Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
348833849
label
USDA [Department of Agriculture]/AmeriCorps - Congressional Correspondence 5 [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
348833849
contentType
document
title
USDA [Department of Agriculture]/AmeriCorps - Congressional Correspondence 5 [2]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of National Service (Clinton Administration)
AmeriCorps Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
348833849
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
311842741-20130661F-Seg3-075-003-2023
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
846e3a0c8fdb558c
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2013-0661-F
(3)
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Americorps
Series/Staff Member:
General Files
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
24235
FolderID:
Folder Title:
USDA [Department of Agriculture]/Americorps - Congressional Correspondence 5 [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
66
1
7
3
* NA NI SEPHICE
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
To:
Jim Stein, Office of Congressman Schiff
From:
Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
8 pages, including this cover
As you may know, USDA has sponsored an extremely
successful AmeriCorps rural development projects
throughout New Mexico, including Congressman Schiff's
District. (See attached data sheets). USDA also sponsored a
highly successful summer AmeriCorps project focused on
recovering excess food.
Ironally, even as Congres has reached bi-partisan agreement
to continue the overall AmeriCorps program, all USDA
AmeriCorps projects are in immediate jeopardy unless we
can reach a compromise with Senators Grassley and Bond
and Congressman Jerry Lewis to allow USDA to continue to
provide assistance to local AmeriCorps projects. (See
attached fact sheet.) Please call me at 720-5746 with any
questions.
IN UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
To:
Aura Kenny, Office of Congressman Quinn
From:
Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
11 pages, including this cover
Per our discussion:
1) Fact sheet on status of the program
2) Description of this year's accomplishments in New York
3) News clips from your district
Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
* NA MANERICORPIA IN SPENIO
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
To:
Tom Geier, Office of Senator Snowe
Kate Lambrew, Office of Senator Cohen
From: Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
23 pages, including this cover
For your information, attached are:
1) Updated fact sheet on status of USDA AmeriCorps program
2) Data sheets listing USDA AmeriCorps sites in Maine and their
accomplishments this year
3) News clips about projects in Maine
4) Press release about the effectiveness of USDA AmeriCorps rural
fire protection efforts nationally
Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
* NA AMERICORPS IN A RVICE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
To:
Brooke Robert. Office of Senator Craig
From: Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
5 pages, including this cover
As you may know, USDA is currently sponsoring a highly
successful AmeriCorps project throughout Idaho that is
helping farm families voluntarily improve their drinking
water. A number of months ago, at a town meeting in Idaho,
Senator Craig met one of the Members of this project and
indicated that he fully supported it.
However, as explained in the attached fact sheet, all USDA
AmeriCorps projects -- including the one in Idaho --- are in
jeopardy unless action on this matter is taken immediately.
Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
100 Re-Dolla * AMERICORPS IN A CRIICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
To:
Mark Aldridge, Office of Senator Smith
From: Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
10% pages, including this cover
This year, USDA AmeriCorps Members based in Laconia provided
technical assistance to 23 rural fire departments in New Hampshire.
USDA AmeriCorps Members based in Meredith provided voluntary
assistance to landowners to protect water quality. Last year --- and
hopefully next year --- we also had a successful AmeriCorps project
on the White Mountain National Forest.
However, as explained in the attached fact sheet, all USDA
AmeriCorps projects --- including those in New Hampshire --- may
be canceled immediately unless we can reach a compromise with
Senators Grassley and Bond to allow USDA to continue to provide
assistance to local AmeriCorps projects.
Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
NATIONALSED * NA IN PERVICE
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
To:
Rick Murphy, Office of Senator Gregg
From: Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
5 pages, including this cover
This year, USDA AmeriCorps Members based in Laconia provided
technical assistance to 23 rural fire departments in New Hampshire.
USDA AmeriCorps Members based in Meredith provided voluntary
assistance to landowners to protect water quality. Last year --- and
hopefully next year --- we also had a successful AmeriCorps project
on the White Mountain National Forest.
However, as explained in the attached fact sheet, all USDA
AmeriCorps projects --- including those in New Hampshire --- may
be canceled immediately unless we can reach a compromise with
Senators Grassley and Bond to allow USDA to continue to provide
assistance to local AmeriCorps projects.
Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
NATIONALSE * AMERICORPS NA INI A PERNICE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
To:
Debbie Marshall, Office of Congressman Ehlers
From:
Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
5 pages, including this cover
As you may know, USDA has sponsored an extremely
successful AmeriCorps project in Congressman Ehlers
district that has helped farms to voluntarily improve their
drinking water.
Ironally, even as Congres has reached bi-partisan agreement
to continue the overall AmeriCorps program, all USDA
AmeriCorps projects are in immediate jeopardy unless we
can reach a compromise with Senators Grassley and Bond
and Congressman Jerry Lewis to allow USDA to continue to
provide assistance to local AmeriCorps projects. (See
attached fact sheet.)
Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
* NA MINERICORPO CORNICE
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
To:
Scott Malvaney
Office of Congressman Parker
From: Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
5 pages, including this cover
As you may know, USDA sponsored a highly successful AmeriCorps
project this summer in your district focused on recovering excess
food that normally would be discarded and distributing that food to
citizens in need. We hope to be able to continue to support such
projects in the future.
Ironically, even as Congress has reached bi-partisan agreement on
continuing to fund the overall AmeriCorps program, our highly
successful program faces elimination. As explained in the attached
fact sheet, all USDA AmeriCorps projects may be eliminated
immediately unless we can reach a compromise with Senators
Grassley and Bond to allow USDA to continue to provide assistance
to local AmeriCorps projects.
Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
* IN PERNICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
To:
Marsha Meeks Kelly
From:
Joel Berg
9 pages, including this cover
FYI, attached is a fax I just sent to Senator Cochran's office about the
future of our program. Cochran is critcal on this issue because he is chair
of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture.
Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
* AND NA IN ERICOR SPENIO UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
To:
Gregory McGinty, Office of Senator Cochran
From: Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
8 pages, including this cover
For your information, attached are three sheets of data
outlining some of the impressive accomplishments of USDA
AmeriCorps projects in Mississippi.
However, as explained in the attached fact sheet, all USDA
AmeriCorps projects --- including those in Missippi --- are in
immediate jeopardy unless we can reach a compromise with
Senators Grassley and Bond to allow USDA to continue to
provide assistance to local AmeriCorps projects.
Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
* AMERICORPS NA A SERVICE
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
To:
Jenny Balinsky
Office of Congressman Torkildsen
From: Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
5 pages, including this cover
Per our discussion.
Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
10/18
* MERICORP A CERTICE
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
PRO- P Kee tear
To:
Dean Kueter, Office of Congressman Blute
From: Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
5 pages, including this cover
As you may know, USDA has sponsored an extremely
successful AmeriCorps project in Congressman Blute's
district in partnership with the Suasco Watershed
Association.
ironically, even as Congress has reached bi-partisan
agreement to continue the overall AmeriCorps program, all
USDA AmeriCorps projects are in immediate jeopardy
unless we can reach a compromise with Senators Grassley
and Bond and Congressman Jerry Lewis to allow USDA to
continue to provide assistance to local AmeriCorps projects.
(See attached fact sheet.)
Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
* MINERICORPIA IN SERVICE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
To:
Gordon Taylor
Office of Congressman Hayes
From: Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
5 pages, including this cover
As you may know, USDA has sponsored a successful
AmeriCorps program in your district.
Ironically, even as Congress has reached bipartisan
agreement to continue the overall AmeriCorps program, all
USDA AmeriCorps projects are in immediate jeopardy
unless we can reach a compromise with Senators Grassley
and Bond to allow USDA to continue to provide assistance to
local AmeriCorps projects. (See attached fact sheet.)
Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
To:
Shawn Gilleylen, Office of Senator Bond
From:
Joel Berg, USDA
It was good to actually meet you face-to-face in the meeting on Friday. Now that your
conference committee has successfully completed its national service work, we are hopeful
we can come to a mutually agreeable resolution about our AmeriCorps program.
We appreciated the Senator's praise in the meeting for the USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (the former Soil Conservation Service) and his desire to try to find
some mechanism through which it could continue to provide assistance to AmeriCorps
projects. It was my understanding of the Senator's position that, while he would like high
quality USDA projects in partnership with local entities to continue, he does not believe
the Federal government should "run" such projects.
In keeping with Senator Bond's direction, attached is draft language explaining how
locally-based individual projects could continue to receive technical and other assistance
from USDA.
While we don't need any additional funds --- nor do we formally need any additional
authorization or appropriations language --- we do seek to reach agreement with your
office that USDA --- and USDA alone --- can go forward under the attached proposal.
I believe that Rep. Jerry Lewis, Senator Bond's counterpart in the House, would
probably support such a compromise. Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
DRAFT PROPOSAL TO ALLOW USDA TO CONTINUE TO
PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO AMERICORPS PROJECTS
The Corporation for National and Community Service would have the
authority to enter into a non-monetary cooperative agreement with the
United States Department of Agriculture to allow the Department to
provide technical assistance, funding, administrative support services, and
other assistance to national service programs sponsored by non-profit
organizations, state, local, and tribal governments, and the local managers
of public lands, and to allow participants in those programs to receive
National Service benefits, including National Service educational awards
from the National Service Trust.
It is understood that the Corporation for National Service would not seek
to enter into such an agreement with any other Federal agency other than
the Department of Agriculture.
W SERRICE * NA
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
To:
Melvin Thompson,
Office of Congressman Gilchrest
From: Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
pages, including this cover
As you may know, USDA has sponsored an extremely
successful AmeriCorps project in your district.
Ironically, even as Congress has reached bi-partisan
agreement to continue the overall AmeriCorps program, all
USDA AmeriCorps projects are in immediate jeopardy
unless we can reach a compromise with Senators Grassley
and Bond to allow USDA to continue to provide assistance to
local AmeriCorps projects. (See attached fact sheet.)
Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
NAL NATIONALS MERICORP SPRIVE
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
To:
Jamie Castillo, Office of
Congressman Skeen
Jim Jepson, Office of
Congressman Durbin
From:
Joel Berg, Director of National
Service, USDA
4 pages, including this cover
We are still trying to reach a compromise with the Senate that would allow
USDA to continue to support highly successful AmeriCorps projects, including
those in New Mexico and Illinois.
.
As you can see from the attached letter from Senator Grassley to Harris
Wofford, Grassley is basing much of his opposition to USDA involvement in
AmeriCorps on his belief that the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommitteess
oppose USDA spending funds on AmeriCorps. If Mr. Skeen and Mr. Durbin
were to co-sign a letter together expressing support for USDA spending on
AmeriCorps, such a letter could play a critical role in helping us. Such a letter
might be even stronger if Seantor Cochran and Senator Bumpers also signed
it.
2
Two other points about the Grassley letter:
1) We have never sought to have AmeriCorps Members work "at USDA"
--- our AmeriCorps Members work directly in each community or
directly on public lands.
2) USDA AmeriCorps members have never cost $30,000 each. In our
first year of operation, the total Federal spending on the USDA
AmeriCorps program --- including tools, equipment, supplies, and staff
support needed for projects --- was $29.311 million, equaling $24,426 per
AmeriCorps Member. Given that the service provided by the program
helped 828,000 people and aided 234,000 acres of land, the Federal
government spent only $17 per person aided and only $62 per acre
helped. In addition, the Forest Service calculated that, for each Federal
dollar spent on Forest Service AmeriCorps projects, between 1.51 to
$2.30 worth of work was performed.
Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
* NA AMERICORPS IN A TRIICE
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
To:
Michael Gerson, Office of Senator Coats
From: Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
4 pages, including this cover
As you may recall, we met very briefly at the PPI/Hudson Institute
forum on AmeriCorps. As I mentioned, USDA helped sponsor a very
successful AmeriCorps food recovery project in Indiana this
Summer. Information about the project is attached.
You were eloquent in explaining Senator Coats' belief that, as
government reduces welfare payments to the poor, it is critical to
develop innovative and cost-effective ways to energize citizen and
non-profit anti-poverty initiatives. I hope you will agree that our
"Summer of Gleaning" initiative is one such approach.
I would very much like to meet with you at your convenience to
discuss how the "Summer of Gleaning" program succeeded
nationally. Please call me at 720-5746 if you have any time available.
W SERVICE * NA
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
To:
Jay Parkinson
Office of Senator Kempthorne
From: Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
5 pages, including this cover
As we discussed, USDA has sponsored extremely successful
AmeriCorps projects in Idaho that have helped farmers
improve their water quality.
Also as we dsicsussed, ironically, even as Congress has
reached bipartisan agreement to continue the overall
AmeriCorps program, all USDA AmeriCorps projects are in
immediate jeopardy unless we can reach a compromise with
Senators Grassley and Bond to allow USDA to continue to
provide assistance to local AmeriCorps projects. (See
attached fact sheet.)
Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
* MINERICORPO NA IN SERVICE
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
To:
Mary Elizabeth Larson
Labor and Human Resources Committee
From: Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
20 pages, including this cover
As you may know, USDA is currently sponsoring highly successful
AmeriCorps project throughout the nation, including Kansas. Our
Kansas projects have performed critical environmental and rural
development services, and have been strongly support by the State
Secretary of Wildlife and Parks, who is appointed by Governor
Graves. (See attached letter, news clips, and list of site
accomplishments.)
As explained in the attached fact sheet, we are seeking a compromise
with Senators Grassley and Bond to find some way that would allow
USDA to continue to provide assistance to local AmeriCorps projects.
Any help that Senator Kassebaum could provide in this regard would
be greatly appreciated. Please call me at 720-5746 with any
questions.
NATIONAL ERICORP SPRINCE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
To:
Jeff Shockey,
Office of Congressman Lewis
From:
Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
5 pages, including this cover
Per our discussion, attached is updated information about the status of our
overall program.
Also attached is a June 7 letter from Harris Wofford to Congressman Lewis, as
well as a September 25 recent letter from Senator Grassley to Wofford. Two
points about the Grassley letter:
1) We have never sought to have AmeriCorps Members work "at USDA"
--- our AmeriCorps Members work directly in each community or
directly on public lands.
2) In our first year of operation, the total Federal spending on the USDA
AmeriCorps program --- including tools, equipment, supplies, and staff
support needed for projects --- was $29.311 million, equaling $24,426 per
AmeriCorps Member. Given that the service provided by the program
helped 828,000 people and aided 234,000 acres of land, the Federal
government spent only $17 per person aided and only $62 per acre
helped. In addition, the Forest Service calculated that, for each Federal
dollar spent on Forest Service AmeriCorps projects, between 1.51 to
$2.30 worth of work was performed.
I look forward to meeting with you next week. Please call me at 720-5746.
* NA MINERICORPIA IN PERNICE
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
To:
Jeff Shockey,
Office of Congressman Lewis
From: Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
12 pages, including this cover
To provide you with more background on the USDA
AmeriCorps program in Mr. Lewis' district, attached is a
letter of appreciation from the City of Victorville to our
AmeriCorps Members, preliminary plans for next year's
Natural Resources Conservation Service AmeriCorps project
to be based in Apple Valley, and preliminary plans for next
year's Forest Service AmeriCorps project on the San
Bernardino National Forest.
I look forward to meeting with you. Please call me at 720-
5746 with any questions.
USDA AMERICORPS
UPDATE -- UPDATE --- UPDATE --- UPDATE --- UPDATE
To:
Jeff Shockley, Office of Congressman Lewis
From:
Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
2 PAGES, INCLUDING THIS COVER
I understand that neither the VA, HUD appropriations bill nor its appropriations
language will have language clarifying the status of the USDA AmeriCorps
program. We would now propose "Plan B" in which ask Senator Bond and
Congressman Lewis to give their at least their tacit approval to allow USDA to
continue to support AmeriCorps projects.
It was my understanding of Senator Bond's position that, while he might like high quality
USDA projects in partnership with local entities to continue, he does not believe the
Federal government should "run" such projects. In keeping with Senator Bond's desire in
this regard, we have proposed draft language explaining how locally-based individual
projects could continue to receive technical and other assistance from USDA
While we don't need any additional funds --- nor do we formally need any additional
authorization or appropriations language --- we do seek to reach agreement with
Congressman Lewis and Senator Bond that USDA can go forward under the
attached proposal.
If we can not reach such an agreement rapidly, all our AmeriCorps projects planned for
this year would be canceled.
Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
DRAFT PROPOSAL TO ALLOW USDA TO CONTINUE TO
PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO AMERICORPS PROJECTS
The Corporation for National and Community Service would have the
authority to enter into a non-monetary cooperative agreement with the
United States Department of Agriculture to allow the Department to
provide technical assistance, funding, administrative support services,
and other assistance to national service programs sponsored by non-
profit organizations, state, local, and tribal governments, and the local
managers of public lands, and to allow participants in those programs to
receive National Service benefits, including National Service
educational awards from the National Service Trust.
It is understood that the Corporation for National Service would not seek
to enter into such an agreement with any other Federal agency other than
the Department of Agriculture.
* MINERICORPI IN SERVICE
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
To:
George Lowe
Office of Senator Stevens
From: Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
5 pages, including this cover
I am sending you information at the suggestion of Liz Connell.
USDA has sponsored an extremely effective AmeriCorps program in
native villages of the Lower Kuskowim region of Alaska. The
AmeriCorps Members recruited non-compensated community
volunteers to complete critical projects and worked on developing
self-help housing, training local residents in entrepreneurial
management, developing a fish smoking and processing cooperative,
and removing junk vehicles from the villages.
Ironically, even as Congress has reached bipartisan agreement to
continue the overall AmeriCorps program, all USDA AmeriCorps
projects are in immediate jeopardy unless we can reach a
compromise with Senators Grassley and Bond to allow USDA to
continue to provide assistance to local AmeriCorps projects. (See
attached fact sheet.) Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
* NA AMERICORE IN A SPRINCE
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
To:
Liz Connell, Office of Senator Stevens
From: Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
5 pages, including this cover
As you may know, USDA is currently sponsoring a highly
successful AmeriCorps rural development project in native
villages in the Lower Kuskokwim region of Alaska.
However, as explained in the attached fact sheet, all USDA
AmeriCorps projects -- including the one in Aalska --- are in
jeopardy unless action on this matter is taken immediately.
Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
USDA AMERICORPS
UPDATE -- UPDATE --- UPDATE --- UPDATE --- UPDATE
To:
Aura Kenny, Office of Congressman Quinn
Mary Cline, Scott Rylco, Office of Congressman Chrysler
Jodi Smith, Office of Congressman Bereuter
Jamie Castillo, Office of Congressman Skeen
Katherine Armstrong, Office of Congressman Torkildsen
Linda Theil, Office of Congresswoman Woolsey
Russ McGuirk, Office of Congressman Pallone
Jim Jepsen, Office of Congressman Durbin
Tifany Clements, Office of Congressman Fields
Ashley Abbott, Office of Congressman Baldacci
David Lipsett, Office of Congressman Dingell
Danny Cromer, Office of Congressman Clyburn
Mike Bagley, Office of Congressman Dicks
From:
Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
2 PAGES, INCLUDING THIS COVER
I understand that neither the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill
nor its committee report will have language clarifying the status of the USDA AmeriCorps
program. We are now attempting "Plan B," in which we ask Senator Bond and
Congressman Jerry Lewis --- the chairs of the relevant appropriations subcommittees --- to
give their at least their tacit approval to allow USDA to continue to support AmeriCorps
projects.
