over the last eight or nine years. 

 The President's principles are really built around four points: support and encourage greater 

engagement of citizens in volunteering; make federal funds more responsive to state and local 

needs; make federal support more accountable and effective; and provide greater assistance to 

secular and faith-based community organizations. 

 I think those are principles that are widely accepted and that will form the core of the 

reauthorization bill. 

 I would also like to specifically thank the people at the Corporation for National and 

Community Service for the work that they've done over the last few years in improving their 

financial management systems. 

 Kind of the base starting point for any major organization is just to have the fundamental 

reporting and control systems in place. I believe that the Corporation has had two years in a row of 

clean audits, which I applaud, because that really gets to be a barrier to appropriating more than a 

half a billion dollars to an agency that can't keep a clean set of books. 

 Everything has indicated that, since September 11th, the spirit of the American people, both 

old and young, is a renewed commitment, or a renewed awareness, to the service commitment that 

makes America such a special place. 

 Now is exactly the right time to reauthorize this program to build on that spirit of 

community and recognize the partnership between the Federal Government, the states, and the 

unprecedented performance of our not-for-profit sector in the United States. 

 I'm looking forward to that. I'm looking forward to the testimony today and the process 

over the next few months. 

 With that, I will yield to my colleague, Mr. Roemer. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PETER HOEKSTRA, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON SELECT EDUCATION, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC – SEE APPENDIX A 

Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my 

remarks. 

Chairman Hoekstra. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
4

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER TIM 

ROEMER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT EDUCATION, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC

 First of all, I want to salute and thank you for, already, your hard work on this bill. As you 

mentioned in your opening statement, you and I have been talking about this reauthorization 

process for probably close to four or five months. We've both had meetings on it. We've both had 

several conversations in your office, on the floor, and around the Capitol on this, and I look 

forward to working with you on this bipartisan bill, as you and I have worked on the previous two 

bills, CAPTA and the Libraries and Museums Bill that we reported out of full committee three 

weeks ago. I look forward to that bipartisan success and to building on the good working 

relationship that we have. 

 I would also like to say that the witnesses that we have before us today, Dr. Lenkowsky, if 

you can only be as successful in AmeriCorps as the university that you come from, Indiana 

University, was in the runup to the championship game, we'll be doing very well here. We're very 

proud of the Hoosiers and what they did in the tournament. We're very proud of you and your 

work in political science and in the State of Indiana, as well, too, so we look forward to our 

relationship building on this program. 

 We have Mr. Khazei, who I've known for a couple years now. I think we first met two 

years ago, and you and your wife are very involved in this process, and we look forward to building 

on that relationship, too, and hearing your testimony after Mr. Lenkowsky. 

 I guess what I'd like to say, I say a lot in my opening statement about the importance of 

AmeriCorps. I'm an original supporter of the bill that first came through the Clinton 

administration. 

 I have several programs in my district, one at the University of Notre Dame that's one of the 

best programs in the nation, called ACE that has students study for their master's degree. They go 

into South Bend schools to help teach children that are not doing particularly well in their test 

scores with remediation in the summertime. Then they're put into schools where we cannot recruit 

many teachers, in the south, in areas of high poverty. 

 I have national service programs with the environment, with life services programs in the 

homeless center in South Bend. These programs are exemplary. They're working well, and we can 

replicate these programs across the country. 

 We all talk about September 11th and what happened to this country on September 11th. 

We all remember what we were doing. 

 I remember, on September 11th, after a long, long day, and evacuation here in the Capitol 

of our offices, I was driving past the, across the 14th Street Bridge in the middle of the night, and 

saw the Pentagon still in flames. 
5

 I drove past a couple barricades, parked about 500 yards from the front of the Pentagon, and 

walked up to the Pentagon through the mud and the slush of the water that had been poured on the 

flames. It was still smoking. There was still fire coming from the building 13 hours after it had 

been hit, 

 I'll never forget the shock of standing 20 yards in front of that building, people still trying to 

figure out if there were bodies underneath the rubble. The building itself looked like a steel boot 

had come down, collapsing that building into a paper accordion. 

 Seeing how we had been attacked, how our people had been killed, at one of our strongest 

forts, buildings, was indeed shocking and terrible. 

 I guess at that time, in the middle of the night, I'll never forget, then, turning around and 

looking at the army of Americans that stretched as far as I could see, people coming forward to 

collect parts of the plane that might have been six inches long, for evidence, to then put together, as 

the FBI evidentiary team; people coming forward in their Army fatigues to help the people that 

were getting tired after 12 hours of work; medical personnel; volunteers across the board. This was 

the spirit that we need to see really energized in this country. 

 I'll never forget, then, sitting down at the breakfast table the next morning with my family. 

I have two little boys, nine and seven, although they don't want to be called little boys, and two 

daughters, five and almost two. 

 My wife and I concentrated on talking to our two sons, who are fascinated with, you know, 

explosions and bombs, and we thought they'd be a little bit scared of the whole process, so we were 

talking to them, and about 15 minutes into the conversation, at 6:30 in the morning, my five-yearold daughter Sarah bursts into tears and starts crying, hysterically, and shaking, and gets in my lap, 

and she says, ``Daddy, are these bad people going to get us, too? Are we going to get it?'' 

 I'll never forget hugging her and telling her, ``No, sweetheart, we're going to be okay. 

We're going to handle this. Everything's going to be fine in America, and we'll take care of it.'' 

 She looked at me, and the tears stopped, and she said, ``Daddy, then how do we help?'' 

How do we help? A five-year old. 

 Now, between the army of Americans at the Pentagon and this five-year-old saying how do 

we help get this country going in the right direction again, that's exactly what we want to see with 

the President's State of the Union, where he wants to expand AmeriCorps. When we win this war 

on terrorism that will be one of the successes that is tangible. 

 I think the other tangible success will be when we find ways to motivate the great spirit in 

this country to help other people and do it through organizations like AmeriCorps. I think that's 

really our challenge. 

 So we look forward to your testimony today. We look forward to working with you on a 

bipartisan bill. There will be some questions and some disagreements here and there, but I think 
6

overall we're very excited by the President's proposal to increase funding, to expand this program, 

to build on what happened to this country on September 11th. 

 With that, I yield back any time I might have, Mr. Chairman, but I don't think I do have any 

time left. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, TIM ROEMER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT EDUCATION, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC – SEE APPENDIX B 

Chairman Hoekstra. I think you're right. 

 Let me introduce our first witness today, Dr. Les Lenkowsky. 

Dr. Lenkowsky is the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community 

Service. He was appointed by President Bush and has served as CEO since October 2001. 

 Prior to his appointment, Dr. Lenkowsky served the Corporation as a member of its board 

of directors since its creation in 1993. Before joining the Bush administration, he served as a 

professor at Indiana University, Purdue, at Indianapolis and as a research associate at Indiana 

University. It's hard for me to say that. He also holds a Doctorate from Harvard University. 

 Les, welcome and thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF LESLIE LENKOWSKY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Lenkowsky. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Roemer, and members of the committee, I am 

privileged to come before you this morning to present President Bush's principles for a new Citizen 

Service Act that would improve and enhance the programs of the Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

 First, though, let me express my deepest appreciation for the support and oversight that this 

committee has provided to the Corporation. 

 In years past - and as you know, I was a board member all those years - you demanded 

accountability, and rightfully so. The Corporation has responded, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, 

administratively. Now, we propose to respond legislatively. 

 Since the Corporation was created in 1993, it has accomplished a great deal. But to better 

help build a culture of citizenship, service, and responsibility, we must use the lessons of the past 

decade to strengthen the quality of the Corporation's efforts and assist more Americans to serve 

their neighbors, their communities, and their country. 
7

 In my prepared testimony, which I would like to submit for the record, I have outlined what 

the Corporation has achieved since it began and what we have learned about where we need to 

improve. 

 On April 9th, President Bush unveiled the principles we believe should guide reform of the 

Corporation's programs: AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, and Learn and Serve America. These are 

attached to my written testimony. Today, I would like to briefly summarize them for you. 