It was my understanding of Senator Bond's position that, while he might like high quality USDA
projects in partnership with local entities to continue, he does not believe the Federal government
should "run" such projects. In keeping with Senator Bond's desire in this regard, we have
proposed draft language (attached) to his office and that of Congressman Lewis; the language
explains how locally-based individual AmeriCorps projects could continue to receive technical
and other assistance from USDA.
While we don't need any additional funds --- nor do we need any additional authorization
or appropriations language we do seek to reach agreement with Congressman Lewis and
Senator Bond that USDA can go forward under the attached proposal. If we can not
reach such an agreement rapidly, all our AmeriCorps projects planned for this year would
be canceled. Given the current sensitivity of this matter, I think member to member discussions
and/or staff-to-staff discussions might be more useful at this point than a formal letter. Please
call me at 720-5746.
DRAFT PROPOSAL TO ALLOW USDA TO CONTINUE TO
PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO AMERICORPS PROJECTS
The Corporation for National and Community Service would have the
authority to enter into a non-monetary cooperative agreement with the
United States Department of Agriculture to allow the Department to
provide technical assistance, funding, administrative support services,
and other assistance to national service programs sponsored by non-
profit organizations, state, local, and tribal governments, and the local
managers of public lands, and to allow participants in those programs to
receive National Service benefits, including National Service
educational awards from the National Service Trust.
It is understood that the Corporation for National Service would not seek
to enter into such an agreement with any other Federal agency other than
the Department of Agriculture.
USDA AMERICORPS
UPDATE -- UPDATE --- UPDATE --- UPDATE --- UPDATE
To:
Raissa Quintal, Mike Russell, Office of the Senator Campbell message 10/10
Tom Geier, Cynthia Dailard, Office of Senator Snowe
Kate Lambrew, Office of Senator Cohen
Kevin Mathis, Office of Senator Specter
Sue Hildick, Patrick Atagi, Office of Senator Hatfield
Robin Bowen, Office of Senator McConnell
Brian Jones, Joe Trujillo, Office of Senator Domenici
Sherry Kaiman, Senate Education Subcommittee
Gene Sofer, Corporation for National Service
From:
Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
3 PAGES, INCLUDING THIS COVER
It now looks unlikely that either the VA, HUD appropriations bill or its committee
report will have language clarifying the status of the USDA AmeriCorps program.
We will now try "plan B" in which we determine whether Senator Bond will give at
least tacit approval to allow USDA to continue to support AmeriCorps projects.
(See attached documents I sent to Shawn Gilleylen of Bond's office).
Given the current sensitivity of this matter, I think member to member discussions
and/or staff-to-staff discussions might be more useful at this point than a formal
letter. Please call me at 720-5746.
NATIONAL NA AND IN ERICORP CERVICE
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
To:
Shawn Gilleylen , Office of Senator Bond
From:
Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
We continue to search for a compromise that would meet Senator Bond's
goal of ending direct Federal agency management of AmeriCorps projects, but
would allow USDA to continue to provide technical assistance and funding to
locally-based organizations that sponsor AmeriCorps projects.
As part of this continuing discussion, we hope you will consider the
findings of the enclosed report on the "Summer of Gleaning." This program
worked in partnership with hundreds of locally based anti-hunger groups,
youth service corps, farm organizations, food banks, churches, and food
recovery organizations --- including such groups in Missouri.
The AmeriCorps members in this summer program helped recover over
1,005 tons of food, which provided an estimated 1.34 million meals. Given that
the total Federal dollars spent on this summer program -- including
collection, transportation, and storage of food, and stipends and educational
awards for the AmeriCorps members --- was $430,000, the total Federal cost
per meal provided was approximately 43 cents each.
Furthermore, the program was based on the "volunteer generator model"
of community service in which a handful of compensated AmeriCorps members
recruit numerous non-compensated volunteers to help implement large-scale
tasks. The 88 AmeriCorps members in the summer program recruited over
500 non-compensated community volunteers who helped pick, sort, deliver,
and prepare the recovered foods.
Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
* AMERICORP IN A CERVICE
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
To:
Monica Azare, Office of Congressman Tauzin
From: Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
7 pages, including this cover
Four your information, attached is information about the
impressive achievements of the USDA AmeriCorps fire
protection project in Congressman Tauzin's district that has
both protected property and saved homeowners money.
Also attached is a fact sheet about the current status of the
USDA AmeriCorps program. If action on this matter is not
taken immediately, all USDA AmeriCorps projects may be
canceled.
Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
NATIONALS AND INI MERICORP SERVICE
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
To:
Sherry Kaiman, Education Subcommittee
From:
Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
As you may be aware, in addition to year-long AmeriCorps rural
development projects, USDA sponsored a highly successful summer AmeriCorps
program this year focused on recovering excess food that normally would be
discarded and distributing that food to citizens in need. The Vermont anti-
hunger project played a significant role in this effort. Enclosed is a report
detailing the achievements of this program. This "Summer of Gleaning" program
worked in partnership with hundreds of locally based anti-hunger groups, youth
service corps, farm organizations, food banks, churches, and food recovery
organizations.
The AmeriCorps members in this summer program helped recover over
1,005 tons of food, which provided an estimated 1.34 million meals. Given that
the total Federal dollars spent on this summer program -- including
collection, transportation, and storage of food, and stipends and educational
awards for the AmeriCorps members --- was $430,000, the total Federal cost
per meal provided was approximately 43 cents each.
Furthermore, the program was based on the "volunteer generator model" of
community service in which a handful of compensated AmeriCorps members
recruit numerous non-compensated volunteers to help implement large-scale tasks.
The 88 AmeriCorps members in the summer program recruited over 500
non-compensated community volunteers who helped pick, sort, deliver, and
prepare the recovered foods.
UNFORTUNATELY, OUR ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT
SUCH PROJECTS IS STILL IN JEOPARDY, PENDING NEGOTIATIONS
WITH SENATOR BOND AND SENATOR GRASSLEY. PLEASE CALL
ME AT 720-5746 WITH ANY QUESTIONS.
AMERICORPS NATIONAL IN CERTICE
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
To:
Mike Mills, Office of Senators Ashcroft and Bond
From:
Joel Berg, Director of National Service, USDA
We continue to search for a compromise that would meet Senator Bond's
goal of ending direct Federal agency management of AmeriCorps projects, but
would allow USDA to continue to provide technical assistance and funding to
locally-based organizations that sponsor AmeriCorps projects.
As part of this continuing discussion, we hope you will consider the
findings of the enclosed report on the "Summer of Gleaning." This program
worked in partnership with hundreds of locally based anti-hunger groups,
youth service corps, farm organizations, food banks, churches, and food
recovery organizations --- including such groups in Missouri.
The AmeriCorps members in this summer program helped recover over
1,005 tons of food, which provided an estimated 1.34 million meals. Given that
the total Federal dollars spent on this summer program -- including
collection, transportation, and storage of food, and stipends and educational
awards for the AmeriCorps members --- was $430,000, the total Federal cost
per meal provided was approximately 43 cents each.
Furthermore, the program was based on the "volunteer generator model"
of community service in which a handful of compensated AmeriCorps members
recruit numerous non-compensated volunteers to help implement large-scale
tasks. The 88 AmeriCorps members in the summer program recruited over
500 non-compensated community volunteers who helped pick, sort, deliver,
and prepare the recovered foods.
Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
AND IN ATIONAL ERICORP A
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
To:
Jamie Castillo, Office of
Congressman Skeen
Jim Jepson, Office of
Congressman Durbin
From:
Joel Berg, Director of National
Service, USDA
4 pages, including this cover
We are still trying to reach a compromise with the Senate that would allow
USDA to continue to support highly successful AmeriCorps projects, including
those in New Mexico and Illinois.
.
As you can see from the attached letter from Senator Grassley to Harris
Wofford, Grassley is basing much of his opposition to USDA involvement in
AmeriCorps on his belief that the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommitteess
oppose USDA spending funds on AmeriCorps. If Mr. Skeen and Mr. Durbin
were to co-sign a letter together expressing support for USDA spending on
AmeriCorps, such a letter could play a critical role in helping us. Such a letter
might be even stronger if Seantor Cochran and Senator Bumpers also signed
it.
2
Two other points about the Grassley letter:
1) We have never sought to have AmeriCorps Members work "at USDA"
--- our AmeriCorps Members work directly in each community or
directly on public lands.
2) USDA AmeriCorps members have never cost $30,000 each. In our
first year of operation, the total Federal spending on the USDA
AmeriCorps program --- including tools, equipment, supplies, and staff
support needed for projects --- was $29.311 million, equaling $24,426 per
AmeriCorps Member. Given that the service provided by the program
helped 828,000 people and aided 234,000 acres of land, the Federal
government spent only $17 per person aided and only $62 per acre
helped. In addition, the Forest Service calculated that, for each Federal
dollar spent on Forest Service AmeriCorps projects, between 1.51 to
$2.30 worth of work was performed.
Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
* NA AMERICORPS A CRIICE
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
To:
Sherry Kaiman
From: Joel Berg
3 pages, including this cover
FYI, attached is information about the impressive results of
USDA AmeriCorps fire protection projects, including those
in Vermont.
Please call me at 720-5746 with any questions.
DALE BUMPERS ARKANSAS. CHAIRMAN
SAM NUMN GEORGIA
ROBERT n KASTEN JR. WISCONSIN
a
MAX BAUCUS MONTANA
LARRY PRESSLER SOUTH DAKOTA
CARL LEVIN MICHIGAN
MALCOLM WALLOP WYOMING
ALAN DIXON ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER S BOND MISSOUR
TOM HARKIN IOWA
CONRAD BURNS MONTANA
JOHN F KERRY MASSACHUSETTS
TED STEVENS ALASKA
BARBARA A MIKULSKI MARYLAND
CONNIE MACK FLORIDA
JOSEPH LIEBERMAN CONNECTICUT
JOHN SEYMOUR CALIFORNIA
United States Senate
PAUL DAVID WELLSTONE MINNESOTA
HARRIS WOFFORD PENNSYLVANIA
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
JOHN W BALL III, STAFF DIRECTOR
CESAR V CONDA MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR
WASHINGTON DC 20510-6350
November 17, 1992
MEMORANDUM
FOR:
FROM:
CHUCK LUDLAM, OFFICE OF SENATOR BUMPERS
RE:
COMMUNITY SERVICE OPPORTUNITIES
This memo explains the opportunities for the Clinton/Gore
Administration with the new Bumpers-sponsored community service
loan cancellation program authorized in the 1992 Higher Education
Act amendments. I am sending it to you so you can give it to the
transition teams for the Clinton/Gore Administration with
responsibility for its proposal for loan cancellation as a method
for repayment of student loans and anyone else who will be
working on implemention of the Clinton/Gore national service
proposals.
Enclosed is the statutory language for the new Stafford loan
cancellation program and for the amendments to the existing
Perkins loan cancellation program.¹ I worked for nearly six
years to secure their enactment and know as much as anyone about
what they mean and how they can be implemented by the new
Administration.
The most exciting opportunity for President-elect Clinton is
the new generic program for cancellation of Stafford (guaranteed)
1 You can only understand the 1992 changes to the Perkins
loan cancellation program by referring to the 1986 law that set
up this program, so I've enclosed the 1986 language.
2
loans. The 1992 Higher Education Act amendments provide for
cancellation of Stafford loans for student borrowers who serve as
full-time, low-paid employees of a tax-exempt organization -- see
section 428J (b) (1) (B). This applies to every type of service as
long as it meets these generic requirements.
The generic requirements are simple: the service must be
"full-time," it must be "comparable" to Peace Corps or VISTA
service, it must be with a non-profit organization and it must be
low-paid (minimum wage or poverty line for a family of two).
This is not Yuppie service; it's a demanding program. This
is good policy and it keeps the cost of the cancellation under
control. More on this below.
This Stafford loan cancellation program is brand new. We've
never had any cancellation of Stafford loans before this. But,
we have had a program for partial cancellation of Perkins loans
since 1986. Unfortunately, I did not succeed in amending the
existing Perkins loan cancellation program to permit cancellation
under these generic terms. You can see who qualifies for
cancellation under the Perkins program in the attached materials.
It's a mish-mash of targeted groups.
It is important to note that I was successful in saving the
deferment on repayment of loans for the students who would
qualify for the Stafford and Perkins loan cancellation programs.
It would be a mess if they could qualify for loan cancellation
but not get a deferment while they serve. It was an incredible
fight to preserve the deferment; it was harder to save the
3
deferment than to get the new loan cancellation program!
There are a variety of opportunities here for President-
elect Clinton:
1. He can immediately seek a supplemental appropriation for
Fiscal 1993 to fund this new Stafford loan cancellation program.
It's not an entitlement; it needs to be funded. The Perkins
program is an entitlement, so it's funding is automatic in Fiscal
1993 and thereafter.
2. Clinton can also seek a legislative change in the
effective date for those who qualify for the new Stafford
cancellation program to include students with existing loan
balances. As enacted this new program only applies to students
who are "new borrowers" after October 1, 1992. This is a very
strict standard and it means that this program will not become
fully effective until 1997.
3. I would not recommend that he call for any change in the
terms of the cancellation program. He could seek to change the
terms for the cancellation, however, any change that liberalizes
the terms for cancellation will be costly and it will also open
up the program to criticism. It's hard to argue with loan
cancellation for student borrowers who work full-time for the
minimum wage. And, I have no doubt that many student borrowers
will, in fact, serve under those terms if challenged to do so by
Clinton.
The minimum wage standard dovetails with the stipend
provisions of the National and Community Service Act, which
4
permits organizations receiving grants from the Commission to pay
stipends of this amount. Setting a higher compensation standard
will just problems for the employers, who will be pressured to
pay more in stipends and ask for more grants from the Commission.
We want to keep the costs of these employees low to the employer
so that they will set up programs to employ the student
borrowers.
4. Clinton also needs to call for enactment of a similar
generic loan cancellation program for Perkins loans and for an
immediate effective date. That would mean that students who have
both Stafford and Perkins loans would not be caught with
conflicting standards. And it would make the whole program more
attractive for student borrowers.
5. There are also a variety of ways in which the Department
of Education can take regulatory action to ensure that the new
loan cancellation and deferment provisions are fully implemented.
Attached is a draft letter from Senator Bumpers that provides
extensive commentary on the regulatory issues raised by the new
loan cancellation and deferment provisions. This draft letter
gives you an idea of how much work I have put into this issue
over the past six years.
6. Then Clinton could fight for full funding for Fiscal 1994
in any amendments to Bush's budget and fight for full funding in
the Fiscal 1994 D.O.E. appropriations bill for the program.
These actions would give Clinton an immediate success with
his pledge to permit student borrowers to pay back their loans
5
with community service. Taking these actions does not preclude
action later on his plans to enlarge the student loan program to
include a much larger class of borrowers, to eliminate the
guaranteed loan program to save the bank fees or to permit
repayment with either community service or income contingent
payments. But, those proposals will take longer and be more
expensive. In fact, they may be too expensive, too controversial
and too complicated to do that for some time, so it makes
political sense for him to concentrate on the loan cancellation
part of his pledge.
My estimate is that we could use this program to encourage
20-25,000 young people to serve. The Peace Corps only has 6,500
volunteers, so this would be three to four times the size of the
Peace Corps. And, it would be much less costly to the government
than running the whole program itself.
This is one of the big advantages of loan cancellation. The
whole program is completely decentralized and non-bureaucratic.
With the Commission's grants, there is endless red tape, O.M.B.
circulars, audits, etc. With loan cancellation there is
virtually no paperwork and the costs for training, paying, and
supervising the student borrowers is entirely born by the private
sector non-profits.
I am happy to help the transition teams on this issue. They
are certainly looking for ways for Clinton to take dramatic
action within the first 100 days and I have given him an
important opportunity with the new Stafford loan cancellation
6
program. My phone is 202-224-3095.
"(A) is employed as a full-time teacher-
"(i) in a school which qualifies under section
465(a)(2)(A) for loan cancellation for Perkins loan
recipients who teach in such schools: and
"(ii) of mathematics. science. foreign languages, spe-
1992 HIGHER EDUCATION ACT:
cial education, bilingual education. or any other field
of expertise where the State educational agency deter-
mines there is a shortage of qualified teachers;
"(B) agrees in writing to volunteer for service under
the Peace Corps Act or under the Domestic Volunteer Serv-
NEW PROGRAM FOR CANCELLATION
ice Act of 1973, or to perform comparable service as a
full-time employee of an organization which is exempt from
OF STAFFORD LOANS FOR THOSE
taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, if the borrower does not receive compensation
which exceeds the greater of-
WHO PERFORM COMMUNITY SERVICE
"(i) the minimum wage rate described in section
6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938; or
"(ii) an amount equal to 100 percent of the poverty
line for a family of two (as defined in section 673(2)
of the Community Services Block Grant Act); or
"(C) is employed full-time as a nurse in a public hospital,
a rural health clinic, a migrant health center, an Indian
SEC. 422. UNSUBSIDIZED LOANS; PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS; LOAN
Health Service, an Indian health center, a Native Hawaiian
FORGIVENESS.
health center or in an acute care or long-term care facility.
Part B of title IV of the Act is amended by inserting after
"(2) REGULATIONS.-The Secretary is authorized to issue such
section 428G the following new sections:
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions
of this section.
"LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR TEACHERS, INDIVIDUALS PERFORMING
"(c) LOAN REPAYMENT-
NATIONAL COMMUNITY SERVICE AND NURSES
"(1) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary shall assume the obligation
"SEC. 428J. (a) STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.-It is the purpose of
to repay-
"(A) 15 percent of the total amount of Stafford loans
this section to encourage individuals to
incurred by the student borrower during such borrower's
"(1) enter the teaching and nursing profession; and
last 2 years of undergraduate education for the first or
"(2) perform national and community service.
second academic year in which such borrower meets the
"(b) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.-
requirements described in subsection (a);
"(1) IN GENERAL-The Secretary, in consultation with the
"(B) 20 percent of such total amount for such third or
Secretary of Health and Human Services, is authorized to carry
fourth academic year; and
out a demonstration program of assuming the obligation to
"(C) 30 percent of such total amount for such fifth aca-
repay a loan made, insured or guaranteed under this part
demic year.