 As you noted, Mr. Chairman, the President's principles have four major objectives. 

 The first is to support and encourage greater engagement of citizens in volunteering. 

 In AmeriCorps, we would propose to do this by statutorily requiring all members to focus 

on generating additional unstipended volunteers; improving the education award, such as by 

eliminating tax on it and allowing it to be transferred to younger family members or even to teens; 

testing new approaches that give would-be members a wider range of places in which they could 

serve; and encouraging growth and greater private backing for successful AmeriCorps programs, 

such as Teach for America and City Year. 

 We would also reduce the age and income restrictions that disqualify too many older 

Americans from Senior Corps; create a special program to connect veterans with youth; and 

eliminate barriers to people with disabilities from participation in all our programs. 

 Finally, we would urge Congress to amend the Higher Education Act to require every 

college and university to increase over several years the percentage of federal work/study funds 

devoted to community service to 50 percent as part of a more comprehensive effort to enhance 

service learning among all our young people. 

 Our second goal is to make federal support for service more responsive to state and local 

needs. We would like to give states more authority to select AmeriCorps programs than they have 

today, as well as greater flexibility - within reasonable limits - to allocate funds for administrative 

uses.

 We want to see communities have more leeway for developing Senior Corps programs that 

will appeal to the baby boomers who are on the verge of retirement, including by offering 

transferable Silver Scholarships to those who have made substantial commitments of time. 

 We propose to consolidate and modify Learn and Serve programs so that they can better 

address barriers to high-quality service learning programs, such as lack of teacher training. 

 Without jeopardizing our hard-won management improvements, which produced, as you 

noted, our second consecutive clean audit opinion, we believe that with appropriate authority we 

can do more to simplify administrative requirements and ease the burden of our programs on state 

and local communities, as well as the charities in which our members serve. 
8

 At the same time, the third objective of our principles is to make the Corporation's programs 

more accountable and more effective. 

 We propose a statutory requirement that all AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, and Learn and 

Serve programs establish performance goals, develop corrective plans if they fail to meet these 

goals, and lose part, or all, of their federal support if corrections are not made. 

 We would also like to write into law the successful agreement we have had with Congress 

to contain the average cost of AmeriCorps. One reason the agreement has been successful is that 

the Corporation was able to develop some lower-cost, high-impact ways of serving in AmeriCorps, 

such as the education award only version, in which members receive no federal living allowance. 

 We would like the authority to move these from the test phase, where we are limited in how 

many positions we can support, into the general AmeriCorps mix. We are also interested in using 

the National Civilian Community Corps model, which is now wholly funded by the Federal 

Government as a basis for partnerships with public agencies and nonprofits that would primarily 

work on public safety, public health, and emergency response efforts. 

 I might note, Congressman Roemer, that among those Americans you saw at the Pentagon 

and among those who responded almost immediately to the World Trade Center and to many other 

parts of the country were members of our National Civilian Community Corps and other parts of 

AmeriCorps. 

 Last but not least, our fourth goal is to provide greater assistance to secular and faith-based 

community organizations. This has always been a priority for the Corporation's programs, 

especially VISTA, which, as you know, dates to the War on Poverty. 

 By making some modest changes, such as in the rules governing how its members are 

selected and placed, we believe we can make VISTA even more helpful to groups on the front lines 

of helping the poor and needy. With proper authority, we can also do a better job of ensuring that 

all the Corporation's programs do what VISTA has long been committed to doing: helping 

nonprofits mobilize the resources, including modern technology, they need to be sustainable and 

effective.

 The President's budget for fiscal year 2003 proposes increasing AmeriCorps by 25,000 

members and Senior Corps by 100,000. We request that this committee authorize the 

appropriations necessary to reach these ambitious targets. 

 While our existing legislation, together with the management improvements we have made 

in recent years, would enable the Corporation to achieve these goals, we believe that the changes 

the President is calling for will produce more volunteers and more help for nonprofit organizations 

for each government dollar spent. 

 We also need to take advantage of an extraordinary moment in American history. Since 

September 11th, Americans of all ages and backgrounds have come to recognize even more that 
9

this is a country worth not only defending but also worth serving. 

 According to one recent survey, 81 percent of young adults, cutting across all demographic 

groups and political affiliations, say they would like to have a chance for a full year of national or 

community service. 

 Since the President's State of the Union address in which he called on Americans to serve 

and created the USA Freedom Corps, applications for AmeriCorps are twice what they were a year 

earlier. Interest in Senior Corps has risen even more and a blue ribbon committee chaired by former 

Senator John Glenn has just called upon the nation's schools to invest more heavily in service 

learning.

 By improving its programs as it adds more capacity, this committee will enable the 

Corporation to respond more effectively and expeditiously to a public that wants to help. And if 

together with our volunteer centers, United Ways and many other private groups, we are successful 

in responding, we will do a better job of helping people in need. And perhaps more importantly, 

we will strengthen the spirit of civic responsibility upon which the health of American democracy 

rests.

 We look forward to working with you, to translate your ideas and the principles the 

President has articulated into legislation that will put the Corporation on a strong bipartisan footing 

for its second decade and beyond. 

 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I'd be delighted to take your questions. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF LESLIE LENKOWSKY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. –

SEE APPENDIX C

Chairman Hoekstra. Thank you. I want to talk about two of the programs that maybe are a little 

bit off the core of the Corporation, but that I think are very critical: the Senior Corps program, and 

something that is not part of the Corporation but where you do have a proposal, and that's Federal 

Work/Study.

 In the area of the Senior Corps programs, you're proposing to reduce the age limit and then 

you're also talking about new senior scholarships, and also eliminating, or changing the income 

eligibility. 

 What's the thinking behind those changes? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. We have three separate Senior Corps programs. One is Foster Grandparents, 

where seniors work with young people who need a grandparent–like figure in their lives; Senior 

Companions, which is a program whereby younger seniors aid the older and frailer elderly; and 

then the Retired Senior Volunteer program, which is by far the largest of them, in which seniors do 

a variety of tasks. 
10

 In both Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions, these are programs that were enacted, 

again, back in the 1960s. At the time, they set the retirement age at age 60. And there's an income 

ceiling for eligibility to be a senior companion or foster grandparent of 125 percent of poverty. 

 That may have made sense then, when people were likely to retire a bit later than they are 

today and when we had a far larger proportion of elderly people living in poverty than we have 

today. As a result of those two requirements, our Senior Companion programs and Foster 

Grandparents are turning people away who want to serve in these programs, but might be just a 

little bit above that income ceiling, or might not have reached the age of 60 yet. 

 Our Senior Companion programs did a survey of this and they reported - 95 percent of them 

reported that they had a waiting list of frail elderly who wanted a senior companion - but they 

couldn't get enough people into the program to fill that waiting list. And, 88 percent of our project 

directors said that the most important reason for that was our low ceiling of income eligibility. 

 We currently have a waiting list in those two programs. We have young children who 

would like a companion, a grandparent in their lives, seniors, frail elderly who would like 

somebody with them. We have people who want to do it, but our own rules prevent us from 

enrolling those people in these programs. 

 The Silver Scholarship is a bit different in concept. That will apply across the board, and 

it's designed to recognize seniors who will commit a significant portion of their time each week to 

service of one sort or another. 

 Right now, our Senior RSVP, the largest of our Senior Corps programs, is completely 

unstipended. Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions have relatively small stipends. 

 We think, and President Bush proposed this during the election campaign, that by giving an 

opportunity to recognize a strong commitment to scholarship, say 500 hours a year or more, we 

would attract more seniors into these programs and do a better job of serving people who need the 

help our seniors can provide. 

Chairman Hoekstra. Thank you. I'm very supportive of, directionally, where you want to go on 

that. We'll have to work through the details on that. 

 Federal Work/Study, proposing increasing - outline exactly where you want to go with this. 

Mr. Lenkowsky. The work/study program was a really creative idea back in the 1960s when it was 

first enacted. The idea was that low and moderate-income young people would be able to earn 

some money to go to college, and while they're doing that, give something back to their 

communities by tutoring or mentoring, for example, as well as develop skills that are relevant to 

their career plans after college. 