(excluding loans made under sections 428A, 428B, or 428C)
"(2) CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in this subsection shall be con-
for any new borrower after October 1, 1992, who-
strued to authorize the refunding of any repayment of a Stafford
loan.
INTEREST.-If a portion of a loan is repaid by the amount Sec-
"(3) under this section for any year. the proportionate shall
retary of interest on such loan which accrues for such year
be by the Secretary.
repaid SPECIAL RULE.-In the case where a student borrower this
who is returns to an institution of higher education for the pur-
"(4) not participating in loan repayment pursuant to after
section from an institution of higher education is author-
graduation of obtaining a teaching certificate, the Secretary amount of
pose the obligation to repay the total
ized Stafford to assume loans incurred for a maximum of 2 academic years
in returning to an institution of higher education for the pur-
pose of obtaining a teaching certificate or additional cer-
tification. Such Stafford loans shall only be repaid for borrowers
who qualify for loan repayment pursuant to the provisions
of this section, and shall be repaid in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph (1).
"(d) REPAYMENT OF ELIGIBILITY LENDERS.-The Secretary shall
pay to each eligible lender or holder for each fiscal year an amount
equal to the aggregate amount of Stafford loans which are subject
to repayment pursuant to this section for such year.
"(e) APPLICATION FOR REPAYMENT.-Each eligible individual desir-
ing loan repayment under this section shall submit an application
to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing
such information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
"(f) DEFINITIONS.-For the purpose of this section the term
'eligible lender' has the same meaning given such term in section
435(d).
"(g) EVALUATION.-
"(1) IN GENERAL-The Secretary shall conduct, by grant or
contract, an independent national evaluation of the impact
of the program assisted under this part on the fields of teaching,
nursing, and community service.
"(2) COMPETITIVE BASIS.-The grant or contract described
in paragraph (1) shall be awarded on a competitive basis.
"(3) CONTENTS.-The evaluation described in this section
SEC. 432. EFFECTIVE DATES FOR AMENDMENTS TO PART B.
shall-
"(A) assess whether the program assisted under this
section has brought into teaching, nursing, and community
(b) NEW BORROWERS.-For purposes of the section, the term
service a significant number of highly capable individuals
"new borrower" means, with respect to any date, an individual
who otherwise would not have entered such fields;
who on that date has no outstanding balance of principal or interest
"(B) assess whether a significant number of students
owing on any loan made, insured, or guaranteed under part B
perform the service described in subsection (b) or opt to
of title IV of the Act.
repay the loans instead of remaining in the career for
which such student received loan repayment under this
section;
"(C) identify the barriers to the effectiveness of the pro-
gram assisted under this section;
"(D) assess the cost-effectiveness of such program in
improving teacher, nursing, and community service worker
quality and quantity and the ways to improve the cost-
effectiveness of such program;
"(E) identify the reasons for which participants in the
program have chosen to take part in such program; and
"(F) identify other areas of community service or employ-
ment which may serve as appropriate methods of loan
repayment.
"(4) INTERIM EVALUATION REPORTS.-The Secretary shall pre-
pare and submit to the President and the Congress such interim
reports on the evaluation described in this section as the Sec-
retary deems appropriate. and shall submit such a final report
by January 1, 1997.
"(5) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-There are author-
ized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000
for fiscal year 1993 and such sums as may be necessary for
each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.".
CNCS [202-565-2777]
10/2/95 10:54 AM
Page 2/3
release
Corporation for National Service
1201 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20525
Release: 9/30/95
Contact: J. TOSCANO
202-606-5000 ext 277
SENATE CONFIRMS HARRIS WOFFORD AS NATIONAL SERVICE CHIEF
The U.S. Senate last night confirmed the nomination of Harris Wofford as
chief executive officer of the Corporation for National Service.
As national service chief, Wofford will oversee programs that involve more
than 1.2 million citizens of all ages and backgrounds in service to
communities throughout the United States. Those programs include
AmeriCorps (including AmeriCorps*VISTA , the Ameri Corps' National
Civilian Community Corps, and 400 programs of the AmeriCorps service
network); the National Senior Service Corps (which includes Foster
Grandparents, Senior Companions, and the Retired and Senior Volunteer
Program); and Learn and Serve America, which supports school and college-
based student volunteer service.
Wofford says that one of his top goals is to team with Congress to strengthen
the year old AmeriCorps initiative. The former Pennsylvania senator said,
"This represents the most important challenge and opportunity to serve
because -- like the C.C.C. (Civilian Conservation Corps) of the 1930s, the GI
Bill, and the Peace Corps -- national service is the best kind of investment we
can make in our nation's future."
"I will work with Republicans and Democrats in Congress," said Wofford, "to
build national service, not as a government program, but as a private-public
partnership based in the independent sector, so that it will be a non partisan
institution in which all Americans can take pride."
In an earlier hearing on the former Senator's nomination, Labor and Human
Resources Committee chairwoman Nancy Landon Kassebaum (R-KS) said,
"Senator Wofford has really dedicated his life to community service and has
been a long believer in its value." Senator Kassebaum noted that while some
senators had questions about the Corporation's program, "I think if there is
anybody who can convince someone it is a good idea, you are going to be the
person."
CNCS [202-565-277]
10/2/95 10:54 AM
Page 3/3
With it's second year beginning October 12, AmeriCorps will involve more
than 25,000 citizens in full-time service with over 400 local and national
charitable groups. Learn and Serve America provides opportunities for
750,000 students to engage in service to their communities through their
schools. Through the Senior Corps, about 450,000 RSVP volunteers serve at
760 local programs; more than 12,000 Senior Companions provide care and
assistance to other older citizens, especially frail elderly; and more than 24,000
Foster Grandparent volunteers serve children with special needs.
Funding for the Corporation's programs is being considered by the Congress
as part of the fiscal year 1996 appropriations process. The Senior Corps
programs have been nearly fully funded in proposals in both houses of
Congress. Ameri Corps' VISTA -- a national service program with nearly 4,000
service members which is separately funded from AmeriCorps - -- has been
seriously cut in the House proposal, but sustained a much more modest cut
in the Senate. Funding for AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve America was
eliminated in both House and Senate appropriations proposals. The President
has vowed to veto the VA-HUD appropriations bill if it contains no funding
for the programs.
###
june 29, 1993
Joel,
Carrie Yourd just called me from Miller's office. Sen. Boren is
organizing an effort to propose on the floor to strike the Public
Lands Corps amendment. He feels that it is duplicative of the
Civilian Community Corps, which Carrie says is funded by the DOD to
employee former military to run youth corps "boot" camps (Carrie's
description). If struck, Miller will fight to put the Land Corps
amendment back in the act during conference, but Miller's office
wants to nip it in the bud. Essentially, Carrie would like us -
especially Espy -to do something, if we want to see the Land Corps
remain in the bill.
attached is Cirlian Community
Coys bill
-522
2844
Bohen staFF
Peter Borlhouwer
202-224-0147
APPROPRIATING CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES
Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Subcommittee
Majority Members
Minority Members
Tom Harkin, IA, Chair
Arlen Specter, PA, Ranking
Robert C. Byrd, WV
Mark O. Hatfield, OR
Ernest F. Hollings, SC
Ted Stevens, AK
Daniel K. Inouye, HI
Thad Cochran, MS
Dale Bumpers, AR
Slade Gorton, WA
Harry Reid, NV
Connie Mack, FL
Herb Kohl, WI
Christopher (Kit) Bond, MO
Patty Murray, WA
Senate VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee
Majority Members
Minority Members
Barbara A. Mikulski, MD, Chair
Phil Gramm, TX, Ranking
Patrick J. Leahy, VT
Alfonse M. D'Amato, NY
J. Bennett Johnston, LA
Don Nickles, OK
Frank R. Lautenberg, NJ
Christopher (Kit) Bond, MO
J. Robert Kerrey, NE
Conrad Burns, MT
Dianne Feinstein, CA
House Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Subcommittee
Majority Members
Minority Members
Neal Smith, IA, Acting Chair
John Edward Porter, IL, Ranking
David Obey, WI
C.W. Bill Young, FL
Louis Stokes, OH
Helen Delich Bentley, MD
Steny H. Hoyer, MD
Henry Bonilla, TX
Nancy Pelosi, CA
Nita M. Lowey, NY
Jose E. Serrano, NY
Rosa DeLauro, CT
House VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee
Majority Members
Minority Members
Louis Stokes, OH, Chair
Jerry Lewis, CA, Ranking
Alan B. Mollohan, WV
Tom DeLay, TX
Jim Chapman, TX
Dean A. Gallo, NJ
Marcy Kaptur, OH
Esteban Edward Torres, CA
Ray Thornton, AR
AUTHORIZING CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES
Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee
Majority Members
Minority Members
Edward M. Kennedy, MA, Chair
Nancy Landon Kassebaum, KS, Ranking
Claiborne Pell, RI
James M. Jeffords, VT
Howard M. Metzenbaum, OH
Dan Coats, IN
Christopher J. Dodd, CT
Judd Gregg, NH
Paul Simon, IL
Strom Thurmond, SC
Tom Harkin, IA
Orrin G. Hatch, UT
Barbara A. Mikulski, MD
Dave Durenberger, MN
Jeff Bingaman, NM
Paul David Wellstone, MN
Harris Wofford, PA
House Education and Labor Committee
Majority Members
Minority Members
William D. Ford, MI, Chair
William F. Goodling, PA, Ranking
William L. (Bill) Clay, MO
Thomas E. Petri, WI
George Miller, CA
Marge Roukema, NJ
Austin J. Murphy, PA
Steve Gunderson, WI
Dale E. Kildee, MI
Dick Armey, TX
Pat Williams, MT
Harris W. Fawell, IL
Matthew G. Martinez, CA
Cass Ballenger, NC
Major R. Owens, NY
Susan Molinari, NY
Thomas C. Sawyer, OH
Bill Barrett, NE
Jolene Unsoeld, WA
John A. Boehner, OH
Patsy T. Mink, HI
Randy (Duke) Cunningham, CA
Robert E. Andrews, NJ
Peter Hoekstra, MI
Jack Reed, RI
Howard P. (Buck) McKeon, CA
Tim Roemer, IN
Dan Miller, FL
Eliot L. Engels, NY
Michael N. Castle, DE
Xavier Becerra, CA
Robert C. Scott, VA
Gene Green, TX
Lynn C. Woolsey, CA
Carlos Romero-Barcelo, PR
Ron Klink, PA
Karan English, AZ
Ted Strickland, OH
Ron De Lugo, VI
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Scotty Baesler, KY
Robert A. Underwood, GU
ID:
JUN 02'93 17:41 No. 029 P.02
FACT SHEET
NATIONAL SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993
The "National Service Trust Act of 1993" is innovative public policy founded on
traditional American values: offering educational opportunity, demanding personal
responsibility, and building the American community. In affirming these values, the initiative
also rejects big bureaucracy -- reinventing government to unleash the initiative of the
American people.
The President's support for service extends from the youngest elementary school
students to our oldest citizens, and includes everything from part-time volunteer activities to
full-time public service jobs.
The President's initiative will:
Build the American community through a new domestic Peace Corps that brings
Americans together to tackle pressing national problems.
Offer educational opportunity and reward individual responsibility by providing
educational awards to hundreds of thousands of Americans who serve our country.
Reinvent government by streamlining Federal bureaucracies, relying on locally driven
initiatives, and creating flexibility for students and competition among programs.
The Act will establish a Corporation for National Service that will offer Americans
who do vital work in the national service initiative an educational award.
The Corporation will establish quality criteria and require measurable impacts, but
within these bounds, communities will be able to design programs that meet their own
pressing needs. Programs will be expected to educate their participants both in the particular
skills their service demands and in the civic responsibility that our democracy requires. In all
respects, the Act is designed to build partnerships -- among Federal Government, State
governments, and the private sector; and within communities, among the schools, businesses,
and civic organizations that seek to fight common problems. Assistance will be distributed on
a competitive basis and no program will have a right to funding, but a wide variety of
organizations will have a chance to establish programs that serve our country.
1
R=97%
06-02-93 06:41PM P002 #46
ID:
JUN 02'93 17:42 No 029 P.03
Definition of National Service
Meets unmet educational, environmental, human, or public safety needs.
Improves the life of the participant, through citizenship education and training.
Does not displace or duplicate the functions of existing workers.
Organization
To reduce waste and promote an entrepreneurial government culture, a new
government Corporation for National Service will be established, combining the
Commission on National and Community Service and ACTION.
While maintaining existing programs such as VISTA, the new program makes
investments in new initiatives; neither the Corporation nor the State commissions will
operate them.
A small bipartisan Board will share power with a Chairperson.
Flexible and quality-driven personnel policies will include pay-for-performance and a
7-year limit on most tenures.
The Corporation may solicit and accept private contributions.
At the state level, commissions on national service will be established to mirror and
cooperate with the Federal Corporation.
Like the Corporation Board, commissions will be composed of bipartisan members
from a variety of fields. To ensure a genuine Federal/State partnership, a representative
of the Corporation will sit on the State commissions, and a State representative will sit
on the Corporation Board.
All programs will have to compete for support; none will be guaranteed funding.
One-third of funds will be allocated by population-based formula to State commissions
with approved plans for competitive distribution of funds; at least one-third to State
commissions on a competitive basis for competitive distribution; and up to one-third
will be reserved to the Corporation for allocation on a competitive basis.
Programs
National quality criteria for programming will be developed for every type of program
in conjunction with experts in the field.
Performance goals and independent evaluations will be required in every program.
2
R=97%
06-02-93 06:41PM P003 #46
ID:
JUN 02'93 17:41 No 029 P.02
FACT SHEET
NATIONAL SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993
The "National Service Trust Act of 1993" is innovative public policy founded on
traditional American values: offering educational opportunity, demanding personal
responsibility, and building the American community. In affirming these values, the initiative
also rejects big bureaucracy -- reinventing government to unleash the initiative of the
American people.
The President's support for service extends from the youngest elementary school
students to our oldest citizens, and includes everything from part-time volunteer activities to
full-time public service jobs.
The President's initiative will:
Build the American community through a new domestic Peace Corps that brings
Americans together to tackle pressing national problems.
Offer educational opportunity and reward individual responsibility by providing
educational awards to hundreds of thousands of Americans who serve our country.
Reinvent government by streamlining Federal bureaucracies, relying on locally driven
initiatives, and creating flexibility for students and competition among programs.
The Act will establish a Corporation for National Service that will offer Americans
who do vital work in the national service initiative an educational award.
The Corporation will establish quality criteria and require measurable impacts, but
within these bounds, communities will be able to design programs that meet their own
pressing needs. Programs will be expected to educate their participants both in the particular
skills their service demands and in the civic responsibility that our democracy requires. In all
respects, the Act is designed to build partnerships - -- among Federal Government, State
governments, and the private sector; and within communities, among the schools, businesses,
and civic organizations that seek to fight common problems. Assistance will be distributed on
a competitive basis and no program will have a right to funding, but a wide variety of
organizations will have a chance to establish programs that serve our country.
1
R=97%
06-02-93 06:41PM P002 #46
ID:
JUN 02'93 17:42 No. 029 P.03
Definition of National Service
Meets unmet educational, environmental, human, or public safety needs.
Improves the life of the participant, through citizenship education and training.
Does not displace or duplicate the functions of existing workers.
Organization
To reduce waste and promote an entrepreneurial government culture, a new
government Corporation for National Service will be established, combining the
Commission on National and Community Service and ACTION.
While maintaining existing programs such as VISTA, the new program makes
investments in new initiatives; neither the Corporation nor the State commissions will
operate them.
A small bipartisan Board will share power with a Chairperson.
Flexible and quality-driven personnel policies will include pay-for-performance and a
7-year limit on most tenures.
The Corporation may solicit and accept private contributions.
At the state level, commissions on national service will be established to mirror and
cooperate with the Federal Corporation.
Like the Corporation Board, commissions will be composed of bipartisan members
from a variety of fields. To ensure a genuine Federal/State partnership, a representative
of the Corporation will sit on the State commissions, and a State representative will sit
on the Corporation Board.
All programs will have to compete for support; none will be guaranteed funding.
One-third of funds will be allocated by population-based formula to State commissions
with approved plans for competitive distribution of funds; at least one-third to State
commissions on a competitive basis for competitive distribution; and up to one-third
will be reserved to the Corporation for allocation on a competitive basis.
Programs
National quality criteria for programming will be developed for every type of program
in conjunction with experts in the field.
Performance goals and independent evaluations will be required in every program.
2
R=97%
06-02-93 06:41PM P003 #46
POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE NUNN-MCCURDY NATIONAL SERVICE BILL
Joel Berg, Draft 11/25/92
I. Brief Legislative History
In May of 1988, the DLC released the book Citizenship and National Service,
which outlined proposals to tie almost all forms of federal student aid to the
performance of community service. The book was authored by then DLC Policy Director
Will Marshall and was based on an idea advocated by Northwestern University
Professor Charles Moskos. The proposal received a brief flurry of publicity that was
soon overshadowed by a Presidential Campaign in which Dukakis failed to adopt the
plan and Bush announced his diversionary call for a "thousand points of light."
Following the election, on January 27 1989, Senator Sam Nunn and
Representative Dave McCurdy, along with Senators such as Robb, Glenn, Breaux, and
Sasser, and Mikulski and Representatives such as Penny and Kennelly, announced the
introduction of S.3./H.R.660, the Citizenship and National Service Act (DOCUMENT
11). The bill was almost identical the proposal offered by the DLC the previous May.
With the introduction of a concrete legislative proposal, the national service
debate ignited immediately. Interest groups from all sides of the ideological spectrum
united to defeat the bill.
Group after group lined up to make outrageous claims about the calamity that
would follow if the bill passed. The opposition was led by higher education officials who
showed no reluctance to regularly make charges that had absolutely no basis in fact.
Opposition to the proposal was so immediate, so wide-spread, and so vitriolic that
some original supporters and co-sponsors of the bill -- including Senator Mikulski of
Maryland and Representative Kennelly of Connecticut -- moved to politically distance
themselves from the idea by publicly stating opposition to student aid to service.
The proposal was immediately killed by the two Congressional Committees with
most direct jurisdiction over the matter. Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, Chair of
the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, gave a fair and civil hearing to
Senator Nunn before quietly shelving the bill.
On the House side, Augustus Hawkins of California, then-Chair of the House
Education and Labor Committee, conducted brief hearings in which the bill's supporters
were overwhelmingly outnumbered the bill's opponents. McCurdy's own testimony was
given a barely civil reception, as many Members of the Committee interrupted him
frequently with harsh criticism; one member even implied McCurdy was racist and soon
afterwards walked out of the hearing room.