 For a variety of reasons, we haven't quite fulfilled that objective. Most of the students in 

Federal Work/Study do work on campus in a variety of very useful and important things. But we 

also know, from surveys that the Department of Education and others have done, that if given a 
11

choice, a large percentage of students eligible for Federal Work/Study would like to have the 

opportunity to work off-campus-giving something back. And, I suspect that's especially strong after 

September 11th. 

 A few years ago, Congress required colleges and universities to allocate 5 percent of those 

Federal Work/Study funds' slots to what we call community service or serve study. That percentage 

was increased to 7 percent on average. The percentage is now 14 percent across all colleges and 

universities. We are proposing a fairly stiff increase in that to 50 percent. 

 Now, we understand that this is going to be difficult for some colleges. There are a lot of 

practical issues that are involved. I want to emphasize that this proposal is meant to be taken in the 

context of a comprehensive effort to engage college and university students using all sorts of tools, 

including the Federal Work/Study program, in serving their communities. 

 Right now, although we don't have terrific data on this, we think that the rate of 

volunteering among four-year undergraduates - even excluding the non-traditional student who is 

working and raising a family while he or she is going to college - is actually below the national 

average.

 We think the habit of service and volunteering is formed young. So we would really like to 

work with this Congress and with our leaders of higher education to use all the available tools, 

including the Federal Work/Study program, to engage as many students as possible in service while 

they're undergraduates, and develop those habits very young, for a lifetime of service. 

 That's the rationale for our proposal. We understand, as you noted, that this is really 

something that has to be considered in the context of the Higher Education Act. 

 We're already having a lot of good discussions with the Department of Education and with 

the presidents of colleges and universities around the country. They're giving us a lot of good ideas 

and, more importantly, coming up with some creative thinking of their own on how to respond to 

the President's call to service. 

Chairman Hoekstra. Thank you. Mr. Roemer. 

Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 Again, thank you for your helpful testimony. 

 You have mentioned that you - and the chairman mentioned this - that you want to 

eliminate, at least in your principles, the income test for participation in Senior Corps, although I 

think, in your principles, you also say that you should put a priority on low-income seniors. 

 Right now, current law is at 125 percent of poverty. Are you, you know, really ratcheting 

down here on eliminating this income test, or are you willing to work with us on really looking for 

some ways to emphasize that we should maybe be flexible here? 
12

Mr. Lenkowsky. As you know, President Bush has proposed principles for legislation. I think that 

reflects his desire, and certainly our desire, to work constructively with you. 

 We want to make sure that if there is a frail elderly person who needs and wants a senior 

companion, that we're not turning people away; if there's a young child who needs an older figure 

in his or her life that we're not turning people away who want to do that. 

 At the end of the day, we keep coming back to the need. How we get there is something we 

want to work out with you. 

Mr. Roemer. All right. Good. With respect to the new Citizen Corps that has been proposed, I 

believe the way you have it in the principles is the Citizen Corps would be structured underneath 

FEMA? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. Yes. Citizens Corps -. 

Mr. Roemer. Why is that? And then tell me how Freedom Corps works into all this, too. I'm not 

sure that I completely understand. 

Mr. Lenkowsky. It is a bit confusing, and we've heard that from a lot of people - including when I 

testified over at the other body on Tuesday. 

 Let me give a brief explanation. USA Freedom Corps is a Cabinet-level coordinating body. 

If you think of it as analogous in some ways to the National Security Council or the National 

Economic Council, that's probably the way to think about it. Its membership consists of relevant 

Cabinet agencies plus independent agencies, such as [Corporation for National and Community 

Service], the Peace Corps, and FEMA. The purpose of the Council is really to coordinate and 

improve everything the Federal Government does to help people serve their country and respond to 

the President's call for service. 

 Freedom Corps was created by executive order. There's nothing about it that changes the 

authority of the Corporation or my accountability to you and others. The same would be true of 

Peace Corps. 

 There are right now three major operating components that operate within the umbrella of 

the Freedom Corps. One, of course, is the Peace Corps, which remains independent; one is the 

Corporation; and the third is called Citizen Corps, and it is a collection of efforts, many of which 

already exist, such as the Department of Justice's Neighborhood Watch, aimed at mobilizing 

volunteers for a very specific purpose - homeland security. 

 In one way or another, all of the different elements under Citizen Corps, under the direction 

of FEMA, working closely with state and local councils, are going to be geared to homeland 

security tasks. 

 The relationship of the Corporation to Citizens Corps is that about 30 percent of people in 

AmeriCorps and Senior Corps right now are engaged in public safety, public health, or disaster 
13

preparedness activities. 

 If state and local groups start to inventory what they need to do to prepare in the event, and 

we hope it doesn't occur, that there's another attack of any sort on us, they're going to take into 

account the resources that the Corporation has available. 

 At the state level, we expect our state commission will participate in the planning process. 

I'm sure at the local level, our people will be working there, too. 

Mr. Roemer. All right. 

Mr. Lenkowsky. There's no change in the laws, but we are an asset to the Citizens Corps and look 

forward to doing that. 

Mr. Roemer. I want to continue to understand that structure now, and talk with you about that. 

 The Peace Corps and the AmeriCorps are certainly independent, as you mentioned, 

agencies, and I'm not sure how these now are structured as wings of Freedom Corps and what that 

does for recruitment and so forth, but I want to meet with you more on that. 

 The chairman mentioned the work/study program and your setting this 50 percent 

requirement. I do want to talk to you more about that. I think there's a bill on the Senate side that 

has set that at 25 percent, and that's certainly, you know - why do you think - what benefits are 

there in those different goals there? 

 You also talk about a cost per, maybe establishing a cap on average expenditures per 

AmeriCorps member, but you don't mention a specific figure. You talk about giving flexibility to 

states.

 Why don't you mention a figure, a cap level, if you think that's important? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. Well, we thought we would work with you on that. 

Mr. Roemer. That's a good reason. 

 [Laughter.] 

Mr. Lenkowsky. We have, as you know, had a cap in place. 

Mr. Roemer. I like you. You're going to do well up here. 

Mr. Lenkowsky. We've had a cap in place. I want to emphasize it really is a comprehensive cap. 

 It covers not just the living expense stipend, but also the education award, the health 

insurance benefits, the child care, and even the administration and training costs per member, full-
14

time equivalent. 

 That's been very successful. We can show, and I'll be glad to submit for the record, a great 

story about how our average full-time equivalent costs have been going down steadily since we 

entered into that agreement, actually, even a bit before, knowing of Congress's concern about this. 

We think it's time to put this into statute. 

 It's quite unusual. We've been researching, and I'm not sure any other agency does this, but 

we were mindful of the concerns that this committee and others have expressed. And we feel that, 

on an average basis, we can put a cap in place without significantly undercutting our flexibility. 

 Some of our programs, like our camp-based program, the NCCC, are going to cost a bit 

more per member. But that's why we can move them immediately to the Pentagon, because they are 

there full-time in a residential setting. 

 Others, like our ed award only, cost significantly less per member. We want to balance it 

out and get a good balance portfolio that falls within that cap. 

Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Les. 

Chairman Hoekstra. Mr. Scott. 

Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Lenkowsky. 

 I had a couple of questions about Section 175 of the Act, the non-discrimination part, which 

prohibits bigoted discrimination based solely on race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, 

political affiliation, disability, and religion. 

 Are you proposing any change to Section 175? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. At the moment, we are not proposing any changes. 

 Our legislation, if I may, Congressman, does not allow grantees to discriminate on the basis 

of religion or the other categories you mentioned, in hiring new employees who are paid with 

Corporation funds to work on a Corporation-funded project. 

 However, religious organizations - I know this is a concern of yours - remain exempt from 

Title 7 coverage, and therefore, may consider religion in employing staff members who are paid for 

by private funds and staff members who, although supported by Corporation grant funds and 

assigned to a Corporation-funded project, were employed with the religious organization prior to 

the grant award. 

 Now, this particular -. 
15

Mr. Scott. That last part says if you've got somebody on staff, you don't have to fire them in order 

to get a grant? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. Right. If the pastor is going to use part of his duties supervising our program, 

that's fine. 

 Now, if I may just give you the history of this, this provision dates back to 1990, when 

President George H. W. Bush signed into law the National Community Service Act. 

Mr. Scott. Let me just ask a number of questions. 

 You don't anticipate changing any of Section 175? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. Not at this moment, but since that provision was enacted into law, as you know, 

Congress has voted several times on charitable choice legislation. The courts have ruled in a variety 

of ways that are relevant to this area, and ultimately, it's led to a somewhat different understanding, 

as I understand it, from the 1990 understanding. 

 We are committed here to working with faith-based organizations. As you know, they are a 

critical part of our nation's charitable world. 

Mr. Scott. Are you proposing to change - you're not proposing to change Section 175 to allow 

religious discrimination with federal funds in hiring with federal funds? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. We are not proposing to do this, but we do want to work with Congress to see if, 

in light of the debate that's going on here, to see if, when that is concluded, there's any need to 

make our programs in conformance with the result so that we can continue to serve them. 

Mr. Scott. Well, if Congress wants to allow discrimination, so that you can say that people of 

certain faiths aren't qualified to work in these projects, that will be Congress's decision, but not 

yours.

Mr. Lenkowsky. That is correct, Congressman. We want to stay in conformance -. 

Mr. Scott. You're not advocating the change? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. Not at this moment, Congressman. We do, though, want to make sure that 

nothing about our programs infringes on the religious liberty of our grantees. We want to make 

sure that we can reach out to -. 

Mr. Scott. And you can do that -. 

Mr. Lenkowsky. - to faith-based organizations effectively. 

Mr. Scott. - if you limit the discrimination, anti-discrimination parts just to those paid for with 

federal money. What you do with the private funds is up to the religious organization, but with the 
16

federal funds, we don't want any discrimination. 

Mr. Lenkowsky. We certainly don't want discrimination, other than as permitted by this Congress, 

as you suggested earlier, the exemption. 

Mr. Scott. Congress is going to do what Congress does. 

Mr. Lenkowsky. That's correct. 

Mr. Scott. I'm just making it clear that that's not your idea; you're not advocating the change? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. Our goal is to work closely with faith-based organizations. We want to make sure 

that - within the law as enacted by this Congress, and ruled on by the courts - that we are doing 

everything possible to reach faith-based organizations. 

Mr. Scott. Are you going to, on this choose your own thing, are you going to pre-qualify programs 

that someone can go, if you give the individual the money, and then they go find their slot? Are 

you going to pre-qualify the organizations and give them a list of places they can go, or are they 

pretty much on their own? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. Well, it's one of the things we're going to look at, as we would propose to test 

this, not to make it a part of the program. I had a certain amount to do with designing that. 

 My own idea - which may or may not, I'm sure it will be part of the test, given my role at 

the moment - was to let the range of organizations conform with United Way accredited groups or 

community colleges, or if it’s a nursing home, an accredited nursing home. It would be a broad 

range of groups that meet some standard of accreditation. 

Mr. Scott. Now, will those pre-approved organizations be required to comply with Section 175 or 

will they be able to say, ``We don't want people of certain religions''? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. I think whatever rule we have regarding the discrimination rules will pertain to 

everybody in AmeriCorps, and to every organization that participates in AmeriCorps. 

Mr. Scott. Will the participants be able to participate in religious activities paid for with federal 

money; like will the participants be able to get involved in religious expression, proselytization on 

government time? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. They're currently not allowed to do this. 

 Congressman Roemer mentioned the ACE program, which really is one of our best 

programs. That program places AmeriCorps members in under-resourced religious schools all 

around the United States and its run by the University of Notre Dame. 

 But our rules very carefully stipulate that the students can teach biology, they can teach 

algebra, they cannot get involved at all in religious instruction, and that's worked for us and I see no 
17

reason to change it. 

Mr. Scott. Can Notre Dame say that they don't want people of certain religions? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. I do not think they can say that. 

Mr. Scott. Thank you. 

Chairman Hoekstra. Ms. Davis. 

Ms. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Lenkowsky, for being here. 

 If I could continue with that just for a moment, do you anticipate that the Corporation 

would need to provide additional funding to follow students who essentially are working in 

religious institutions, as well as in nonprofits? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. Well, we already do a great deal of monitoring. We're proposing to strengthen 

our accountability, both financial accountability and program accountability, as well as quality. 

 We can always improve on that, and we're going to continue to try to improve on that, but I 

think if there are instances of any violation between our efforts, through Washington, and the 

efforts of our state commission, we ought to be alert to them and take corrective action. 

Ms. Davis. Do you have any sense of what that would cost to - right now, about what does is cost 

to track a student working, even in a nonprofit, just to see how that funding is being used? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. Well, our administrative costs, which is what we're talking about here, are a 

relatively small proportion of the total funds we spend, but they're divided between administrative 

costs in Washington and costs for our state commissions and state offices. So it's a relatively small 

proportion of our total budget. 

 One of our principles that we're recommending is to put a little more flexibility - again, with 

some sense of reasonableness attached - so that as our programs grow, our state commissions can 

devote additional funds if they need to do so for administration. 

 In addition, our budget contains, I believe our budget proposal contains, a $5 million item 

that I am told is somewhat larger in relation to the size of our agency than would normally be the 

case for the inspector general. The inspector general is a key part of our monitoring operation. It 

monitors the compliance with our rules and regulations, which is precisely the point I think you're 

asking about. 

Ms. Davis. Thank you. If I could just turn for a second to service learning in the elementary and 

secondary schools, I think you mentioned in your remarks that we need to expand that, and yet I 

understand that the dollar amounts are basically frozen at the elementary and secondary level for 

service learning programs and community service which would be integrated into academic 
18

programs. 

 How high a priority, then, is that for the administration? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. Well, service learning occurs in both colleges and universities, and in K-12 in 

our program. And, of course, the change we're proposing in Federal Work/Study would add an 

enormous amount of additional resources to service learning in colleges and universities. 

 At the K-12 level, what we are currently proposing is really to change around the way we 

do some funding so that we can devote our resources more effectively toward high-quality 

programs. 

 As you know, the percentage of federal funds in K-12 education generally is small. When 

we started our K-12 effort, there were a relatively small proportion of K-12 schools that had any 

kind of service learning program. So our efforts, working with the state education agencies, were, 

you might call, Johnny Appleseed efforts. We really wanted to seed a lot of programs all around 

the country. 

 The latest data we have is that between 35 and 40 percent of K-12 schools have some sort 

of service learning, so it looks like the seeds are beginning to bloom. 

 Then you add to that the Glenn Commission, one of whose members is the executive 

director of the National School Board Association, endorsing a great expansion. 

 We're confident that at the state and local level, which is where most of the dollars are for 

education, we're going to see increases in service learning. 

 What we're looking at here, what we're trying to do is to ask ourselves, what can the Federal 

Government do? How can we contribute to this? 

 We've reached the conclusion that the best thing we could do at this point, not 10 years ago, 

is to focus on quality. 

 For example, right now, the way our funding formulas work, we are very limited in our 

ability to fund teacher training in service learning, even though study after study that comes back 

tells us that the weakness is teacher training. So that's our direction. 

 Now, with regard to the specific amount, I am realistic. Again, we want to work with 

Congress. The President has, indeed, proposed in his current budget no increase in our service 

learning line. Many people think we already have much too large an increase in the Corporation's 

budget proposed as it is. 

 I think as the budget process goes on, if the members of this body and the other body think 

it's appropriate to put additional funding into service learning, you have the opportunity to do so. 
19

 Our concern in this legislation is to make sure that whatever level of funding you decide we 

should have of that activity, we are using it most effectively to promote service learning. 

Ms. Davis. If I could just follow up for a second, because I think some people would suggest that if 

we don't - if we build on more existing programs and use those dollars to fund best practices in 

school districts, that perhaps, you know, there would be more money for school systems. 