2
At the time, the DLC and PPI did not posses the resources to mount an effective
ideological and political counter-attack. As a consequence, Nunn, McCurdy, and
DLC/PPI worked behind the scenes to pass through Congress an omnibus national and
community service bill that included a few small scale pilot projects to test a version of
national service.
The opposition to the Nunn-McCurdy Bill should provide helpful foreshadowing
as to which groups may oppose BC's national service plan.
II. Groups Opposing the Bill
Groups and individuals that rarely agreed on anything joined together to
condemn the DLC and Nunn-McCurdy national service proposals.
Peace groups opposed the proposals, saying it would boost the military, while the
military opposed the bill, warning loudly that national service could wreck the All-
Volunteer Force. Both liberals and conservatives opposed the bill, both believing that
citizens have no real obligation to their society.
The immense opposition to the concept proved what a dramatic threat national
service posed to the status quo.
A) Colleges and Universities
Led by the lobbying of the American Council of Education, the United Negro
College Fund, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the College
Board, and the Association of Urban Universities, the higher education community lined
up in lock step to forcefully oppose the bill in strident language. (See DOCUMENT 17
for a flattering profile from Congressional Quarterly of these groups)
They generally made the following arguments:
1) Many poor and minority-groups students, who already face countless barriers to
enrolling in college, could not afford to work for the $100 a week stipend offered by the
program.
2) Wealthy students who participated in the program would receive the same amount
of financial aid as poor students.
3) Some students would still have to borrow large amounts of money -- on top of their
national service voucher- - in order to be able to attend the college of their choice.
3
4) The Citizen Corps would be too costly -- the money would be better spent ding on
increasing the budgets for existing student aid programs.
5) Students desire for learning would be disrupted by a one or two-year hiatus.
6) States and localities would be unable to find enough useful work to occupy the time
of hundreds of thousands of full-time servers.
The American Council of Education cooked up cost estimates, based on absurdly
false assumptions, that the program would cost between $30 billion to $50 billion per
year. These figures were re-printed widely.
Here is a summary of the reaction from "Many College Officials Oppose Plan That
Would Require National Service as a Prerequisite for Federal Student Aid," by Robin
Wilson, Chronicle of Higher Education, February 15, 1989: "As college officials learn
more about a Congressional plan to require at least a year of national service as a
prerequisite for receiving federal student aid, the reviews are coming back with near
unanimity: bad idea. College presidents use such phrases as 'indentured servitude',
'devastation,' and 'death blow' to describe the effects of the plan on both students and
on the current financial aid system. Among the most common complaints are that the
program would discourage poor students from enrolling in college, that wealthy
students could enroll without serving, and that the plan would not insure that students
could receive enough money to attend the college of their choice 'What you're doing
is punishing the poor for being poor,' says Joseph S. Murphy, Chancellor of the City
University of New York system. "This is indentured servitude, which was practiced in
Senator Nunn's state in the 19th Century, so it is based on his own cultural
experience.' In addition, college officials are worried about what would happen in the
first year a community service plan took effect, when students were in their
communities or in the military rather than enrolling in college. The absence of
hundreds of thousands of students would drain many institutions of revenue they need
to continue operating." (DOCUMENT 9)
The universities' arguments were highly contradictory in many respects. For
instance, while vigorously opposing even the concept of linking aid to community
service, they were perfectly content with the federal-work student program that linked
student aid to private service such as working in a university cafeteria or library.
The higher education community-- much of which opposed the original G.I. bill
because they feared it would turn college campuses into "hobo jungles" (DOCUMENT
12) -- had another agenda. They worried that they would lose the significant control
over the financial aid process that they now enjoy; a universal and simplified system
would vastly reduce their ability to steer favored students to certain aid programs and
keep other types of students in the dark about available student aid. Increased federal
funding might also hurt their own efforts to raise funds for their institutional financial
aid. They clearly also feared that with this increased federal commitment to funding
students might come increased federal scrutiny about how the universities spend federal
4
money. Perhaps college presidents expected more embarrassing revelations over
excessive and luxurious spending practices like those that humiliated the President of
Sanford University. The colleges also had understandable fears about how they would
survive the first year of the program in which they would suffer a dramatic decline in
enrollment while students perform their first year of service.
B) For Profit Trade Schools
For profit trade schools, also known as proprietary schools, used tarde
Associations like the National Association of Trade and Technical Schools to object to
the Nunn-McCurdy bill. They feared -- rightfully so -- that the Nunn-McCurdy Bill
would put many of their member institutions out of business. Senator Nunn has focused
hearings of his own Investigations Committee into abuses in such schools, and he and
Congressman McCurdy have not been shy about publicly pointing out that such schools
are responsible for extraordinarily high default rates among their students.
The proprietary schools made similar arguments as did the colleges and the
universities, but they pulled ever harder at liberal heartstrings by stressing how their
programs greatly benefited poor, Black, and Hispanic populations. They argued that
any attempts to restrict student aid going to their institutions would be elitist move that
would limit opportunity for the "forgotten half" of American youth who don't attend
college.
C) Student Groups
Students groups naturally stressed the impact that the legislation would have on
students. They continually hammered away at the proposal with the claim that it
would create a "two tired society" on campuses in which poor students have to work to
pay for college while the rich do not. (Of course they ignored the reality that poor
students already do work.) Said Penny Crawley, Chairwoman of the Michigan
Collegiate Coalition, which represents student governments at 13 of the state's 15 public
universities, in the October 2, 1989 Detroit Free Press: "We very strongly believe in
public and community service, , but tying it to financial aid creates a draft of the
economically disadvantaged. (DOCUMENT 7)
The most active student lobbying group is the United States Student Association
(USSA), which took the position that "education is a right" and that no one should have
to work to obtain it. At one USSA convention in which I participated in a panel
discussion, a student complained to me of all the responsibilities faced by students
before suggesting that middle aged people should be the ones serving because they have
their lives in order and have more time to perform service. Finally, she scolded me
personally, saying, "You just don't know what its like to be a young person."
5
These students groups are run by mostly white, upper middle class students who
seem to have very little grasp on the reality of how many youth from backgrounds less
fortunate than them are excluded by the current system. Hiding behind the rallying cry
that "education is a right," they later opposed even a small national service pilot
program that would provide additional aid to students who performed service. An
USSA press release about the pilot project said it "places educational access in peril"
and that it will manipulate students who rely on federal financial aid." (DOCUMENT
15)
D) Municipal Employee Unions
While AFSCME did not technically oppose the bill, they raised strong objections
to it that helped effectively kill the measure in the two Congressional Committees. The
union was most concerned that national service would induce states and municipalities
into laying off workers (their union membership) and replacing them with sub-minimum
wage national service participants.
Even strong anti-displacement language in the bill wasn't enough to prevent
AFSCME President Gerald McEntee from testifying personally before the House
Education and Labor Committee to express his reservations. (DOCUMENT 14)
E) Teachers Associations
Both NEA and AFT voiced strong reservations to the Nunn-McCurdy bill,
expressing worries that the program would restrict educational access and promote
municipal worker displacement. AFT President Albert Shanker testified himself before
the House Education and Labor Committee.
F) Liberal Advocates
Liberals in Congress and elsewhere opposed the concept because they believed
that government owed every young person an education but that the young owed the
government nothing in return. Viewing poor and minority youths as perpetual clients,
they were unable to envision a future in which youths would themselves provide service.
They had such little faith in youth people that they thought their brains would "cool off"
after a year or two of service and that they would lose all interest whatsoever in
education. Ignoring the history of the G.I. Bill which proved that service would only
increase the desire for education, the liberals argued that the Nunn/McCurdy plan
would create insurmountable roadblocks to college for poor and minority youths.
6
House Education and Labor Committee Chair Gus Hawkins opened his March 15,
1989 hearings on national service with the following statement (excerpted): ""First, I'm
very leery of tying service to student financial aid programs. Second, I want to insure
that service is accompanied by training and education, where necessary. Third, I want
to insure that any service bill leaving this committee has strong anti-displacement
provisions as well as other labor protections. Finally, in an area of budget restraint, I
do not want to see a large Federally-supported service program that drains scarce
resources from other existing high priority programs." (DOCUMENT 11, pages 1-1)
Said Congressman William Ford (now Chair of the House Education and Labor
Committee) in the October 2, 1989 Detroit Free Press: "Once more, the poor kids get
cracked in the head and the handicapped get cracked in the head and the kids who are
beyond the age where the military wants them get cracked in the head. "(DOCUMENT
7)
Charles Hayes, a Democratic Member of the Committee from Chicago, implied
that McCurdy was racist at worst or insensitive to Africans-Americans at best, said, "I
heard years and years ago when I was fighting in the Civil Rights movement --
sometimes you almost have to live in this skin to understand the problems you have
when it comes to jobs and education." Hayes then walked out of the hearing.
(DOCUMENT 14)
Senator Claiborne Pell called making poor students work for aid "cruel."
Congressional Quarterly, March 25, 1989 (Document 8)
G) The Military
The concept of national service forced the American military to deal with the
uncomfortable reality that many of its soldiers joined the military mostly because it was
the most attractive economic opportunity available to them. National service threatened
to undo the fiction that patriotism was the sole reason that young men and women
joined the military. Unable to openly express such a fear, the military claimed that
national service would disrupt group cohesion, impact adversely on unit readiness, and
hurt morale by creating more than one class of soldier.
In a July 14, 1989 letter to House Armed Services Committee Chair Les Aspin,
the Defense Department Deputy General Counsel L. Neiderlehner wrote: "The
Department opposes enactment of this bill because we believe, as written, it would
reduce operational readiness, complicate mobilization, and increase federal expenditures
significantly in a constrained fiscal environment." Said the accompanying document
offering the official views of the Department: "The proposed legislation would likely lead
to lower overall military recruit quality, as the civilian service options are significantly
more attractive than all currently available military service options and those proposed
7
in the bill Because of the large influx of 2-year enlistments, the training base (and
associated costs) would have to expand markedly. In addition, unit training work loads,
personnel turbulence, and attrition experienced in active and Reserve operation units
would all increase. Minimum overseas tour lengths would need to be cut, sharply
increasing permanent change of station costs. The combined effects of these factors
would drive sharp accession and end strength increases, disrupt unit cohesion, weaken
esprit and moral, reduce individual proficiency and compromise unit readiness."
Said Thomas Byrne of the private Association of the Army, "We don't want high-
caliber people who might otherwise join the Army off planting trees instead."
(DOCUMENT 10) No wonder the Defense Department also gave very little attention
to a report conducted by one of its own research arms concluding that national service
would actually help military recruiting.
While BC's proposal is unlikely to have a specific military component, the Defense
department is likely to worry over any program that will compete with is own
recruitment efforts.
H) Anti-Draft Groups
Anti-Draft groups vigorously opposed the Nunn-McCurdy Bill, believing it to be
nothing more than a stalking horse for the reintroduction of the military draft. These
opponents frequently criticized what they perceived to be the hidden pro-draft intentions
of Senator Nunn and the hawkish Democratic Leadership Council.
According to a fact sheet distributed by the National Interreligious Board of
Conscientious Objectors (NISBCO): "All those (national service) proposals should be
examined carefully, because they involve far more than they say they are."
(DOCUMENT 2) Another NISBCO document says: "Many proponents, even of the most
innocent proposals, privately concede that it is a cover-up for the return to the draft.
Sen. Sam Nunn, who is behind the most widely publicized program, said it was a
mistake to have ended the draft. " (DOCUMENT 3)
While most concerned that national service would lead to a military draft, these
groups also levelled a series of specific objections against the concept:
1) The bill would economically coerce youths into service, thereby diluting the true spirit
of service. "Service is not os much a duty, as a joyful, free response to the Love of God.
Not a one or two year obligation, but a lifetime." (DOCUMENT 2)
2) The corps' attempts to imbue youths with values may backfire. "Drug use, sexual
irresponsibility, and other problems could be aggravated among groups of young people
gathered in programs far from the good influences of family, school, church, and
synagogue." (DOCUMENT 3)
3) National service will train American young people to unquestioningly follow orders.
8
4) The government will use national service as a smokescreen to cut social services.
5) National service will help corporations keep wages low.
6) The national service program would likely exclude religious groups from participation.
The peace groups also made the familiar, if contradictory claims, that national
service would restrict educational access and also cost too much.
These opponents used extremely sharp and moralistic language against the bill.
The following is from National Service: Its Moral Appeal and Ethical Problems, by
Edward Leroy Long, Jr, Professor Emeritus of Christian Ethics and Theology of Culture
at Drew University, an article was distributed by the NISBCO (DOCUMENT #1): "As
long as the making of money is equated with the 'real world,' and as long as large
numbers of the American public view people in the service professions as slightly naive
and even a bit pathetic (although admittedly dedicated), then to require people to do a
term of such work may only generate further dislike for such roles. A great number
involved in such service might well do it with reluctance and resentment -- treating it
as an annoyance and considering it a punishment. Having 'paid their dues,' they would
proceed, perhaps confirmed in their suspicion about the value of service, with the 'real'
business of accumulating private affluence. Service could thus receive that stigma of
appearing to be a necessary evil as well as a losing enterprise. Unless ways can be
found to reorder the dominant values and reward schemes of our society, many of the
ideals that would supposedly be advanced by a program of national service might
actually be endangered by it."
Wrote John Swomley from the Fellowship of Reconciliation (DOCUMENT 4):
"National service is a way of getting American youth who have no jobs to work for the
government or private enterprise at less than the going rate of pay, even in a minimum
wage, service economy. In that capacity, they would perform needed functions that
otherwise affluent corporations and adult Americans would have to provide through
higher wages or taxes. National Service would also take attention away from the flight
of business overseas and the expansion of U.S. imperialism. Unfortunately, national
service is being presented under the spurious guise of patriotism and community
building."
I) Conservative/Libertarian Activists
While some conservatives -- most notably William F. Buckley -- support some
form of national service, the idea is an anathema to most Libertarian Conservatives.
They object that the program will be too bureaucratic and too costly, the program will
institute an un-American form of government compulsion, and that the program will fail
to solve social problems that could be better solved by the unfettered forces of the
marketplace.
9
Bruce Chapman of the Hudson Institute wrote: "I know that the social engineers
who devised this plan want opponents to feel selfish, but I don't. Instead, as a citizen
and as a father, I feel exploited, because the use of government student loans and
grants, for example, as a device to pry government-specified 'service' from recipients
actually traduces the idealism of youth and advances the false claim to people's time as
well as their money. National service also stigmatizes the honest labor of the poor,
denigrates the genuine altruism of millions of Americans who donate their time to
worthy causes without expectation of material reward, and implicitly downgrades the
priority of national defense." (DOCUMENT 18)
One of the most persistent opponents of national service is Doug Bandow of the
libertarian Cato Institute. In "Service With a Smell," Reason, June 1989, Bandow
wrote: "The program would transform today's obnoxious entitlement ethic -that college
students are entitled to a taxpayer-subsidized education -- into an even more insidious
one; that they are entitled to a taxpayer-subsidized education if they perform
government-approved tasks. The obvious solution to letting young people wrongly
believe that life offers benefits with no responsibilities would be to eliminate the unjust
benefits. The program is also explicitly designed to fill only jobs not worth doing. The
legislation requires the Citizen Corps ensure that none of its members displaced any
current worker or impair 'existing contracts for services or collective bargaining
agreements.' Anyway, the government has never found many useful tasks for social
service workers What does the DLC suggest? Working with the terminally ill, helping
day-care centers, building playgrounds, handling police paperwork, and installing smoke
detectors in the homes of senior citizens -- activities that hardly justify a massive new
federal program. The bureaucracy required to administer a system involving so many
young people would squash the local volunteer groups that are supposed to help carry
out the program. We should not be fooled by all their kindler, gentler rhetoric about
what would in fact be the greatest social-engineering scheme in U.S. history.
Government-sponsored national service will be either elective, in which case it will
duplicate private efforts, stifle existing organizations, and waste money. Or it will be
mandatory and will subvert the compassionate impulses that animate true volunteerism
and will violate the principles of what is supposed to be a free society. We need more
individual service, not a program of government service." (DOCUMENT 10)
J. Volunteerism Advocates
Moderate Republicans such as George Bush and Senator Nancy Kassebaum -- as
well as some Democrats -- opposed national service on the grounds that paying servers
would dampen the American spirit of volunteerism. Kassebaum called the concept of
"paid volunteers" an "oxymoron" and Bush objected to "bribing students" into service
with vouchers or stipends. Bush, would supported a huge raise in cabinet salaries,
opposed giving any financial compensation to servers whatsoever, saying "service is its
own reward." Instead, they opt for diffuse government efforts to increase volunteerism.
10
III. Groups Supporting the Bill
A) Public Opinion Polls
Public opinion polls, including some commissioned by the DLC, consistently
showed high levels of support among voters for the concept of linking student aid to
voluntary national service. A September 1989 Gallup Poll showed that even a majority
of teenagers supported some form of national service.
B) Editorial Writers
The majority of newspapers that editorialized on the proposal supported it. (See
media summary by Adam Sohn).
C) Episcopal Church
The Episcopal Church of the United States -- led by its Washington lobbyist with
strong ties to the DLC -- endorsed the Nunn/McCurdy concept.
D) The United States Junior Chamber of Commerce
The United States Junior Chamber of Commerce (the Jaycees) -- after
considerable internal debate -- endorsed the concept. (DOCUMENT 19)
E) Students
Some individual student leaders -- not associated with the United States Student
Association -- supported the idea. Mainstream and student newspaper reports also
indicated that many rank-and-file students also supported the concept.
F) The National Service Secretariat
Donald J. Eberly, the founder and President of the Coalition for National Service,
has been fighting for national service for three decades. However, his organization is
basically a one-person operation that carries very little clout.
11
IV. Groups with Mixed Positions on the Bill
A) Youth Service Groups
Youth Service America (YSA), the umbrella group representing existing youth
service organizations, offered limited support for the Nunn-McCurdy proposal. Wrote
Co-Director Roger Landrum in the June 2, 1988 The Washington Post (DOCUMENT 5),
"Conditioning federal grants and loans for college education or a first-home down
payment in exchange for a couple of years of national or community service, military or
civilian, is not an unreasonable quid pro quo." However, YSA worried that the new
program would ignore existing youth corps and thus leave them out in the cold. Some
service groups seems reluctant to give up their moral monopoly insured by having only
small numbers of highly altruistic people engaged in community service.
B) Children's Advocacy Groups
A study released by the Children's Defense Fund offered strong support for
engaging youth in community service, at the same time it opposed linking such service
to federal financial aid. The May 1989 report, entitled "Service Opportunities for
Youth," said "Given the proper guidance, direction, and supervision, young people
respond well to the responsibility of service and sense the value of their efforts. This,
in turn, increases youths' self-esteem and the likelihood of their becoming productive
adults However, establishing service as a prerequisite for federal aid to college
students goes too far, creating a de facto mandatory service system that discriminates
against motivated young people with the fewest resources." (DOCUMENT 13)
V. Additional Groups With Stakes in National Service
A) Financial Lending Institutions
Banks, lending institutions, and Sallie Mae will have a great stake in the debate
over significant changes in current student loan programs.