Mr. Lenkowsky. Well, I think best practice research is going to be an important part of our 

agenda, and that's what we're going to do. We're already doing it, but we need to do more of it. 

 All I'm saying is that our service learning budget, in our sense, is really going to be directed 

more now toward qualitative improvements, rather than quantitative expansion. 

Ms. Davis. I think my concern, and I think a lot of our concern, would be not to - it seems as if the 

Corporation, though, is creating an additional administration to that which we already have, and we 

want to be certain that the dollars that are available are going directly to the students and to the 

programs that can serve them the best. 

Mr. Lenkowsky. Well, this is always a challenge in the relationship between the Federal 

Government and state and local education. We're in close touch with state education agency people 

on this. We think that we can very constructively work with them. We've been doing it for 10 

years, and expect to continue. 

Ms. Davis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Hoekstra. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. McCollum. I would like to comment that I find the layout, the organization extraordinarily 

confusing, as Congressman Roemer pointed out, and when I go into schools and I'm talking and 

trying to make people excited or out in my community, or writing a community column or 

something like that, it doesn't need to look like, ``Welcome to the Federal Government,'' you know, 

``We're here to make it confusing for you to volunteer,'' so I know that that's something that you'll 

probably be working on. 

 The other area, although Peace Corps and AmeriCorps, as you pointed out, are freestanding, 

you know, separate programs that are going to be part of this whole umbrella, Peace Corps really 

does have a very, very distinct and separate mission, one that this world needs now more than ever, 

one in which our country should be participating and having full emphasis on now more than ever, 

and so I would really, really caution the administration, and as you move forward, to make sure that 

Peace Corps' mission does stand bright, stand shining, and is easily identifiable as its separate 

mission in reaching out to the world community at large. 

 I do have a few questions. One is, in the discussion of the work/study, we're looking at 

changing - and if you could be brief in your answers - we're looking at changing the caps for 

seniors to participate. Are we looking at amending the qualifications for work/study in order so 
20

that more students can participate in work/study as we're trying to do with the Senior Corps? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. That could be one option. Again, we are not specific on the details here. We're 

making a proposal. 

 In addition, AmeriCorps is available to students who are going to college on a part-time 

basis. As I said -. 

Ms. McCollum. Thank you. The other question that I have is, we're hearing from - more of a 

comment. I'm hearing from students in Minnesota that we do not have enough work/study money 

right now to go around for students without increasing income eligibility, so my question is, when 

will we know from the administration or from your department where the money is coming from 

and how much money is going to be directed into these programs? In other words, where are the 

dollars and where are they coming from? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. I think you need to direct that to the Department of Education. As noted earlier, 

the Federal Work/Study program is not under our jurisdiction. It's under the jurisdiction of the 

department. They have been very cooperative. Our concern -. 

Ms. McCollum. Sir, if I could - and I don't mean to be brisk with you, but I only have five minutes 

- you talk about setting up a work/study program. My question is, where is the money budgeted 

and where is the money coming from? Because we're into deficit spending, so I'm just trying to 

figure out how I'm paying for new programs. 

Mr. Lenkowsky. We are proposing no additional spending in the work/study program as currently 

exists, but devoting a portion of it to off-campus service. 

 Students in the program will not lose. They will have more opportunities to serve. 

Ms. McCollum. And as I pointed out, we do not have enough dollars right now to meet the needs 

of the students in Minnesota. 

 The other comment that I heard you make that was not in your prepared remarks had to do 

with - and I'm paraphrasing it, sir, so please apologize and clear up any misunderstanding I might 

have had - and that had to do with what Congressman Scott was talking about, had to do with pay 

and the faith-based organizations. 

 You said that money would be available to pay for part of a clergy salary in helping with 

some of these programs? Are we going to start supplementing church salaries for clergy? Will this 

become an option and an availability for churches? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. Already under our current rules, staff members that were employed prior to 

receiving the Corporation grant and are working on the Corporation program can be compensated 

for the work they do only on the Corporation program, not on the religious activities. 
21

Ms. McCollum. Well, sir, I'm asking you to qualify, if we - you're saying that this is nothing that 

you're going to be extending into the future then, that this portion of any salary is only something 

that's being in current practice and will not be extended and not part of a program to be extended to 

supplement clergy salary in the future? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. As I said to Congressman Scott, we are making no proposals on that at the 

moment. We want to work, though, with Congress to make sure that we are providing whatever 

assistance is appropriate and constitutional to faith-based charities. 

Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And sir, if I could, I do not - if I seemed rude 

at all, I did not mean to be. I've learned to talk quick in five minutes, even though I'm from 

Minnesota.

Mr. Lenkowsky. I'm a professor, so for me, talking quick is very hard. 

 [Laughter.] 

Mr. Lenkowsky. But may I just say that, with regard to the Citizens Corps, I'm sure the President's 

special assistant, John Bridgeland, would welcome an opportunity to come by and brief you. It is 

complex, it's fairly new, but I know he's been very eager to meet with members to brief them on 

exactly the points you raise. 

Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would just say that unless the Chairman wants to yield to 

one of the members on his side, I'm sure he'd give you a couple more minutes to finish. 

 [Laughter.] 

Ms. McCollum. I have constituents coming. 

Chairman Hoekstra. It happens when colleagues on your side of the aisle respect the leadership 

that they have and believe that they are in good hands. 

Mr. Roemer. Either that, or are plotting against you right now. 

Chairman Hoekstra. Or plotting against me, whatever that may be. 

Ms. McCollum. And we're not trying to take advantage of you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman Hoekstra. No, I know it. 

 I wanted to point out to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, since my colleagues on this 

side of the aisle are not here today - and I think Tim will agree with this - that the administration is 

very, very open to sitting down on a personal, one-on-one basis, or with a group of members, to 

work through these issues, and that Tim and I have done it. We expect that we're going to continue 

doing it. We will do it with all of the members on the subcommittee. Again, we have a set of 

principles. We don't have legislative language that the administration has locked in stone. I think 
22

that's going to provide an environment where we can get through this and get through it in a 

relatively quick way. 

 I think as we've gone through it and identified some of the issues that Tim and I thought that 

we might have had, we've found that, relatively quickly, we can get to some common ground 

between the administration and, between Tim and myself. We're hoping that we can do that with at 

least 218 of our colleagues in the House, but obviously we're looking for much broader support 

than that. 

 The Corporation has enjoyed that kind of support before. I would hope that would continue. 

 I don't have any questions. 

Mr. Roemer. I have one. 

Chairman Hoekstra. Yeah. 

Mr. Roemer. Another question about a bill pending on the Senate side that includes military 

service. Senator McCain has a bill, I think, with Senator Bayh that includes 18 months of military 

service. What are your thoughts and what is your position on that? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. Well, there are no provisions with respect to military service in the President's 

proposals. That's not really an area that we at the Corporation get into. 

 I understand from some comments of Senators that there are some concerns on the part of 

the Armed Services people about that provision, but it's also true that we find that the kind of 

disengagement that has occurred in the past with regard to the civilian service often occurs in the 

military as well. 

 The military works very hard to recruit people. They're successful, but they work hard at it. 

 I think the intent of that bill is to create additional incentives for people to join the military. 

That's certainly a worthy - also a good way to respond to the interest in people to serve. 

 Whether that's the particular provision that's best suited is not for me to say. It's certainly 

not something that's before you today. 

Mr. Roemer. So I gather from your answer that you're not opposed to it? You have concerns 

about it, but you're not -. 

Mr. Lenkowsky. Officially, I have no position on this at all. I'm a mere retired captain in the U.S. 

Army and I don't take positions on things like that. 

Mr. Roemer. I'm going to let you get away with that answer today, but I don't have any further 

questions.
23

Chairman Hoekstra. He's very willing to take direction from you on -. 

Mr. Roemer. I understood that from his previous answer. 

Chairman Hoekstra. Yes, from his previous answers. 

Mr. Roemer. I got that part. That was the part I liked. 

Chairman Hoekstra. All right. Yes, Bobby? 

Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask a couple of fairly quick questions. 

 The educational benefit is taxable income in the year. Has anybody complained about that? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. Everybody's complained about it. This is probably the most common complaint I 

hear from -. 

Mr. Scott. Do you have a number that you could give us as to what it would cost to fix that? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. I think the high side would be about $4 million, because most of the people -. 

Mr. Scott. Nationally? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. Nationally. Most of the people - this would be in tax revenue foregone. Most of 

the people using it, of course, are students, or recent students. They're not really up there in the 

high-income levels. 

Mr. Scott. Scholarships are not taxable, are they, generally? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. I think it's a complicated issue. I think some are, some aren't. There's also a 

concern at the Treasury about the interaction with things like the Hope tax credit. 

 We've worked it out and have some material we could also share with you that would give 

you a deeper understanding of this. But it certainly seems to me at the end of the day, when a 

young person, especially, one who has spent two years serving his or her country, gets this award -

which, by the way, they don't even see, it goes directly to their school - and then they have to pay 

tax on it, usually in a lump sum in the year they claim it, that's pretty unfair. 

Mr. Scott. Are the military scholarships after the VA benefits -. 

Mr. Lenkowsky. The GI bill, Montgomery bill. 

Mr. Scott. - are they taxable? 
24

Mr. Lenkowsky. I'd need to check on that. I'm not sure. I think that they are probably not taxable, 

but I'd want to check on that. 

Mr. Scott. And do you have any problems placing volunteers? I mean, is there a list of people 

placements? You're not constrained by - you're only constrained by budget, not by placing, there 

are plenty of placements? 

Mr. Lenkowsky. We have a huge demand. As I suggested earlier, applications have doubled.

Teach for America reports several times more applicants than they can handle. 

 Our camp-based program, NCCC, gets three-and-a-half applicants for every one we take. 

We've got lots of folks coming in and we've got lots of organizations that want to use AmeriCorps 

members. 

Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, he can't answer the next two questions I have within the time frame 

we've got, but I would want to meet with you to comment on how we make sure that the funds are 

going to the areas in most need, and how we can use this to interact with welfare reform. 

Mr. Lenkowsky. Can I just make one quick comment on that, Congressman, because I was 

interested in that myself? 

 We've done a survey in 1999, of AmeriCorps members. It turns out one out of five of them 

reported that their parents had used Food Stamps. As you know, the national average for Food 

Stamps is a little bit lower than that. 

 AmeriCorps members reflect America in every demographic and income category you'd 

like to see with some of the best programs. I like to say that when I travel, I go to the worst parts of 

every community and see some of the best people. 

 We are there on the ground. We're going to do more to do that, and I'll be glad to talk to you 

about it. 

Chairman Hoekstra. My notes, Bobby, say that in 1998, the committee conformed the treatment 

of AmeriCorps awards to how veteran benefits are treated. 

 Now, that specifically was to expected family contribution for financial aid assistance.

We're not sure whether that means the tax treatment, as well, but that is something that we want to 

take a look at. 

Mr. Lenkowsky. Our understanding is that it does not include the tax treatment. 

Chairman Hoekstra. Okay. We also talked about when people come back from the Peace Corps, 

they get a readjustment allowance, and that is treated as taxable income. So if we change that here 

for AmeriCorps, we may want to do the same thing with the Peace Corps, which is something that I 

would be supportive of. 
25

Mr. Roemer. Four million dollars is not a lot of money to fix the problem. It's the biggest 

complaint. 

Mr. Lenkowsky. Well, it's a fairness issue, it seems to me, as well. 

Chairman Hoekstra. Well, hey, that's good news. Is that right? We may be able to get that done. 

Mr. Scott believes that. Ways and Means doesn't believe that. They don't count anything under 

$50 million. 

 [Laughter.] 

Chairman Hoekstra. So I guess when you're on Ways and Means you can do that. 

 All right. If there are no additional questions, Les, thank you very much. We very much 

look forward to working with you over the coming weeks and months in getting this done. 

 I think, as you have indicated in the discussions, kind of one of the hurdles to getting to the 

increased funding is that we get the reforms passed - that these really go in tandem, the reforms as 

well as the increased funding. 

Mr. Lenkowsky. That's right. 

Chairman Hoekstra. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Lenkowsky. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. 

Chairman Hoekstra. For purposes of introducing our second panel, I'd like to yield to my 

colleague, Mr. Roemer, to introduce our witness. 

Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Khazei is the co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of City Year, an organization that I 

think you're going to find out all kinds of exciting things about today. 

 It's an organization that works with primarily 17-to-24-year-olds in inner city areas, sending 

them to schools to work on leadership issues, youth development issues, education issues, all kinds 

of wonderful things that help our young people. 

 As I mentioned before, Mr. Khazei and I met a couple of years ago. He and his wife came 

into my office to talk about not only AmeriCorps and the great things that City Year and 

AmeriCorps are doing together, but also trying to work on some new ideas for encouraging, even 

before September 11th, showing your vision on this, ways to fund and to encourage the 

development of socially active organizations out there that encourage young people to get involved 

and create entrepreneurial social organizations. 
26

 So it's great to have you here, Alan. 

 You've served on many boards, as well as running City Year, and one of those boards is the 

Commission on National and Community Service, which you're very qualified here to testify about. 

 You hold your law degree from Harvard Law School. 

 As I mentioned, you and your wife are very involved in these issues and are expecting your 

first child coming up in the next few months, and I can only shudder to think what the expectations 

are for this child to get involved in the community and volunteer. 

 So, welcome. We look forward to your testimony. Your testimony will be entered into the 

record, so feel free to talk freely and give us anecdotal evidence as to how this program works and 

what this new expansion means for your program. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN KHAZEI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CITY 

YEAR, INC., BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. Khazei. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Roemer, and members of the 

committee. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I'm honored to be here. 

 On behalf of the 6,000 young people who have dedicated a year of their life to service and 

have graduated from City Year, my own AmeriCorps program, and the more than 600,000 children 

they have served, thank you for your leadership on national and community service and helping to 

make that possible. 

 This is a historic moment for our country, as both the chairman and Congressman Roemer 

mentioned in their remarks, our democracy and the national service movement, and it is a moment 

to seize. 

 When historians look back on our time, they will undoubtedly say that the 21st century 

began on September 11, 2001. 

 As the noted social scientist Robert Putnam has recognized, ``In the aftermath of 

September's tragedy, a window of opportunity has opened for a civic renewal that occurs only once 

or twice a century.'' Members of the committee have already remarked upon that. 

 President Bush is leading the national challenge to seize this window of opportunity and to 

redefine the meaning of American citizenship in the 21st century. 

 From the moment he took the oath of office, he said we needed to be, ``citizens, not 

spectators.'' Then, in his recent State of the Union address, President Bush outlined a bold plan for 

national service, uniting the past good work of former presidents and this Congress in a new vision 

for civic renewal when he called on, ``every American to commit at least two years,'' or 4,000 
27

hours, to service. 

 This is a wonderful, measurable goal that, if met, will truly transform America for the 

better. 

 As CEO and co-founder of City Year, and just one of the many social entrepreneurs 

involved in AmeriCorps, I am honored to provide testimony that supports the reauthorization and 

expansion of America's national service programs. 

 I want to thank the members of this committee for your thoughtful approach to the national 

service issue over the years. In that spirit, I'd like to suggest that, as Congress considers President 

Bush's exciting charge to grow national service, that you consider three questions: 

 First, are we taking actions that will get us closer to realizing President Bush's powerful 

vision of really enabling every American to serve for two years? 

 Second, are we building on what already works and leveraging the unique contributions that 

national multi-site AmeriCorps programs can make toward developing national service 

infrastructure? 

 Third, are we developing a comprehensive system for national service? 

 Specifically, are we creating a system that provides service opportunities for kindergarten, 

for children like Congressman Roemer's daughter, who on September 11th asked, how can I help, 

all the way through our retired years, that utilizes all sectors of American society, including the 

private, nonprofit, and government, and draws on marketplace principles of supply and demand, 

competition, incentives, and a variety of delivery vehicles, rewarding results, and leverage? 

 I prepared my testimony today with these three questions in mind. I have submitted a 

detailed written statement for your review and consideration. I'd just like to highlight five points, if 

I could. 

 First, I know from my work with City Year and others that national service does work. 

National service works to meet pressing needs. 

 Since City Year's founding, we have performed more than 8 million hours of service, 

including tutoring and mentoring over 600,000 children; renovating 2,500 green spaces, public 

parks; and building 56 playgrounds. 

 National service works to unite Americans from all backgrounds for the common good. 

City Year corps members are a microcosm of America - African American, Asian, Caucasian, and 

Latino, city and suburb, male and female, some working on their GEDs, others who have graduated 

from Ivy League colleges. 
28

 Ninety-one percent of City Year corps members report developing friendships with people 

from different ethnic and racial backgrounds during their service year. 

 National service works to develop new citizen leaders and social entrepreneurs. City Year 

graduates vote at twice the rate of their peers. Eighty-nine percent of City Year corps members are 

likely to volunteer regularly for a nonprofit or community organization after City Year, and 84 

percent are likely to lead others in service. 

 National service also works through the National Service Trust to offer young people a 

chance to pursue the American Dream, just as the GI bill did. 

 My second point is that federal investment is a powerful catalyst and resource for 

developing a comprehensive system of national service. 

 We began City Year entirely with private funds in 1987, because at that time, there was no 

federal investment in national service. It took us five years, relying solely on private support, to 

grow to 100 corps members serving 5,000 children annually in Boston, with an annual budget of 

$2.5 million. 

 Then, because of federal investments, beginning with the administration of President H.W. 

Bush in 1992, and then followed on through with AmeriCorps, City Year has been able to grow, in 

the succeeding 10 years, to 1,000 corps members serving 100,000 children annually in 13 sites 

across the country, from Massachusetts to California, from Michigan to Texas, and now our budget 

is $30 million annually. 

 The most interesting thing is that federal investment hasn't crowded out the private 

investment. In fact, it's helped to grow it. We now raise $2 in private support for every dollar that 

we gratefully receive from the Federal Government through AmeriCorps and the Corporation for 

National Service. 

 My third point is that national nonprofits that operate multi-site programs are a strong and 

efficient delivery vehicle for national service. 

 In the decentralized network of AmeriCorps, of over 700 programs, national nonprofits 

have emerged to play an essential role in promoting innovation, quality, replication, efficiency, and 

sustainability.

 These national nonprofits, like Habitat for Humanity, Teach for America, the Red Cross, 

Public Allies, Jump Start, Youthbuild, ACE from Notre Dame, and others, leverage resources on 

both the national and local levels, and share programmatic breakthroughs, financial resources, 

talented staff, and know-how. 

 In addition, national nonprofits support hundreds of small grassroots community-based and 

faith-based organizations and can build partnerships with national companies. 
29

 For example, Cisco Systems, Compaq Computer Corporation, MFS Investment 

Management, and the Timberland Company have each committed over $1 million to City Year 

because we operate across the country. 

 Fourth, Challenge Grants work. We're tremendously enthusiastic about President Bush's 

proposal to activate the Challenge Grants section of the National Service Act. 

 City Year has been built on Challenge Grants. When we first started our four-year 

program, we received a Challenge Grant of $100,000 from the Echoing Green Foundation to get 

started. We had to match it three to one. Within 60 days, we had raised $500,000 and City Year 

was born. 

 Fifth. Full-time national service leverages other volunteers and citizen leaders. 

 In order to realize the powerful vision of every American serving for two years, I believe 

that we will have to dramatically expand the opportunity for Americans to serve full-time for one 

year, and have those leaders leverage people who want to serve part-time. 

 Since its founding, City Year has engaged over 700,000 citizens in service and civic 

engagement events. Today, as we meet here at this hearing, City Year is partnering with 120 

Timberland employees who today are dedicating their energy to renovating Project Phoenix in 

Orlando, Florida, a shelter for homeless children. 

 We've found that service is contagious. Since our work with Timberland began, they now 

offer 40 hours of paid time for every employee, as a standard benefit, to do community service.

We hope that will become a new national standard for all companies. 

 In closing, I hope that, with your leadership, we will capitalize on this unique moment in 

American history to challenge each and every citizen to answer the call to serve and to build a 

system of national service that enables them to do so. If we do so, every generation could become 

a greatest generation, through service. 

 With your leadership this cause has the potential to become the personal mission of each 

and every one of us. Thank you for your leadership, your example, and your commitment to 

national service for all Americans. 

 I'll be happy to answer any questions. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ALAN KHAZEI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CITY YEAR, 

INC., BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS – SEE APPENDIX D

Chairman Hoekstra. Thank you, and thanks for the testimony, and thanks for all the work that 

City Year has done and the leadership that you've shown there. 

 I have a couple of questions. 
30

 The administration is talking about the principles, about working with grantees to establish 

performance measures, requiring corrective plans for grantees not meeting goals, and reducing or 

terminating grants if corrections are not made. 

 How do you feel about that kind of language? 

Mr. Khazei. I haven't seen the specifics behind it, but I think it makes a lot of sense. I mean, right 

now, we establish performance goals and we have quarterly reports that we submit to the 

Corporation for National Service. 

 We review all of our projects. We have to update our progress, and I think that it's 

important that national service programs are accountable and are meeting the most pressing needs. 

Chairman Hoekstra. Les and Tim are going to write the actual rules and regulations. 

Mr. Khazei. If they do it together, I'm very confident it will turn out properly. 

Chairman Hoekstra. All right. When you go through that - I mean, it's consistent with how you 

operate on a daily basis? 

Mr. Khazei. Absolutely. 

Chairman Hoekstra. And you're not worried about it creating a level of bureaucracy that you 

don't have today? It's part of the way you do business to get the results that you want today? 

Mr. Khazei. That's right. Absolutely. 

Chairman Hoekstra. The principles talked about, there are a couple of different funding streams 

now. There's the formula grant that goes to the states and then there's the competitive state grants. 

 The proposals talk about consolidating those into a total formula grant, and then still having 

the national separate. 

 How do you feel about that? 

Mr. Khazei. I think that one of the really interesting things that both the Commission on National 

Service that President Bush set up and the Corporation for National Service that President Clinton 

set up is that they didn't have a monolithic approach and they used different resources. 

 I actually think that the system has worked well. Having some money based on formula so 

that every state can participate, but then having some resources based on competition - I think 

competition works. It's what's made America great. 

 That way is the best - small states can compete equally with big states, even though they 

may not have the population. If they're committed to developing a real strong national service 
31

infrastructure in their state, then they aren't crowded out. 

 I think the national pool has also worked because what it's done is it has engaged some of 

our national, leading national nonprofits like the Red Cross, like Habitat, like the Ys, to be part of 

that system, as well. 

 I know for us, for example, we've now gotten funding in different pools, and because there's 

sort of a marketplace, some states approach us and say we'd like to have City Year. In fact, we 

started in Boston. 

 Every other place where we've gone, it's because people at the local level have found out 

about City Year and volunteered to be local board members and champions, and have said, ``We'd 

like to have your program in our state because it's one that works, and we've seen it work.” For 

example, the State of Rhode Island, which is a small state, approached us to bring City Year into 

their state and we were able to establish there because they applied for a competitive grant and 

were awarded that grant. 

 Right now, nine of our programs out of 13 are funded through competitive state grants, 

including our program in Detroit, Michigan. 

 I think it's a good system. I think there are probably things that could be done to streamline 

it, but I do believe in competition - especially because there are very limited resources. And as we 

build this infrastructure, I think it's important that they go to the programs, the states that are most 

committed to making it work. 

Chairman Hoekstra. Great. Thanks, that's good to hear. With the folks that we have talked 

about, within the community of the organizations that have used the Corporation for National 

Service and have embraced the vision that, by and large, the principles as outlined are the things 

that you guys embrace. Is that correct? 