B) The Commission on National and Community Service
The people appointed by Bush to the Commission on National and Community
Service -- most of whom Republicans with very little experience in service but some of
whom are Democrats committed to the DLC concept -- will want to have a significant
role in the debate over national service. The professional staff of the commission will
have an especially high stake in fighting to keep their own jobs.
07/06/93
16:15
FOREST SERVICE
USDA OPA
001/018
n15/congress
United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Legislative Affairs Staff
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
Please deliver to:
Name:
Joel Berg PAO
Organization:
USDA- PAO
Phone Number:
720-4623
FAX Number:
720-8098 5043
Pages w/Cover Sheet:
18
Date & Time Sent:
Date: 7/6/93
Time Sent:
3:30 p.m.
Sender's
to mr. Vento at his request (drafting perclice).
Comments: Joel, this document was provided
Some of it was included in Public Lands Corps
amendment to national Service act. See (*)
for references to state + local arrangements.
Sender's Name:
Thelma strong
205- 0580.
USDA/Forest Service
P.O. Box 96090
Legislative Affairs Staff
5 SW Auditors
Washington, DC 20090-6090
Telephone: (202) 205-1636
Fax: (202) 205-1225
LA-03 05/92
07/06/93 16:15
FOREST SERVICE --- USDA OPA
5.
002/018
4/28/93
A BILL
To provide for the conservation, rehabilitation, and improvement of natural
and cultural resources located on public or Indian lands, and for other
purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Young American Conservation
Corps Act of 1993".
FINDINGS AND PURPOSE
SEC. 2. (a) FINDINGS. The Congress finds that--
(1) public lands, resources, and facilities, including rangelands,
wildlife refuges, forests, water resources, fishery facilities,
historic and cultural sites, and urban and community resources, have
become subject to increasing public use and resource production
demands;
(2) the condition of many of these lands, resources, and facilities
has deteriorated as a result of these increasing uses and demands and
as a result of the inability of Government agencies to adequately staff
and fund the maintenance necessary to arrest the deterioration;
(3) public land management agencies have a responsibility to assure
that public lands and resources are managed--
(A) to assure continued productivity,
(B) to protect public health and safety, and
(C) to assure their wise and economic conservation,
maintenance, and use;
07/06/93
16:16
FOREST SERVICE
->- USDA OPA
1
003/018
(4) a program designed to systematically guide and enhance the
conservation, rehabilitation, and improvement of our public lands,
resources, and facilities is urgently needed; and
(5) youth conservation programs have proven highly successful and
cost effective in providing training and jobs for unemployed youth and
in assisting land management agencies at all levels of government to
reduce the backlog of neglected public land conservation,
rehabilitation and improvement projects, and to carry out other public
land resource management work.
(b) PURPOSE. It is the purpose of this Act to--
(1) reduce the backlog of conservation, rehabilitation, and
improvement work on the public lands, prevent the further deterioration
of public lands and resources and facilities, conserve energy and
restore and maintain community lands, resources, and facilities;
(2) establish a Young American Conservation Corps to carry out a
program to improve, restore, maintain, and conserve public lands and
resources in the most cost-effective manner;
(3) use such program to assist State and local governments in
*
carrying out needed public land and resource conservation,
rehabilitation, and improvement projects;
(4) provide for implementation of the program in such manner as
will foster conservation and the wise use of natural and cultural
resources through the establishment of working relationships among the
Federal, State, and local governments, Indian tribes, and other public
and private organizations;
(5) use this program by training and other means to increase
employment opportunities for young men and women especially those who
07/06/93 16:16
FOREST SERVICE *** USDA OPA
5.
004/018
are economically, socially, physically, or educationally disadvantaged
and who may not otherwise be productively employed;
(6) provide guidance and job placement information in coordination
with State and local government and the private sector; and
(7) form partnerships between Federal, State, and local government
agencies and the private sector, and private individuals, to provide
matching funds to assist in financing youth conservation programs.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 3. For purposes of this Act:
(1) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Agriculture, except
where otherwise expressly provided.
(2) The terms "public lands" and "publicly owned lands" mean any
lands and waters (or interest therein) administered by the United
States or by any agency or instrumentality of a State or local
government.
(3) The term "program" means the public lands conservation,
rehabilitation, and improvement program established under this Act.
(4) The term "program agency" means any Federal agency or
instrumentality with responsibility for the management of any public or
Indian lands, any State agency designated by the Governor to manage the
program in that State, and the governing body of any Indian tribe.
(5) The term "Indian tribe" means any Indian tribe, band, nation,
or other group which is recognized as an Indian tribe by the
Secretary. Such term also includes any Native village corporation,
regional corporation, and Native group established pursuant to the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
07/06/93 16:16
FOREST SERVICE
---
USDA OPA
5.
005/018
(6) The term "Indian" means a person who is a member of an Indian
tribe.
(7) The term "Indian lands" means any real property owned by an
Indian tribe, any real property held in trust by the United States for
individual Indians or Indian tribes, and any real property held by
individual Indians or Indian tribes which is subject to restrictions on
alienation imposed by the United States.
(8) The term "employment security service" means the agency in each
of the several States with responsibility for the administration of
unemployment and employment programs, and the oversight of local labor
conditions.
(9) The term "chief administrator" means the head of any program
agency as that term is defined in paragraph (4).
(10) The terms "youth" or "participant", used interchangeably in
this Act, mean any individual enrolled in the Young American
Conservation Corps in accordance with Section 5.
(11) The term "State" means any State of the United States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin
Islands, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands.
PUBLIC LANDS CONSERVATION, REHABILITATION,
AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
SEC. 4. (a) ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF PROGRAM.
The Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior and after
consultation with the Secretary of Labor, shall establish and administer a
public lands conservation, rehabilitation, and improvement program to carry
out the purposes of this Act. Under such program, the Secretary shall
07/06/93 16:17
FOREST SERVICE --- USDA OPA
5.
006/018
provide assistance to program agencies for the establishment and operation
of residential and nonresidential Young American Conservation Corps centers
and for the implementation by the Young American Conservation Corps of
projects designed to carry out such purposes.
(b) PROJECTS INCLUDED. The program established under this section may
include, but shall not be limited to, projects such a8--
(1) ecosystem restoration, which includes protection of wetlands,
restoring riparian zones, improving watershed conditions, restoring
fisheries and wildlife habitat, closing roads to reduce soil movement
and sedimentation, cleanup of abandoned mine sites, and treating timber
stands to restore vigor, improve health, and reduce the risk of
damaging insect and disease outbreaks and wildfire;
(2) forest health restoration;
(3) forestry, nursery, and silvicultural operations;
(4) rangeland conservation, rehabilitation, and improvement;
(5) recreation and trail maintenance and improvement, and
construction;
(6) rural and urban revitalization and community service;
(7) historical and cultural site preservation and maintenance;
(8) fish culture, habitat maintenance and improvement, and other
fishery assistance;
(9) road and trail maintenance and improvement;
(10) erosion, flood, drought, and storm damage assistance and
control;
(11) stream, lake, and waterfront harbor and port improvement, and
pollution control;
(12) insect, disease, rodent, and fire prevention, and control;
07/06/93 16:17
FOREST SERVICE -** USDA OPA
1
007/018
(13) improvement of abandoned railroad beds and rights-of-way to
serve as trails;
(14) energy conservation projects and renewable resource
enhancement;
(15) recovery of biomass from public lands, particularly forestry
lands; and
(16) reclamation and improvement of strip-mined lands.
(c) PREFERENCE FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS. The program shall provide a
preference for those projects which--
(1) will provide long-term benefits to the public;
(2) will provide meaningful training and work experience to the
youth involved;
(3) will be labor intensive; and
(4) can be planned and initiated promptly.
*
(d) LIMITATIONS TO PUBLIC LANDS. Projects to be carried out under the
program shall be limited to projects on public lands or Indian lands except
where a project involving other lands will provide a documented public
benefit and where reimbursement will be provided to the program agency for
that portion of the total costs of the program which does not provide a
public benefit. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
reimbursement referred to in the preceding sentence shall be retained by
the program agency and shall be used by the agency for purposes of carrying
out other projects under the program.
(e) CONSISTENCY. The Secretary and the chief administrators of other
program agencies shall assure that projects selected under this Act for
conservation, rehabilitation, or improvement of any public lands are
consistent with the provisions of law relating to the management and
07/06/93 16:17
FOREST SERVICE
---
USDA OPA
5.
008/018
administration of such lands and with all other applicable provisions of
law.
(f) CONSERVATION CENTERS. Each program agency may apply to the
Secretary for approval of conservation centers to carry out projects under
this Act. Conservation centers may be residential or nonresidential. The
location and type of conservation centers shall be selected in such manner
as will increase the enrollment of economically, socially, physically, and
educationally disadvantaged youths, and of youths from areas of high
unemployment, and will promote partnerships among government entities and
the private sector.
(g) LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION. Any State carrying out a program
under this Act shall provide a mechanism under which local governments in
the State may be approved by the State to participate in the program and to
carry out projects in accordance with the requirements of this Act.
(h) AGREEMENTS. Program agencies may enter into contracts and other
appropriate arrangements with State and local government agencies and
private organizations for the management of conservation centers under the
program.
(i) JOINT PROJECTS. The Secretary is authorized to develop jointly
with the Secretary of Labor regulations designed to allow, where
appropriate, joint projects in which activities supported by funds
authorized under this Act are coordinated with activities supported by
funds authorized under employment and training statutes administered by the
Department of Labor (including the Job Training Partnership Act) and by
funds from the private sector. Such regulations shall provide standards
for approval of joint projects which meet both the purposes of this Act and
the purposes of such employment and training statutes under which funds are
available to support the activities proposed for approval. Such
07/06/93 16:18
FOREST SERVICE --- USDA OPA
5.
009/018
regulations shall also establish a single mechanism for approval of joint
projects developed at the State or local level.
ENROLLMENT, FUNDING, AND MANAGEMENT
SEC. 5. (a) ENROLLMENT IN PROGRAM. (1) Enrollment in the Young American
Conservation Corps shall be limited to individuals who, at the time of
enrollment, are--
(A) unemployed;
(B) not less than sixteen or more than twenty-five years of age;
and
(C) citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States or
lawfully admitted alien parolees or refugees.
(2) Except in the case of a program limited to the months of June,
July, and August, individuals who at the time of applying for enrollment
have attained age sixteen but not attained age nineteen, and who are no
longer enrolled in any secondary school shall not be enrolled unless they
give adequate written assurances, under criteria to be established by the
Secretary, that they did not leave school for the express purpose of
enrolling.
(3) The selection of youth to serve in the Young American Conservation
Corps in any conservation center shall be the responsibility of the chief
administrator of the program agency. The youths shall be selected from
those qualified persons who have--
(A) applied to, or been recruited by, the program agency, a State
employment security, an administrative entity under the Job Training
Partnership Act, community or community-based nonprofit organization,
the sponsor of an Indian program, or the sponsor of a migrant or
seasonal farmworker program; and
07/06/93
16:18
FOREST SERVICE
USDA OPA
5.
010/018
(B) been screened for eligibility and referred to the program
agency by the State employment security service.
(4) In the recruitment and selection of youths, special consideration
shall be given to both--
(A) economically, socially, physically, and educationally
disadvantaged youths, and
(B) youths residing in areas, both rural and urban, which have
substantial unemployment.
(5) (A) Except for a program limited to the months of June, July, and
August, any qualified individual selected for enrollment may be enrolled
for a period not to exceed 24 months. When the term of enrollment does not
consist of one continuous 24-month term, the total of shorter terms may not
exceed 24 months.
(B) No individual may remain enrolled in the Young American
Conservation Corps after that individual has attained the age of
twenty-six.
(b) SERVICES, FACILITIES, SUPPLIES, ET CETERA. The program agency
shall provide such quarters, board, medical care, transportation, and other
services, facilities supplies, and equipment as the Secretary deems
necessary for conservation centers. Whenever possible, the Secretary shall
make arrangements with the Secretary of Defense to have such logistical
support provided by a military installation near the proposed center,
including the provision of temporary tent centers where needed,
transportation, and residential supervision. The Secretary shall establish
basic standards of health, nutrition, sanitation, and safety for all
conservation centers, and shall assure that such standards are enforced.
(c) CONSERVATION CENTER MANAGEMENT. The chief administrator of each
conservation center shall have sufficient supervisory staff appointed or
07/06/93 16:18
FOREST SERVICE ->- USDA OPA
1
011/018
arranged through the Secretary of Defense, which may include youths who
have displayed exceptional leadership qualities.
(d) GRANTS AND AGREEMENTS. (1) The Secretary may award grants to, or
enter into agreements with, program agencies for the funding and operation
of conservation centers approved by the Secretary under this Act.
(2) The Secretary shall not make any grant to, or enter into any
agreement with any program agency for the funding of any conservation
center under this Act unless such agency certifies that projects carried
out by the conservation center will not--
(A) result in the displacement of individuals currently employed
(either directly or under contract with any private contractor) by the
program agency concerned (including partial displacement through
reduction of non-overtime hours, wages, or employment benefits);
(B) result in the employment of any individual when any other
person is in a layoff status from the same or substantially equivalent
job within the jurisdiction of the program agency concerned; or
(C) impair existing contracts for services.
(3) Payments under grants under this section may be made in advance or
by way of reimbursement and at such intervals and on such conditions as the
Secretary finds necessary.
(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. There is authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the purpose of carrying out
this act.
FEDERAL EMPLOYEE STATUS
SEC. 6. (a) IN GENERAL. Except as otherwise specifically provided in
the following paragraphs, participants and crew leaders shall not be deemed
07/06/93 16:19
FOREST SERVICE -** USDA OPA
1
012/018
Federal employees and shall not be subject to the provisions of law
relating to Federal employment:
(1) For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and
Title II of the Social Security Act, participants and crew leaders shall be
deemed employees of the United States and any service performed by any
person as a participant shall be deemed to be performed in the employ of
the United States.
(2) For purposes of Subchapter I of Chapter 81 of Title 5, United
States Code, relating to the compensation of Federal employees for work
injuries, participants and crew leaders shall be deemed civil employees of
the United States within the meaning of the term "employee" as defined in
Section 8101 of Title 5, United States Code, and the provisions of that
subchapter shall apply, except--
(A) the term "performance of duty" shall not include any act of a
participant or crew leader while absent from his or her assigned post
of duty, except while participating in an activity authorized by or
under the direction and supervision of the Secretary or the
conservation center supervisory staff (including an activity while on
pass or during travel to or from such post of duty); and
(B) compensation for disability shall not begin to accrue until the
day following the date on which the injured participant's or crew
leader's employment is terminated.
(3) For purposes of Chapter 171 of Title 28, United States Code,
relating to tort claims procedure, participants and crew leaders shall
be deemed employees of the United States within the meaning of the term
employee of the Government" as defined in Section 2671 of Title 28,
United States Code.
07/06/93 16:19
FOREST SERVICE --- USDA OPA
1
013/018
(4) For purposes of Section 5911 of Title 5, United States Code,
relating to allowances for quarters, youths and crew leaders shall be
deemed employees of the United States within the meaning of the term
"employee" as defined in that section.
(b) AMENDMENT OF TITLE 5. Section 8332 (b) of Title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking out "and" at the end of paragraph (11);
(2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (12) and
inserting in lieu thereof "; and"; and
(3) by adding after paragraph (12) the following new paragraph:
"(13) service as a youth or participant or crew leader only if the
youth or participant or crew leader in the Young American Conservation
Corps later becomes subject to this subchapter."
USE OF VOLUNTEERS
SEC. 7. (a) Where any program agency has authority to use volunteer
services in carrying out functions of the agency, such agency may use
volunteer services for purposes of assisting projects related to
conservation centers established under this Act and may expend funds made
available for those purposes. Funds may be used to provide for services or
costs incidental to the utilization of such volunteers, including
transportation, supplies, lodging, subsistence, recruiting, training, and
supervision.
(b) (1) The Secretary may recruit, without regard to the civil service
classification laws, rules or regulations, the services of individuals
contributed without compensation as volunteers for aiding or in
facilitating the activities administered by the Secretary through the
Forest Service.
07/06/93 16:19
FOREST SERVICE +++ USDA OPA
I.
014/018
(2) In accepting such services, the Secretary--
(A) shall not permit the use of volunteers in hazardous duty or law
enforcement work, or in policymaking processes or to displace any
employee, participant, crew leader, or other participant under this
Act; and
(B) may provide for services or costs incidental to the utilization
of volunteers, including transportation, supplies, lodging,
subsistence, recruiting, training, and supervision.
(3) Volunteers under this subsection shall not be deemed employees of
the United States except for the purposes of the tort claims provisions of
Title 28, United States Code, and Subchapter I of Chapter 81 of Title 5,
United States Code, relating to compensation for work injuries.
SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SECRETARY
SEC. 8. (a) PAY. The Secretary shall establish standards for--
(1) rates of pay for youth which shall be not less than the wage
required by section 6 (a) (1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(29 U.S.C. 206 (a) (1)) ;
(2) rates of pay for crew leaders which shall be at a wage
comparable to the compensation in effect for grades GS-3 to GS-7;
(3) reasonable hours and conditions of employment.
(4) post service evaluations performed at intervals as determined
by the Secretary;
(5) a tracking system for program participants at the end of the
program period; and
(6) repayment of school loans through community service or
equivalent work.
07/06/93 16:20
FOREST SERVICE --- USDA OPA
I.
015/018
(b) COORDINATION. The Secretary and the chief administrators of other
program agencies carrying out programs under this Act shall coordinate the
programs with related Federal, State, local, and private activities.
EDUCATION, GUIDANCE, AND PLACEMENT
SEC. 9. (a) ACADEMIC CREDIT. Whenever possible, the Secretary shall
make arrangements for the award of academic credit by educational
institutions and agencies to participants for competencies developed from
work experience under this Act.
(b) STUDY. Program agencies may provide training and educational
materials and services for participants and may enter into arrangements
with academic institutions for academic study by participants during
nonworking hours to upgrade literacy skills, obtain equivalency diplomas or
college degrees, or enhance employable skills. Whenever possible, a
participant seeking study or training not provided at his or her
conservation center shall be offered assignment to a conservation center
providing such study or training.
(c) CERTIFICATION. The program agencies shall provide certification of
the training skills acquired by youths who have participated in the
program.
(d) GUIDANCE AND PLACEMENT. The program agency shall provide such job
guidance and placement information and assistance for youth as may be
necessary. Such assistance shall be provided in coordination with
appropriate State, local, and private agencies and organizations.
(e) POST SERVICE BENEFIT. The program agency shall provide
post-service education and training benefits (such as scholarships and
grants) for each participant in an amount of $100 per month not to exceed
$2,400 for the enrollment period.
07/06/93 16:20
FOREST SERVICE --- USDA OPA
5.
016/018
(f) USE OF POST SERVICE BENEFIT. A post service benefit provided under
Subsection (e) shall only be used for--
(A) payment of a student loan from Federal or non-Federal sources;
or
(B) tuition, room and board, books and fees, and other costs
associated with attendance (pursuant to Section 472 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 108711)) at an institution of higher
education of higher learning on a full-time basis, or to pay the
expenses incurred in the full-time participation in an apprenticeship
program approved by the appropriate State agency.
EVALUATION AND PILOT PROJECTS
SEC. 10. (a) RESEARCH AND EVALUATION. The Secretary shall provide for
research and evaluation to--
(1) determine costs and benefits, tangible and otherwise, of work
performed under this Act and of training and employable skills and other
benefits gained by participants, and
(2) identify options for improving program productivity and youth
benefits.
(b) DEMONSTRATIONS. The Secretary may authorize pilot or experimental
projects to demonstrate or test new or alternative arrangements or subjects
of work and training for programs under this Act, which may include
alternatives identified under Subsection (a) (2).
ANNUAL REPORT
SEC. 11. The Secretary shall prepare and submit to the President and
to the Congress at least once each year a report detailing the activities
carried out under this Act. Such report shall be submitted not later than
07/06/93 16:20
FOREST SERVICE +++ USDA OPA
5.
017/018
March 31 of each year following the date of enactment of this Act. The
report shall describe (1) conservation work procedures, accomplishments and
benefits; (2) the extent to which youth who are economically, socially,
physically or educationally disadvantaged have been enrolled in and
benefited by the program; (3) other youth benefits; (4) problems and
opportunities encountered in carrying out the Act which require attention;
(5) summary of evaluations completed on youth at program end; (6) a
tracking system to determine the status of youth at a given amount of time
after program end. The Secretary shall include in the report such
recommendations as he considers appropriate.
LABOR MARKET INFORMATION
SEC. 12. The Secretary of Labor shall make available to the Secretary
and to any program agency under this Act such labor market information as
is appropriate for use in carrying out the purposes of this Act.
EMPLOYEE APPEAL RIGHTS
SEC. 13. (a) In the case of--
(1) the displacement of a Federal employee or the failure to
reemploy a Federal employee in a layoff status, contrary to a
certification under section 5 (d) (2) (A) or (B) of this Act, or
(2) the displacement of a Federal employee by reason of the use of
one or more volunteers under Section 7 (b) (2) (A) of this Act, such
employee is entitled to appeal such action to the Merit Systems
Protection Board under Section 7701 of Title 5, United States Code.
(b) In the case of--
(1) The displacement of any other individual employed
07/06/93
16:20
FOREST SERVICE ->- USDA OPA
018/018
(either directly or under contract with any private contractor) by a
program agency or grantee, or the failure to reemploy an employee in
layoff status, contrary to a certification under Section 205 (d) (2) (A) or
(B) of this Act, or
(2) the displacement of such individual by reason of the
use of one or more volunteers under Section 7 (b) (2) (A) of this Act, the
requirements contained in Section 144 of the Job Training Partnership
Act (Public Law 97-300) shall apply, and such individual shall be
deemed an interested person for purposes of the application of such
requirements.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term "displacement" includes, but
is not limited to, any partial displacement through reduction of
non-overtime hours, wages, or employment benefits.
EXTRA COPIES OF ATTACHMENTS (FOR POSSIBLE
DISTRIBUTION TO SENATOR BOND AND/OR HIS STAFF)
"Attachment A" Memorandum by USDA Assistant General Counsel Ken
Cohen explaining the legal basis for USDA continuing to sponsor AmeriCorps
projects
"Attachment B" --- Letter from CNS CEO Harris Wofford to Senator Charles
Grassley outlining the importance of USDA AmeriCorps projects, particularly
those in rural America
"Attachment C" --- Description of USDA AmeriCorps projects in Missouri
"Attachment D" --- News clips about USDA AmeriCorps projects in Missouri
"Attachment E" --- Letter from Senator Leahy to Seantor Bond
ATTACHMENT A
United States
Office of the
Washi.
Department of
General
D.C.
Agriculture
Counsel
20250-1400
MAR 27 1996
MEMORANDUM FOR JOEL S. BERG
DIRECTOR
Assistant General Counsel Kemett Eloker
NATIONAL SERVICE
FROM
Kenneth E. Cohen
Research and Operations Division
SUBJECT
Authority of USDA to Administer an AmeriCorps
Program Without a Grant From the Corporation for
National and Community Service
This memorandum is in response to your request for a legal
opinion as to whether the Department of Agriculture ("USDA") has
the authority to administer a national service program in the
absence of a grant from the Corporation for National and
Community Service (the "Corporation") to support the program.
For the reasons expressed below, it is my view (i) that USDA does
have the authority to administer a national service program
without a grant from the Corporation, but (ii) USDA does not have
the authority to bestow upon program participants those benefits
commonly associated with national service programs, i.e., living
allowance, health insurance, child-care, and an educational
award, unless USDA receives some assistance, even non-monetary
assistance, from the Corporation.
The National and Community Service Act of 1990, Pub. L. No.
101-610, 104 Stat. 3129, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 12501 et seq.
(the "Act"), as amended by the National and Community Service
Trust Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-82, 107 Stat. 785, established
the Corporation in order to administer various national service
programs authorized under the Act and under the Domestic
Volunteer Service Act of 1973. 42 U.S.C. § 12651 et seq. Chief
among these programs are the AmeriCorps programs.¹
1 I.e., AmeriCorps National, AmeriCorps State, and
AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps. The term
"AmeriCorps" does not actually appear in the Act, but the
regulations for the Corporation (45 CFR Chapter XXV) define
"AmeriCorps" as "the combination of all AmeriCorps programs and
participants. 45 CFR § 2510.20. The regulations then define an
"AmeriCorps program" as "any program that receives approved
AmeriCorps positions" or "any program that receives Corporation
funds under section 121 of the Act, id.; an "AmeriCorps
participant" is defined as "any individual who is serving in --
(1) An AmeriCorps program; (2) An approved AmeriCorps position;
2
Section 121 of the Act authorized the Corporation to enter
into contracts or cooperative agreements with Federal agencies in
order to provide assistance to the agencies in support of
national service programs. 42 U.S.C. § 12571 (b) (1) This same
section also authorized Federal agencies receiving assistance
from the Corporation to enter into subcontracts and subagreements
with local entities carrying out national service programs to
support those programs. (b) (4). The Act further provided that
national service programs carried out with assistance provided
under Section 121 must provide program participants with specific
benefits, to wit: a living allowance, § 12594 (a) (1) i fully paid
health insurance, (d) (1) i child-care, (e) (1) i and an educational
award, § 12595 (a).
In Fiscal Year 1995, USDA administered an extensive national
service program using assistance, in the form of a grant, that it
had received from the Corporation under Interagency Cooperative
Agreement No. 94ADFDC047, dated October 19, 1994. This agreement
had been entered into by the Corporation and USDA pursuant to
Section 121 of the Act. In administering this program, USDA
provided program participants with the benefits required by
42 U.S.C. §§ 12594 and 12595.
Now, however, USDA faces the possibility that it will not
receive grants from the Corporation to support USDA national
service programs in Fiscal Year 1996 and beyond. Will the
absence of such cash assistance provided under Section 121
preclude USDA from using its appropriations to administer a
national service program and provide program participants with
the benefits required by 42 U.S.C. §§ 12594 and 12595?
The first step in this inquiry is to ascertain what
activities in the area of national service programs the Act
presently authorizes Federal agencies to perform, since, in the
absence of such authority, Federal agencies generally do not have
the authority to provide the above-described benefits that are
required for national service program participants. The Act,
however, does not contain any express or specific grant of
authority to Federal agencies to administer national service
programs. Section 121 of the Act, which is the part of the Act
that most approximates such a specific authority, merely states
that "the Corporation may enter into a contract or cooperative
agreement with another Federal agency to support a national
service program carried out by the agency." The Act, therefore,
only states how the Corporation may assist Federal agencies; in
or (3) Both, " id. An "approved AmeriCorps position" is defined,
in turn, as "an AmeriCorps position for which the Corporation has
approved the provision of an AmeriCorps educational award as one
of the benefits to be provided for successful service in the
position. Id.
3
doing so, it appears simply to assume that Federal agencies may
administer national service programs.
Nevertheless, the Act clearly states that only those
programs that receive assistance under Section 121 are required
to provide the full panoply of national service program
benefits.² 42 U.S.C. §§ 12594 (a) (1) (living allowance) i (d) (1)
(health insurance) i (e) (1) (child care) i § 12595 (a)
(educational award). Thus, if grants are unavailable as
assistance under Section 121, the question becomes whether other
forms of assistance, i.e., non-monetary assistance, may be
available from the Corporation that will trigger the USDA
authority to spend its appropriations on the national service
program benefits.
On this issue, the Act is clear. It mentions several forms
of non-monetary assistance that could be the subject matter of an
agreement between the Corporation and Federal agencies. For
example, the Corporation may provide program assistance, in the
form of planning assistance, operational assistance, or
replication assistance, to entities -- including Federal agencies
(see 42 U.S.C. § 12582 (a)) -- that submit applications for the
planning, establishment, operation, expansion, or relocation of a
national service program. 42 U.S.C. § 12574. The Corporation
also is authorized to provide technical assistance to those
entities, such as Federal agencies, that are described in
Section 121 of the Act. § 12575 (b). Finally, the Corporation
may provide training assistance to support programs already
receiving assistance under Section 121. § 12575 (a). Thus, there
is a cornucopia of non-monetary assistance that the Corporation
may provide to Federal agencies through a cooperative agreement
that would qualify as assistance under Section 121.³ Once a
2
Thus, the Act appears to countenance Federal agencies
establishing a species of national service programs that would
not bestow upon participants the benefits described in §§ 140 and
141 of the Act. For USDA, this is fully consistent with the
Secretary's authority to accept voluntary service. 7 U.S.C.
§ 2272. However, since I understand your inquiry to be whether
USDA may administer a national service program complete with the
benefits described in the Act, I will venture no further down
this legal cul-de-sac.
3 I do not believe, however, that the availability of
educational awards for participants in a national service program
may qualify, in and of itself, as Section 121 assistance since
such awards, by the very terms of the Act, shall be available to
participants in national service programs that are already
42 U.S.C. § 12595 (a) (emphasis added). Thus, to characterize 121.] the
receiving "assistance provided
under
[Section
educational awards as Section 121 assistance would amount to
4
Federal agency receives such assistance from the Corporation, it
may then provide to the participants in its national service
program the benefits required by 42 U.S.C. §§ 12594 and 12595.
Moreover, Section 121 of the Act does not state that the
assistance which Federal agencies receive from the Corporation
must be a grant. Section 121 (b) refers to cooperative
agreements, which envisage substantial involvement on the part of
the cooperators, but does not require the transfer of money.
Further, Section 121 (b) expressly says that the "support
provided by the Corporation pursuant to the contract or
cooperative agreement may include the transfer to the Federal
agency of funds available to the Corporation." 42 U.S.C.
§ 12571 (b) (1). The necessary corollary of this provision is that
such contracts or cooperative agreements may include other forms
of assistance besides funds.
This view of USDA's authority to administer national service
programs in the absence of a grant from the Corporation is shared
by the Corporation itself. Terry Russell, General Counsel for
the Corporation, has opined that:
[T] he National and Community Service Act reflects
Congressional intent to provide authority to Federal
agencies to operate national service programs -- regardless
of whether operational funds are transferred from the
Corporation to the federal agencies.⁴
Mr. Russell's views provide me with additional comfort for my
opinion because, as I indicated to you in an earlier
memorandum,⁵ the Corporation has been charged by Congress with
administering the Act, and courts of review are deferential to
agencies in the agencies' reasonable interpretation of statutes
within their purview. Therefore, courts would be deferential to
the Corporation in its view that the Act authorizes Federal
agencies to operate national service programs without operational
funds from the Corporation.
Therefore, I conclude that USDA has the authority to
administer a national service program, such as an AmeriCorps
program, without a grant from the Corporation, provided that USDA
circular reasoning.
4
Memorandum from Terry Russell to Kenneth E. Cohen,
Assistant General Counsel, Research and Operations Division,
Office of the General Counsel, USDA, at 2 (March 12, 1996).
5
Memorandum from Kenneth E. Cohen to Joel Berg, Deputy
Director, Office of Public Affairs, at 1 (March 11, 1994).
5
enters into an agreement with the Corporation to receive non-
monetary assistance, such as that referred to in 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12574 and 12575.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact Michael F. Kiely of this office at (202) 720-4600.
ATTACHMENT B
September 4, 11
CORPORATION
The Honorable Charles Grassley
FOR NATIONAL
135 Hart Senate Office Building
U.S. Senate
SERVICE
Washington, D. C. 20510-1501
Dear Senator Grassley,
I would like to bring you up to date on our efforts to significantly expand the
use of education award only programs, and propose that we meet to discuss one
particular aspect of this effort.
Following our agreement last spring, we notified all state National Service
Commissions of the education award only opportunity and we have been discussing it
with State Commission Executive Directors around the country, with major non-profit
organizations, and with college and university leaders. We will now very shortly
announce the AmeriCorps Education Awards Program, making up to 5000 education
awards available under this creative initiative. We envision a simplified application
process, greater flexibility for participating programs, and reduced reporting burdens,
as well as dramatically reduced federal costs. We are launching an aggressive outreach
effort to bring this program to the attention of the independent sector, institutions of
higher education, and others. I am enclosing the federal register announcement which
includes program summary information.
The matter I want to discuss with you relates to my wish to ensure that rural
America has a full opportunity to participate in this program. As I believe you are
aware, for the past two years the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has
successfully utilized more than a thousand AmeriCorps Members in local, rural service
programs. These programs evidence remarkable achievements because of their success
in leveraging unpaid community volunteers, and because AmeriCorps Members have
proven their effectiveness in accomplishing important anti-hunger, rural development,
and natural resource management objectives.
As you also know, we have ceased all Corporation program grants to federal
agencies, including USDA. Secretary Glickman, however, hopes to be able to continue
the USDA's service programs using USDA appropriations and voluntary local
contributions - without any grant support from the Corporation for National Service.
1201 New York Avenue. NW
Washington, DC 20525
Telephone 202-606-5000
Getting Things Done.
AmeriCorps National Service
Learn and Serve America
Nanonal Senior Service Corps
20 PAGE
2026064626
SEP-05 96 16:47 FROM:PUB LIAISON
Honorable Charles Grassley
Page two
September 4, 1996
He assures me that these programs will continue to be developed and managed at the
community level to respond to local needs and concerns, and that, with few exceptions,
these efforts involve the active partnership of community-based organizations.
The question is whether our National Service Trust can continue to make
available education awards to assist the education of men and women serving full-time
in these USDA programs. I hope very much that you and Senator Bond will agree that
the continued availability of education awards for participants in these USDA service
programs is appropriate.
Let me give further background. We are statutorily required to emphasize
programs that serve rural areas. In the majority of our rural programming we have
done so through these USDA programs in part because many needy rural
communities do not have a range of non-profit community organizations in a position
to take on the responsibility of developing and managing AmeriCorps programs. If the
USDA is not able to continue its national service efforts, there will be a loss of many
effective rural service programs. Since the education award has been a key part of the
appeal in recruiting service participants, its availability is vital to the continuation of
these programs.
Let me emphasize again that this approach would not involve a grant from the
Corporation -- or any transfer of Corporation funds - to USDA. The USDA service
participants would receive their living allowance from the USDA. We have the
authority to treat such USDA participants as holding national service positions and
therefore being entitled to the $4725 education awards after successfully completing
their service. Like other education award recipients, the participants do not get the
money themselves (nor does it go through USDA). Instead, the money goes from the
National Service Trust to colleges, universities, and vocational schools to pay the
loans. recipient's education costs or to lending institutions to help pay existing education
I understand that Senator Leahy, who was instrumental in the development of
the USDA Anti-Hunger Corps as well as other rural initiatives that have involved
AmeriCorps Members, supports this approach to continuing to meet unmet needs in
too-often neglected rural areas, and I hope you will offer your support as well.
I look forward to the opportunity to meet with you to discuss this further. and I
know Secretary Glickman would be glad to join me to meet with you as well.
80 PAGE
2026064926
SEP-05 96 16:47 FROM:PUB LIAISON
Honorable Charles Grassley
Page three
September 4, 1996
Chuck, thank you again for your leadership in helping to make national service
a program in which all Americans can take pride.
Sincerely,
Aam
Harris Wofford
Chief Executive Office
Enclosure
PAGE : 04
TO:2027204614
2026064926
SEP-05 96 16:47 FROM:PUB LIAISON
ATTACHMENT C
USDA AmeriCorps Projects in Missouri
In Missouri, USDA sponsored 11 full-time AmeriCorps Members last year, sponsored 5 full-
time AmeriCorps Members this year, and is sponsoring five additional AmeriCorps Members
this summer in a special project focused on recovering excess food for distribution to citizens
in need.
Last Year (1994-1995) Program Year
Eleven AmeriCorps Members aided flood recovery work on 53,000 acres of land; provided
conservation education to 1,770 students; helped maintain 27 flood-retarding dams; assisted
95 landowners in assessing herbicide runoff into the water supply; worked with 11 farmers
to develop water management plans; completed flood prevention work on 3,600 acres of
land; and restored 995 acres of wetlands.
This Year (1995-1996) Program Year
Five AmeriCorps Members had performed "Farm-a-Syst" water quality evaluations for over
300 farm families, over 60% of whom adopted all or some of the water quality protection
measures recommended by the AmeriCorps Members. This project has been aided
significantly by the support of the Missouri Farm Bureau, the Missouri Pork Producers
Association, the University Extension Service of Missouri, and the Missouri Department
of Natural Resources. The AmeriCorps Members also provided conservation education to
over 2,000 students and 900 adults, of whom more than 90% later demonstrated improved
knowledge of conservation issues.
This Summer and Fall ("Summer of Gleaning" Initiative)
As part of Secretary Glickman's personal initiative to increase the nation's commitment to
recovering excess food for distribution to hungry citizens, AmeriCorps Members are serving
this summer and fall in a food recovery project in the Kansas City area in partnership with
local organizations. In just the first few weeks of the project, the USDA AmeriCorps
Members recovered over 500 pounds of food, which will provide about 330 meals.