Mr. Khazei. Oh, absolutely. I think the vision is incredibly powerful, every American serving for 

two years? 

 As both you and other members reflected, after September 11th, I think that is a vision that's 

possible. Our people are applying to us, and other programs, in record numbers. 

 I think the idea of leveraging resources, trying to encourage more private investment, is also 

important. We saw, after September 11th, $2 billion dollars generated through private philanthropy. 

I think that same spirit could now be used to encourage people to volunteer and keep rebuilding. 

 I think the idea of allowing AmeriCorps members to do capacity building and help small 

nonprofits with their recruitment and their support - I think these principles, on balance, are strong, 

and I also have a lot of confidence in the leadership from Congress to work to make sure that the 

details are worked out in a comprehensive and thoughtful way, given your history on this issue 

over the past 10 years. 
32

Chairman Hoekstra. Thank you. Mr. Roemer. 

Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 Again, please take our congratulations and our pride back to your members and tell them 

we're very proud of the good job they're doing all across the country. 

Mr. Khazei. Thank you. 

Mr. Roemer. You said, Alan, in your written comments, that we should lift the cap on direct 

funding to nonprofits from 17 percent to restore the full 33 percent originally envisioned. 

 Explain to us why you need that national funding stream and why you can't just apply to the 

state commissions for that funding. 

Mr. Khazei. Well, thank you, Congressman, for your comments and your question. 

 As I have said, I think it's important that there be a variety of options, and that in order to 

build an infrastructure we have to have a variety of opportunities. 

 We think that the cap is artificial. If there aren't quality programs that would apply for that, 

then they won't get funded. 

 Right now, there's a ceiling. What we'd like to say is, why have that artificial ceiling? If 

there are quality programs that are run by multi-site organizations or national nonprofits, why 

shouldn't they be allowed to compete? 

 We've seen that the nonprofit sector is the fastest-growing sector in our society, and it's one 

that can add real advantages. 

 The other thing that we've found is that often there are states that will approach us to come 

into a state, and yet the pool of funding for that state has already been maxed out, if you will, and 

they've said, you know, ``We'd like to have City Year, but we've already got a great group of 

programs in our state. We don't want to compete with those that already exist. We'd like to have 

you. Can you apply for the national funding and come in? Then once you're established, we can 

then try to put you forward in the state competition?'' 

 That's actually happened. As I said, nine of our programs now are funded through the state 

competitions. But, most of those we originally started because we applied for a grant with the 

national pool. Then the states said, ``Well, let's pull you in,'' and we worked with the states’ 

commissions to do that. 

 I also think that one of the things that the national nonprofits can do is provide an 

infrastructure and comprehensive economies of scale. All the back-office work can be shared and 

training can be shared. 
33

 What we're finding is that some of these national AmeriCorps, which are really multi-site 

programs, like us, like Teach for America, like Jump Start, like Public Allies, are helping to 

provide leadership for the movement as a whole. 

 A number of our graduates have gone on to work and make a career in national service. We 

have an annual convention in which we bring together all of our members and invite other 

programs to participate. 

 I think I sort of believe in competition and the programs that really work will get funded. If 

that cap were lifted, if there weren't quality programs, well, then, the money shouldn't be given out. 

But right now, even if there are quality programs, the Corporation is limited to say, “Well, we can't, 

there aren't enough resources there.” 

Mr. Roemer. So lift the cap and don't eliminate the states-based national competitive stream of 

funding then, those are your recommendations? 

Mr. Khazei. I sort of feel like that system is largely working now, and, you know, “If it ain't broke, 

don't fix it.” Although, I think there are other proposals that have been made that make a lot of 

sense that both members of the committee have inquired about and also that the administration has 

put forward. 

Mr. Roemer. Is there a particular part of the principles that you really are excited about, or don't 

like at all? 

Mr. Khazei. I'm extremely excited about the goal. I think that everybody serving for two years 

and trying to build a system that encourages that - I think that's a wonderful, tangible, measurable 

goal that allows us to see how we are doing. 

 I'm very excited about using the Challenge Grants. As I mentioned, I think there is a lot of 

private philanthropy that will respond. 

 What we've seen, very honestly, when the Federal Government started first investing in 

national service in the first Bush administration, some people on our board said, ``Well, we're all 

privately funded. If we apply for that money, will our private funders dry up?'' 

 What we've actually found is that the federal money has allowed us to go to private funders 

and say we can leverage your dollars. I think the Challenge Grants provision, if that were funded, 

would release a lot of private philanthropy, because philanthropists like to see their dollars 

leveraged. I'm very excited about that. 

 I'm excited about the opportunity to have AmeriCorps members be treated as VISTA 

members are now, to be able to do capacity building. 

 We've had 900 not-for-profit partners across the country over the past 10, 12 years. We'd 

like our partners to be able to do that kind of capacity building, by helping them with their own 
34

recruiting and their fundraising and their outreach. 

 I think that's a wonderful idea in the principles, as well. 

 The other thing I should say, speaking for my members, we would love the idea of having 

the education award tax-free and appreciate what the Ways and Means Committee could do. 

 These young people serve hard. They get paid a stipend. When they find out it’s taxable -

they feel like they want to go to college - and that would be a wonderful reform. 

Mr. Roemer. Great. Thanks again, Alan. Good to see you. 

Mr. Khazei. Thank you. 

Chairman Hoekstra. By agreement, I think in respect to your time, Mr. Khazei. Mr. Scott, you are 

recognized. We're going to have a whole series of votes. Mr. Scott will finish with the 

questioning, and then we will adjourn. 

Mr. Khazei. Thank you. 

Chairman Hoekstra. Mr. Scott. 

Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Khazei, you're familiar with Section 175 that prohibits 

discrimination in the program. Do you have a problem with that provision? 

Mr. Khazei. Not at all. 

Mr. Scott. Should government pay for volunteers to participate in proselytization or religious 

instruction at churches on government time? 

Mr. Khazei. My own personal opinion, and I just have to speak as a citizen, is that I believe in the 

First Amendment. I don't believe that the government should be involved in religious, direct 

religious activities. 

 I do think that there are a lot of charitable faith-based organizations. We work with a lot of 

churches and synagogues and mosques as partners in terms of after-school programs and youth 

development programs. I think they are a powerful force in our society, but I don't think the 

government should be providing resources for people to try to convert someone from one religion 

to another religion. 

Mr. Scott. One of the proposals is this idea that you give the individual the money and they'll go 

find somewhere. Is there an advantage to pre-qualifying the programs so they can select off a list, 

rather than trying to make up their own? 

Mr. Khazei. I think so. I think you asked that before and that makes a lot of sense because I think 

there has to be some standards and accountability. Otherwise, we're not sure what people are 
35

actually doing. 

Mr. Scott. In your testimony, you said something about going to scale, that there are a number of 

organizations, Habitat for Humanity, that have more resources, and you could get the best bang for 

the buck because they're already structured, they don't have to waste time doing bylaws and all that 

kind of stuff. 

 Can you give us some idea of the kinds of things we ought to be looking at in terms of 

funding levels? 

Mr. Khazei. Well, I fully support the administration's request to increase the program by 50 

percent. I'd love to see it go beyond that. 

 We have 25 million Americans between 18 and 25 years of age, 25 million young people. I 

think many of them are ready to answer the call right now. Fifty thousand have a chance to do 

national service through AmeriCorps and I think there's a lot of room for growth there. 

 If we could get to even 250,000 - which would only be 1 percent of the eligible pool - I 

think that could transform the country. 

 I fully support increased appropriations and also continuing to require private sector 

contributions so that the federal money is leveraged. 

Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Hoekstra. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. Khazei, Thank you very much for being here. 

 With that, the subcommittee will be adjourned. 

 [Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93

Table of Indexes 

Chairman Hoekstra, 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35 

Mr. Khazei, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 

Mr. Lenkowsky, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 

Mr. Roemer, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 25, 32, 33, 34 

Mr. Scott, 14, 15, 16, 17, 23, 24, 34, 35 

Ms. Davis, 17, 19 

Ms. McCollum, 19, 20, 21