SEP-11-1996 08:54
USDA NRCS MISSOURI SO
573
876 0913
P.02
AmeriCorps Water Quality Project in Mid-Missouri
September 11, 1996
** The USDA - AmeriCorps Water Quality Project in mid-Missouri is one of many projects in
Missouri, and nationwide, within the larger AmeriCorps Program.
** Five USDA - AmeriCorps Members work in Extension Service and Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) office in Boone, Cole, Callaway, Howard, Cooper, and
Moniteau Counties to help rural residents assess water quality protection around their home
and farm (esp. farmsteads) and provide water quality education to students and adults. The
project is sponsored by the NRCS and University of Missouri Extension Service with
additional support from the Mo. Dept. of Natural Resources, Water Pollution Control
Program.
The Mid-Missouri Water Quality Project is co-sponsored by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, University of Missouri Extension Service, and the Missouri
Department of natural Resources. Additional support is provided by the Missouri Farm
Bureau and Missouri Pork Producers Association.
** The USDA - AmeriCorps Members started in October 1995. They assess water quality
concerns using self-guided worksheets from the Farm Program. Farm* Syst was
developed by the Extension Service and NRCS at the national level and modified at the state
level in order to be appropriate for local conditions and problems.
USDA - AmeriCorps members have provided over 7,800 hours of service.
300 farmstead assessments have been performed.
Over 60 percent of assessed farmsteads have installed water quality protection
measures as a result of the AmeriCorps efforts.
Over 2,000 students have received education about water quality concerns, the water
cycle, and other water resource issues. AmeriCorps members have given
lessons to students at schools, 4-H meetings, FFA meetings, scouts, and others.
Over 900 adults have received education about water quality concerns, the water
cycle, and other water resource issues. Presentations and workshops have been
conducted with a number of organizations including Soil & Water Conservation
Districts, Extension Councils, Farm Bureau, and others.
** The current mid-Missouri project will end in September 1996 at which time new members
will be selected and the project will move to another part of the state.
For more information about the USDA - AmeriCorps Water Quality Project in mid-
Missouri contact Ross Braun, NRCS, Parkade Center #250, Columbia, MO 65203,
(573) 876-0912, [email protected] or Bob Broz, University Extension,
Agricultural Engineering Building, Columbia, MO 65211, (573) 882-0085,
[email protected].
QUOTES FROM MISSOURI FARMERS
ABOUT THE USDA AMERICORPS FARM-A-SYST PROJECT
Mark Rothermich - Auxvasse - Because of the Farm-A-Syst program, I have set one priority to
change the place that pesticides are stored and make them more secure. I think the program alerts
you to potential water quality hazards you might not think of.
Gary Linnebringer - Hatton - I became aware that I should have my fuel storage farther from the
barn and garage. I already recycle my used oil through the automatic chain oiler on my New
Holland baler.
Mary Woods - Auxvasse - I became aware that my new sewer system, installed three years ago
will have to be improved and brought up to specifications if I have a problem. I did attend a
demonstration well filling and have filled my old cistern, but I became aware that I might be able
to get funds through the FSA to fill my deep well.
Carolyn Retter Adams - Auxvasse - I learned my lagoon was installed correctly and that I might
be able to secure FSA financing to finish closing a cistern near the old house that was torn down.
Being on County water further insures that I have good quality water.
Ray Rothermich - Auxvasse - The Farm-A-Syst reminded me once again that my fuel tanks were
too close to my buildings and that I need to provide more controlled storage of my fertilizer and
pesticides.
Phillip Martin - Centralia - I have a small daughter who's health is very important to me. The
Farm-A-Syst made me realize that things that I saw every day and never thought about could be
potential health hazards to my family.
Frank and John Glen - Columbia - We try to keep things looking good and take farm life very
seriously. We are on a county water district but went through the Farm-A-Syst to see if we
could improve our farm management on possible pollution hazards. The Farm-A-Syst has helped
us decide which management practices need to be changed to insure land property values aren't
hurt and that we are good stewards of the land.
Updated 9/13/96
MISSOURI "SUMMER OF GLEANING" AMERICORPS PROJECT
The USDA AmeriCorps Summer of Gleaning project in Missouri started later than other
Summer of Gleaning projects and has thus been in operation only a few weeks. However, in that
short time, three AmeriCorps Members have already led volunteer efforts that gleaned 500
pounds of apples, which were distributed to citizens in need by the non-profit group Harvesters.
Non-compensated volunteers recruited by AmeriCorps are scheduled to help glean at least 500
pounds of pears this coming Saturday. Volunteers have been personal friends and acquaintances
of the AmeriCorps Members, as well as students from St. Teresa's Academy and members of the
local Girl Scout council.
The project will also focus on rescuing perishable prepared food.
The number of partners for this project is already impressive. Both the pears and apples were
donated by private orchard owners. Project partners include:
Harvesters, the local Food Chain affiliate in Kansas City
Elite Catering Service, which will donate its extra foods directly to
Renaissance West a drug treatment center for women and their children
which has lost a significant portion of its regular funding and is going to be able
to feed its patients and children largely because of this project
ConStar Plastics (a container company)
Black Archives of Mid-America
Harrisonville City Market
University Extension Service of Missouri
ATTACHMENT D
MERICORP CREMIO
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
AmeriCorps/USDA
in the news
Print Media Coverage From Missouri
NEWS
Volunteer offers to assist farmers after the flood
By Temmy Tucker
Staff writer
service. She is one of 12 AmeriCorps volunteers In Missouri who are
doing work for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
After the Noodwaters recede, St. Charles County farmers will con-
McCracken said that once the Noodwaters recede, she would be
St. Charles Journal
centrate on pulling their lives back together. And they may get some
busy helping farmers so that they can salvage what they can from
help with assessing damage and completing paperwork.
this year's crops.
St. Charles, Missour
Trish McCracken, an AmeriCorps volunteer in St. Charles County,
"I'm going to be helping them past the red tape," she said. "I'll do
will be available to help Nood-stricken farmers complete those tasks.
their paperwork, visual exams, and anything else that is required.
AmeriCorps is the national version of the Peace Corps under Presi-
It's my job to help the public."
June 14, 1995
dent Clinton's domestic plan.
But, she said, "We can't do anything until the water goes down. I
McCracken, who works out of the Soif and Water Conservation
don't know yet what kind of assistance would be available."
District office in St. Charles County, is one of many volunteers
McCracken said no special criteria exist for the farniers to seek
around the country setting up programs and performing community
her assistance.
"Hopefully, they can try and gel their crops out at the last minute
or worry about other farm land they might, have," McCracken said.
"They [leed to tel on Hth in uves, BANKS *Man worrying about the
flood."
Page 2A Sunday, June 1, 1995-JOURNAL
NEWS
U.S. Ag secretary assures farmers of flood assistance
By Tammy Tucker
Staff writer
Gllckman said the first goal of
raising of levees.
man's visil would result In bes-
the federal govert nent must be
"I don't know enough about
to help farmers gel through this
ter protection for the county's
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture
levees to know what exactly
floodplains.
Dan Glickman visited Defiance
year. The second, long-term goal
goes into It," Glickman said. "I
Friday to assure flood victims
would be to raise levees in flood-
"We can only hope for a more
do know that taxpayers' dollars
coherent plan to raise the levees
that the federal government has
plain areas.
are going out to pay for assis-
However, Glickman cautioned
to allow for protection where the
not forgotten about them.
lance. There's a lot of revenue
Glickman discussed the recent
that achievement of that goal
bottomlands are heavily
used to pay for disasters when
farmed," Ortwerth said. "Even
flooding situation with local
depends on various facto 'S.
they occur.
a moderate raise in the level of
farmers, AmeriCorps volunteers
"Some things get dm more
Ortwerth said he was
the levees would be better
from around the state and Coun-
easily than others," Chickman
"extremely impressed" by
As Glickman looked at the
ty Executive Joe Ortwerth.
said. "One problem that
Glickman's commitment to help
Ortwerth told Glickman that
nobody is truly in charge, though
floodwaters surrounding the
farmers stricken by the flood.
Kaly Trail, he expressed amaze-
about 43 percent of St. Charles
the Corps (of Engineers) Is prob.
"We have continued to be dis-
inent.
County lies In a Cloodplain. Much
ably more in charge than anyone
mayed by the efforts of the fed-
"This vast area of water
of the land in the Goodplain is
else."
eral government to help the
shocks me," Glickman said.
farmed.
Glickman said the Department
flooded areas," Ortwerth said.
of Agriculture needs to look al
"The scope of the water brings
Two of the past three years
"But It's clear that he (Glick-
home the scope of this disaster.
have been tough ones for farm-
the value of the land and Its pro-
man) is acutely aware of the
But we will do our best to gel
ers because of flooding.
duction before committing to
losses here in the county."
the farmers through this flood."
any kind of financing for the
Ortwerth said he hoped Glick-
John Frese photo
County Executive Joe Ortwerth (left) accompanies U.S. Secretary
of Agriculture Dan Clickman on a visit to Defiance Friday to
discuss federal assistance for flood-weary farmers.
Fulton Sun Gazette
Fulton, Missouri
March 24, 1996
Program can help rural residents
determine: Is your drinking water safe?
A voluntary and confidential
pleted, recommendations are
Richardson has been assigned to
program called the Farmstead
made for any activity that
the Callaway County Extension
Assessment System can help
showed a high-risk potential for
office to work in Callaway,
farmers and rural residents de-
groundwater contamination. The
Audrain and Osage counties. So
termine how safe their drinking
assessment only takes one hour
far, Tara has worked with 35 ru-
water is. The Farm *A* Syst, as
and can be beneficial even to
ral residents in performing
it is more commonly known, is a
those who no longer use well
Farm *A* Systs. She is hoping
tool that can be used to assess
water.
to do a total of 80 Farm *A*
the possibility of groundwater
Here in Missouri we have five
Systs before the end of August.
contamination.
AmeriCorps members who are
For more information, contact
The Farm *A* Syst is made
assisting rural residents in com-
the Callaway County extension
up of seven worksheets that look
pleting the Farm *A* Systs. Tara
office at 573-642-0755.
at drinking water well condition;
pesticide, fertilizer and petro-
leum storage; household waste-
water management; hazardous
waste management; and animal
manure management. It also
looks at the soil type present at
the farmstead.
After the worksheets are com-
THE WENTZVILLE JOURNAL
WENTZVILLE, MISSOURI
SEPTEMBER 3, 1995
Roy Sykes photo
Trish McCracken, an AmeriCorps volunteer, looking at a ruptured levee off Dwiggins Road.
The levee is in the North County Levee District.
A working education
AmeriCorps program repays volunteers with knowledge
By Laura Bradford
Correspondent
Each AmeriCorps member embarks on a com-
ith the help of the Clinton adminis-
munity service project for a predetermined
W
tration and her own hard work, the
number of hours and is given a small living
past 10 months have earned Trish
allowance. Once a volunteer completes the term
McCracken "money" toward her
of service, he or she receives an education
education.
voucher, which must be used within seven
The St. Peters woman just completed her
years. The voucher, which is not redeemable for
term as an AmeriCorps volunteer. The domestic
cash, may be applied toward obtaining a college
Peace Corps program - introduced by Presi-
education or a master's degree or paying off
dent Bill Clinton - rewards its members for
student loans.
heir service with an education.
McCracken's 1,700 hours of service earned her
AmeriCorps volunteers can be found working
a $4,700 voucher, which she plans to use to pay
with various federal agencies, public school dis-
off her student loans. She has a bachelor's
tricts and organizations such as the Multiple
degree in biology from Lindenwood College; she
Sclerosis Society. McCracken served her time
also has a teaching certificate in secondary edu-
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. work-
cation.
ng out of an office in St. Charles County
See EDUCATION, Page 2A
MANEATER
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI
SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
AmeriCorps enters second year of service
BRAD CRAWFORD
off their second year of national service next
Include Anheuser-Busch, Hallmark. and
the struggle for power between Clinton
Reporter
month in a Joint Kansas-Missouri ceremony
Sprint. Businesses nationwide view the pro-
the Republican Congress. Bond has
The Oct. 12 celebration at Kansas City Con-
gram as a wise Investment.
gested he might support Ameri Corps as
For Chris Fulcher, an MU graduate stu-
vention Center will Include swearing In new
"It's clearly a program with a lot of sup-
of a deal to get a bill signed.
dent, AmeriCorps was the perfect way to
members and a ceremony commemorating
port across the country. It's hard to get past
"It seems AmeriCorps is being used as
follow up his Peace Corps experience.
the first year of President Bill Clinton's na-
the financial end of it, but the money Is com-
bargaining chip for Republicans to gain I
Pulcher, a graduate student at the Uni-
tional service program. The convention will
ing back to the communities," Schad said.
verage in budget negotiations," said M
versity of Missouri-Columbia in the agricul
mark the end of service for 12 of mid-
"For every dollar invested, they see a $1.60-
College Democrate adviser Vale:
tural economics department is an expert on
Missouri's members from last year.
$2.60 return."
Heitshusen.
Geographic Information Systems. Fulcher
AmeriCorps programs In Missouri are
The program's future looks less bright in
Republicans supported Ameri Corps ear
employed GIS, a tool for conducting spatial
managed by the lieutenarit governor office
Washington. A Senate subcommittee headed
on, but that changed.
analysis, to aid flood recovery decisions in
and Program Director Steve Schad. He over-
by Christopher Bond, R-Mo., voted last week
"I agree that public service is an Imp<
St. Charles County near St. Louis.
sees eight programs statewide with more
to defund the program. Bond's press secre-
tant value to instill in our young people, (bi
"My goal has been to take this high-tech
than 400 members
tary, Catherine Kaliniak, defended the
I do not believe this program represents
information and bring it to the local level.
"I haven't met an AmeriCorps member
senator's position on AmeriCorps.
type of program the federal government
This is a major undertaking, Pulcher said.
yetwho hasn't tsaid that it was a critical trans-
"Senator Bond had to make a series of
afford to continue," Congressman Jam
As part of being a consultant for GIS, formation In their life," Schad said. "It cre-
tough choices on program funding. Com-
Talent, R-Chesterfield, said in a press
Fulcher gave talks to St. Charles', city and ates an ethic of service that carries on
munity development block grants were a
lease. "Although the Initial concept
county officials on using GI8 to ahalyze wa-
throughout their lives."
higher priority than AmeriCorps," Kaliniak
AmeriCorps may have been noble, this pi
tersheds and evaluate flood areas.
Missouri's AmeriCorps program is
said.
gram has become a system of Pª
Missouri AmeriCords members will kick
strengthened by corporate partnerships that
The program has now become a sign of
'volunteerlsm' for political causes."
Missouri
RURALIST
1007 North College Avenue, Columbia, Mo. 65201
314-875-5445
A test you can't fail
Confidential assessments of risks to
your farm's water quality
BY STEVE FAIRCHILD
trates on potential problems on
cides? The hazardous waste
the farmstead - petroleum
worksheet looks at disposal of
A
voluntary program
and pesticide storage, manure
cleaners. solvents and other
called Farm-A-Syst is
management, and others.
possible contaminants.
bringing rural water
A Farm-A-Syst evaluation
Farm-A-Syst is a national
sources and manage-
is no more than a series of 10
effort. but each state has a dif-
ment of possible pollutants
worksheets. The worksheets
ferent approach. Missouri's is
into the spotlight. The program
use a ranking system for risks.
unique because it is one of the
critiques how farmstead prac-
The pesticide storage and han-
few that uses AmeriCorps vol-
tices might affect ground water
dling worksheet, for example.
unteers to deliver the program.
and is reminding farmers that
catalogs what is good and bad
AmeriCorps is a program
they have some control in the
on the farmstead: how much
championed by President
purity of their water.
pesticide is stored on the farm?
Clinton that aims to resemble
Farm-A-Syst, an extended
Is downslope from the well?
a Peace Corps here at home.
acronym for Farmstead Assess-
Are pesticides stored on imper-
Volunteers in AmeriCorps re-
ment System, doesn't scruti-
meable surfaces? Is there an
ceive a living allowance and
nize field crop practices. In-
anti-backflow device for the
a stipend to be applied to-
stead. the program concen-
waterline used to mix pesti-
ward education.
David
Myers.
the
AmeriCorps Volunteer sta-
tioned in Boone County, says
much of what he finds during
his farm assessments is easily
corrected.
"After you've been on the
farm a long time. working ev-
ery day. you get busy and just
don't think of some of these
things. This way, we can leave
it in writing and the farmers
can look at the package when-
ever they want to."
Before going on a farm visit,
Myers does some background
work. checking the farm's soil
types at the National Resources
Conservation Service. During
the farm visit. he likes to spend
20 minutes walking the farm-
stead with the owner. Myers and
the farmer fill out the
worksheets together. Myers ada-
mantly points out that no one
but he and the farmer see the
finished assessment.
As farmers show they are
concerned about the environ-
ment. we'll probably see more
programs like Farm-A-Syst.
Because it's voluntary and con-
fidential. it could be a good
way to make sure a farm is able
to continue to meet regulatory
requirements.
Farmers interested in par-
ticipating in Farm-A-Syst
should contact their local ex-
tension agent or the State Wa-
ter Quality Extension office at
David Mvers. AmeriCores volunteer in Boone County.
The Tipton Times, Thursday. May 2. 1996. Page 8
Tipton, Missouri
School
STAT
WILL
Course of molecules
Jeanne Engelmeyer helps some fifth and sixth graders trace the route of a water molecule in a game at the Tipton
Elementary School gym last Thursday Engelmeyer. who represents Cooper County. and other AmeriCorp members
David Myers. Boone County, and Tara Richardson, Callaway County, presented the program to the students so they
can better understand the importance et water quality
ST. CHARLES POST
ST. CHARLES, MISSOURI
MAY 26, 1995
ST. CHARLES COUNTY
5th-Graders To Join Natural Resources Festival
More than 450 fifth-graders from
als from such agencies as the Soil and
Bird Sanctuary.
St. Charles County will participate in
Water District, the Missouri Depart-
"This is a wonder(u) opportunity
a Natural Resources Festival May 3
ment of Conservation, the National
for students in our community to
at the Busch Memorial Conservation
Weather Service, the Natural Re-
spend a day outside, get their hands
Area.
sources Conservation Service, St.
dirty and expand their knowledge of
The festival will teach pupils about
Louis Science Center, U.S. Army
natural resources," said Coordinator
conservation of natural resources.
Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish &
Trish McCraken. She added, "We
Students will touch and compare ani-
Wildlife Service, University Exten-
have 400 students on a waiting list
mal coverings, such as skin, scales
sion and other conservation partners.
now, so I hope the success of this
and feathers. They'll learn how ler-
Other presenters include students
festival will lead to many more festi-
races and waterways keep soil in
from Francis Howell High School's
vals in the years to come."
place as they become make-believe
stream team and SAFE (Students
The (estival is a pikit event and
raindrops and travel down a slope.
Acting (or the Environment), Recy-
They'll walk through a prairie to see
community service project coordinat-
de Round-Up, Wild Canid Survival
how prairie restoration can help
ed by McCracken, an AmeriCorps
and Research Center and the World
member.
wikllife.
They'll take part in such activities
as "Soil Spies," "Animal Wrappers"
and "Speed Bumps."
The St. Charles Soil & Water Con-
servation District and the Missouri
Department of Conservation are
sponsoring the event.
Dan Crigler, a wildlife manage-
ment biologist for the Conservation
Department, said, "The Busch Area
is the ideal place to hold this type of
event because we've set up examples
of land-management techniques that
conserve our natural resources. We
are anxious to share our knowledge
and foster proper land stewardship
for future generations."
Sessions will be led by profession-
ST.LOUIS/REGION
SECTION
B
SATURDAY, JUNE 10, 1995
Agriculture
Secretary Backs
Flood Control
Glickman Tours River Bottoms,
Promises U.S. Help For Farmers
By Tim O'Neil
along the Missouri River should be
Of the Post-Dispatch Staff
built higher. But he said govérnment
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan
agencies, including his own, should
Glickman toured flooded Missouri
talk about revising the Army Corps of
River bottoms Friday. promised fed-
Engineers' way of calculating how
eral help for farmers and said he'd
much money should be &pent ?on
like to see more flood control for the
levees.
fertile flatlands.
The corps bases the amounts It will
"I'm not one of those people who
spend on a levee according to the
want this land to go back to nature,"
value it assigns to the properties be-
said Glickman, as he visited Defiance
ing protected. Generally, the higher
in St. Charles County.
the value, the higher the levee. Agri-
"This is some of the best agricul-
cultural levee districts must pay a
Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman (center) talks Friday with Joe Simpson while touring a flooded farm near Defiance, Mo.
Kevin Manning/Post-Dispat
tural land in the country. The govern-
share of construction and repair
Simpson is a member of the Clinton administration's public-service program called Americorps.
ment will pay out way more in disas-
costs.
Missouri topped or broke most of the
breaks to farmers whose operations
ter [payments] than the cost of fixing
The big Corps of Engineers levees
on both sides to repeat the news to
levees along its banks.
More time for farmers to 111.
levees.'
were damaged by floods and flash
along the Mississippi River below St.
about 10 St. Charles County farmers.
Glickman's main job Friday was to
Glickman said he didn't know
floods this spring. He met with farm-
notice of cTop loss for insurance
Louis are higher than the agricultural
"I can't promise the moon. but
tell Missouri farmers that the U.S.
enough about the federal levee pro-
ets in Montgomery City and then
levees along the Missouri. The Mis-
we'll make things as flexible as we
claims.
Department of Agriculture is offer-
gram to say whether farm levees
went to Defiance, where he walked
can," he said.
Price-support loans for Hooded
sissippi levees held this year, but the
ing special assistance and financial
down a gravel road with floodwater
His announcement includes:
See GLICKMAN, Page
Glickman
several other farmers there had
planted their corn before the flood
came. The crop was ruined. If the
From page one
river drops and the weather gets dri-
er, they still have time to plant soy-
crops that weren't planted in that
beans this summer, he said.
program.
Layton Rehmeier, another farmer
$25 million for flood repairs in
near Defiance, told Glickman that
seven states, with most of that going
this flood probably didn't damage the
to people in Missouri and Louisiana.
land like the 1993 flood did. "But you
At Defiance, the flood broke
don't look for this mess two years
through the Darst Bottom levee
after '93," Rehmeier said.
three weeks ago and covered the
Glickman also used the visit as an
fields almost to the Katy Trail. By
opportunity to promote Americorps,
Friday, with the Missouri down 6½
the public-service program dear to
feet since the crest May 21, water
President Bill Clinton that many Re-
still covered most of the bottoms.
publicans on Capitol Hill want to kill.
Where the water had receded. the
Glickman posed in the road for pic-
soil was thick gumbo mud.
tures with about 15 Americorps
Don Howell, president of the Darst
Bottom Levee Board, said he and
workers, including a group from East
St Louis
epartment of Agriculture when he found out about
neriCorps, the new national service program.
The national program enables him to earn a living
pend for about 10 months' work as well as $4,725
tuition or loan payments. Plus, he said, it will give
n an edge in case a full-time job becomes avail-
le.
'It's a good deal," said Gillmore, 31, a father of two
Is who became an AmeriCorps worker in October.
As an animal sciences graduate from the Univer-
y of Missouri-Columbia, Gillmore said the educa-
n award will help repay his loans. He also is
nsidering graduate school.
Gillmore works in Cole, Callaway and Osage coun-
S with the Natural Resources Conservation Ser-
e, formerly called the Soil Conservation Service.
More than a dozen AmeriCorps members work
AmeriCorps worker Ed Gillmore, left, examines a possible wetlands area on the property of Cletus "Jake" Schellmar
AmeriCorps
center, at Cole Junction. With them is wildlife biologist Reggie Bennett.
Julie Smith/Nows Tribu
From page one
Although the office didn't have
with the service throughout Mis-
souri. Other AmeriCorps members
much time to prepare for having
an AmeriCorps member, the staff
scheduled to work in Mid-Mis.
quickly found a place for the new
nclude two people who will con-
worker.
luct pesticide safety training
hrough Rural Missouri Inc.,
"It wasn't like we had to scram-
NEWS TRIBUNE
based in Jefferson City.
ble," Van De Velde said.
As an AmeriCorps worker, Gill-
Gillmore's position with Ameri-
JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI
more helps farmers develop ways
Corps enables him to work with
NOVEMBER 31, 1995
0 reduce soil and land erosion,
producers across a variety of land-
ncrease crop yields and protect
scapes in his three-county area.
water supplies.
Earlier this week, he visited.
"Our main goal is to conserve
farmer Cletus "Jake" Schellman
our natural resources," he said.
in the Cole Junction bottom along
On a given day, he may help a
with a wildlife biologist and an-
producer develop a crop rotation
other worker at the district office.
Callaway Courier
American Youth Foundation in St.
rials to help students complet
Holts Summit, Missouri
Louis. She spends five days a week
homework. For instance. one bo
mentoring elementary students and,
needed to keep a journal on a pet fc
June 5, 1996
among other things, teaching them
science class. His apartment com
to steer clear of drugs.
plex didn't allow animals. so for tw
The foundation has two federal
weeks Burke carried her son's whit
AmeriCorps members
grants totaling more than $1 million.
mouse to the center for the boy
In 18 months. members have per-
observe.
formed 230,000 hours of service that
Kris Frank of Holts Summit saw
help make life easier
otherwise might not have been done.
her 14-year-old son. Joseph. ha
said Bruce Bailey, a program direc-
improved his reading and mad
tor.
grades since going to the centers.
ST. LOUIS (AP) - Amy Gron-
ly, we are in times of very tight
"To us, this is very much like a
"He was falling behind to the poin
war." he said. "We believe that what
where he was going to have to
quist was so intent on hanging up a.
money. We have higher priorities
kindergartner's hand-drawn poster
than funding volunteers."
we are doing in inner cities is every
repeat this year." she said. "Now
bit as valuable as the work the sol-
he's up to where he should be."
declaring the neighborhood "drug
Clinton - who set up AmeriCorps
free" that she didn't even notice the
diers involved in the peacekeeping
Burke, 36, said she considered
in 1993 - stood firm, saying he
symbolism at first.
mission in Bosnia are doing."
wouldn't back a budget that didn't
dropping out of Lincoln University
At the left was a picture of Martin
include money for his pet program.
Bailey said members have taught
where she's majoring in education
conflict-resolution to 1,600 middle
Luther King Jr.: at the right was a
because of money. AmeriCorps
A number of corporate chiefs,
school youths. They have walked
allowed her to continue her studies
framed copy of his famous "I Have
including Anheuser-Busch's August
beats with police to make 700 senior
she said.
a Dream" speech.
A. Busch III, also wrote to lawmak-
citizens feel safer in their neighbor-
"In my mind. it's the perfect solt:
Gronquist. too. has a dream. She
ers in hopes of saving AmeriCorps
hoods. They spent more than 1,800
tion," Burke said. "I get to continue
longs for the day when children like
from the GOP budget scalpel. By
hours sandbagging when the Missis-
my education, I get to help others
those at Hamilton Elementary
law. nongovernment sources, usual-
sippi River flooded last year.
and I get experience in my fieid."
School in St. Louis don't have to
ly businesses, must pay at least 25
After the April 1995 bombing of
Michelle Johnson Harvey, a 35-
make posters to warn drug-peddling
percent of operational costs and 15
the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Build-
year-old single mother of two who is
thugs to stay away.
percent of each member's stipend.
ing, and before the Federal Emer-
studying education at Penn Valley
Gronquist. 23, is working to make
"AmeriCorps plays a key role in
gency Management Agency request-
Community College, credits Ameri-
that dream a reality as a member of
developing our nation's future work
ed their help, AmeriCorps members
Corps with turning around her life
President Clinton's national service
force. providing practical skills and
from St. Louis arrived in Oklahoma.
and her Blue Hills neighborhood in
program. AmeriCorps.
educational opportunities that will
They helped distribute donated
Kansas City.
AmeriCorps pays its 20,000 mem-
be essential to America's competi-
clothing and food pouring in from
Harvey works hand in hand with
bers - including more than 400 in
tiveness in the marketplace," Busch
across the country.
police and other community workers
Missouri - a $7,945 stipend and a
wrote.
"The team effort truly showed
to fight crime and drugs, tutor stu-
$4,725 education award in return for
Marilyn Hoffman, director of Suc-
what young Americans can do when
dents and other things. AmeriCorps
a year's service in one of four areas:
cess Centers at Lincoln University,
given the chance to participate in a
members have given police informa-
education. health and human needs,
which has established tutoring cen-
meaningful way," FEMA Director
tion that has led to the closing of 25
the environment and public safety.
ters in three low-income neighbor-
James Lee Witt said in a letter to
crack houses, Officer John Wilson
There are 15 AmeriCorps projects
hoods in Jefferson City through an
members.
said.
under way in Missouri. Members do
AmeriCorps grant, waves off com-
everything from tutor at-risk youths
plaints about the costs.
But not everyone praises the pro-
Harvey goes door to door. encour-
gram. It has run into trouble on
aging residents to take back their
in Cape Girardeau to pick up trash in
"Our program is funded through a
Capitol Hill, where some Republi-
neighborhood.
St. Joseph neighborhoods to test
$110,000 grant and will impact sev-
cans complain about its $470 mil-
water quality in Columbia.
eral hundred students." she said. "If
"I was tired of seeing all the crime
lion price tag. At one point, both the
we can keep five kids from going to
that was going on in our neighbor-
"I wanted to do something for
GOP-led House and Senate had
other people." Gronquist said. "The
prison, than we've more than earned
hood." Harvey said. As for how
our keep."
sliced it out of next year's budget.
AmeriCorps has changed her life.
program is based on the idea that if
"Undoubtedly, there are some
she said: "I wanted to set an exam-
you have a common goal and work
Indeed. state prison officials esti-
together. you can make a difference.
mate it costs $10,285 a year to house
areas where it has done some good,"
ple for
daughters. To show them
said Sen. Christopher S. Bond, R-
that
an believe in their com-
I like that."
one ininate.
Mo., chairman of a Senate Appropri-
mun.
d that they can make a
Gronquist.
who
is
from
AmeriCorps member Debbie
ations subcommittee. "Unfortunate-
difference."
Jamestown. N.Y.: is assigned to the
Burke said she often supplies mate-
AREA
Missiourian Weekly
Boone County, Missouri
December 6, 1995
Program assesses water quality
By LARA HEARNBURG
lution risks and plan how to deal
the program is just to get informa-
Staff writer
with them. The site evaluation is
tion out to people."
confidential, voluntary and free if it
All of the Americorp team mem-
People know contaminated water
is completed by Meyers or another
bers stressed that the information
can make you sick. But what most
member of the Americorp Rural
they gather is given to the
people don't know is how safe their
Development Team for mid-Mis-
landowner to keep.
water is. And what some don't
souri.
Meyers said the services are
know, too, is that if you have a well,
Team member Tara Richardson
available to all farmers and
you are responsible for your own
said the land and water evaluation
landowners who have their own
drinking-water quality.
can help landowners protect their
drinking-water source. He also said
At a recent meeting at the Boone
family's health, the groundwater
landowners who have old well
County University Extension Cen-
quality and the value of the land.
facilities on their property might
ter, David Meyers of the Americorp
The evaluation also can help
not be aware of how it can-affect
Rural Development Team for mid-
landowners learn about state laws
their drinking water.
Missouri presented the Americorp
and regulations governing chemi-
Any landowner who is interested
Farm-A-Syst action program for
cal and fuel storage, waste manage-
in an evaluation or has any ques-
safe drinking water in mid-Mis-
ment and well maintenance. Mey-
tions about the program can con-
souri. Between now and September
ers said that often during
tact Meyers at the Boone County
1996, Meyers will help more than
assessments, landowners will see
University Extension Center at
100 Boone County landowners
laws they didn't even know existed.
(314) 445-9792.
assess the quality of their drinking
"If there's a problem," Meyers
water.
said, "nobody is going to run and
"The program provides accurate
tell teacher. Instead, you have a
first-hand information about how
chance to fix it."
your farmstead buildings and activ-
All evaluations include sugges-
ities, such as pesticide storage, fuel
tions for both immediate action and
storage and livestock activities,
future plans. The assessments also
might affect your drinking water,"
let landowners know of any cost-
Meyers said.
share programs that might be avail-
The federal program provides
able to help them.
individual site evaluations to help
Another team member, Audrey
landowners identify potential pol-
Harmon, said, "The biggest goal of
Boonville Daily News
Boonville, Missouri
November 2, 1995
Program offers ground water checks - and community service
By Tiffany Eckert
And educational presentations
Cooper County will be the benefi-
Staff Writer
and water quality publications from
ciaries.
It is supposed to be clear and
the University of Missouri will
Engelmeyer was just one of thou-
refreshing as it pours into the glass,
make information on water quality
OFFICE
sands of people who have joined
but in some cases, it is full of
and conservation more understand-
AmeriCorp. It all began in
harmful bacteria. What is this sub-
able.
September 1993, when Bill
stance? It is the water in your cup.
"I've lived on an 80-acre farm all
Clinton signed the National
But thanks to a former Tipton res-
my life," Engelmeyer said. "I love
Community Service Trust Act.
ident and a national community
farming and I love working with
This initiative was designed in the
service program initiated under
farmers."
spirit Franklin Roosevelt's 1930's
President Bill Clinton, landowners
Engelmeyer said she hopes farm-
social programs which provided
in Cooper County now have a way
ers and landowners will utilize the
jobs for displaced Americans dur-
to test their ground water in search
services made available through
ing the Depression.
of dangerous microbes and haz-
this program.
Today, AmeriCorp seeks to bene-
ardous pollutants.
"AmeriCorp is here to bring com-
fit young Americans who might not
Jeane Engelmeyer, a fourth year
munities together," Engelmeyer
otherwise find a productive way to
agri-business student at State Fair
said. "The goal is to make every
serve their community.
Community College, has begun her
rural community a little stronger."
Participants give their time and
first stint as an AmeriCorp member
It was during her last year at col-
resources in exchange for a limited
by setting up a water quality
lege in Sedalia that Engelmeyer
wage, then receive a post service
assessment program called FARM-
made two important discoveries.
educational award of $4,725 after a
A-SYST. Engelmeyer will be
Through her studies, she learned
full year of service.
working out of the University
how many environmental and edu-
A meeting to discuss what ser-
Extension office in the Cooper
cational needs rural communities
vices are available through
County Courthouse.
have. At the same time, she real-
AmeriCorp will be held at 7:30
The primary function of FARM-
ized her tuition costs were starting
p.m. Thursday, Nov. 16, on the first
A-SYST is to make sure drinking
to bear down on her.
floor of the Cooper County court-
water is safe and clean by testing
There was one clear solution as
house. Engelmeyer will discuss the
ground water for bacteria, micro-
she saw it: join the Americorp
benefits of FARM-A-SYST as well
organisms and pollution,
Program.
as how a water quality assessment
Engelmeyer said.
She did, and now the people of
can be arranged.
VERMONT
COMMITTEES
AGRICULTURE. NUTRITION. AND
FORESTRY
APPROPRIATIONS
Hnited States Senate
JUDICIARY
WASHINGTON, DC 20810-4502
ATTACHMENT E
April 5, 1996
The Honorable Kit Bond
Chairman
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies
Senate Committee on Appropriations
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Kit,
I am writing to clarify my understanding of the ability of federal agencies to sponsor AmeriCorps
projects once the Corporation for National Service ceases providing direct grants of operating
funds to such agencies.
[ am most concerned about the future of the AmeriCorps program sponsored by the Department
of Agriculture (USDA). In Vermont, the USDA sponsors an Anti-Hunger Team, a Rural
Development Team and a Public Lands and Environment Team that have received bipartisan
support throughout the state. I understand that the USDA also has well-functioning AmeriCorps
projects in over 40 other states, including Missouri. In many of these states, the USDA provides
virtually the only AmeriCorps presence in rural communities.
While I fully understand your position that the Corporation no longer make direct grants to
federal agencies, I would like to explore with you an approach that will provide effective
AmeriCorps projects sponsored by the USDA the opportunity to continue.
I strongly believe that the USDA should continue to be able to use its own appropriated funds to
support AmeriCorps projects, with no grant funds to the Department from the Corporation
involved. AmeriCorps participants in these projects, upon successful completion of service,
would be eligible for the educational awards directly from the National Service Trust Fund.
This approach has three important advantages. First, it adheres to the position that no
Corporation funds be awarded to federal agencies. Second, it is consistent with the agreement of
Members of the Senate and the Corporation that partnerships be expanded to provide "education
awards only" to AmeriCorps projects, while the projects themselves provide all operating funds.
Third, since the projects would be funded from current USDA appropriations, additional
expenditure of tax dollars would not be required.
VERMONT OFFICES COURT HOUSE PLAZA 199 MAIN STREET. BURLINGTON 802/043-2525
FEDERAL BUILDING. ROOM 118. MONTRELIER 802/228-0688
OR DUAL TOLL FREE 1-800-642-3193
FENATOR_LEAHY@LEAHY SENATE.GOV
PRINTED CN RECYCLED PAPER
The Honorable Kit Bond
April 5, 1996
Page 2
I have asked the USDA and the Corporation to comment on this approach and put together a
proposal on how it could be best executed. I look forward to working with you to continue a
strong AmeriCorps program.
Sincerely,
Patient PATRICK LEAHY Leahy
United States Senator
PJL/mew