Good afternoon. I would like to welcome each of you to our hearing on "Performance, Accountability, and Reforms at the Corporation for National and Community Service."

The purposes of today’s hearing are to learn about our nation’s national service programs, to evaluate the performance and efficiency of the Corporation for National and Community Service, and to discuss various perspectives on legislation to reauthorize programs administered by the Corporation.

The major federally funded national service programs in this country are authorized under two statutes: the National and Community Service Act and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act. In general, the programs authorized by these statutes are administered by the Corporation for National and Community Service, an independent federal agency. Although authorizations for these programs expired at the end of fiscal year 1996, they continue to be funded through appropriations legislation.

Last Congress, the Subcommittee on Select Education and the Committee on Education and the Workforce reported H.R. 4854, the Citizen Service Act of 2002, to reauthorize programs administered by the Corporation for National and Community Service through fiscal year 2007. The purposes of H.R. 4854 were to reform and strengthen national service programs administered by the Corporation; implement first-time accountability measures for grantees under the national service laws; and make the Corporation an effective outlet for leveraging volunteers and community service activities among the many service organizations across the country.

In addition to the many important reforms within last year’s Citizen Service Act, the Subcommittee on Select Education will work to build on last year’s progress and address several issues to better our chances at completing a reauthorization bill that will improve our nation’s national service laws – and more important – a reauthorization bill that President Bush can sign into law.

Today, I am looking forward to hearing testimony about religious staffing rights as they pertain to the Constitution and whether the protection of religious staffing rights is prudent and good public policy for programs administered by the Corporation for National and Community Service. This is a matter of concern for some of us because under the current national service laws, faith-based groups are denied the protections of the Civil Rights Act that would otherwise allow them to hire employees or accept participants on a religious basis if they accept federal funds.

I also hope to review living stipends and other supplemental benefits provided to program participants by the Corporation for National and Community Service. Under current law, programs receiving AmeriCorps funding must provide full-time participants with a living stipend of at least $9,900 in which the Corporation provides a maximum of 85 percent of the living allowance – or $8,415 – and the grantees pay at least 15 percent – or $1,485 – from non-federal funds.

Full-time participants that do not otherwise have health coverage also qualify for health coverage in which the federal government covers up to 85 percent of the cost. While the federal share varies among the many national service programs, CRS reports that the average amount spent on health coverage per participant for program year 2002 for AmeriCorps grants was $893. In addition, childcare is provided to full-time, low-income participants. CRS reports that the average amount spent on childcare per qualified participant for program year 2002 was $3,324.

Finally, the Corporation provides an educational award in the amount of $4,725 to qualified participants who serve for a full term of service – which is 1,700 hours over a period of 10 to 12 months.

In light of the significant federal share of costs associated with the national service laws, there are some tough questions we need to ask about various ways to control spending while maximizing the federal contribution to national service programs.

• Should the federal government provide a living stipend for national service participants?
  
  
• If there is a living stipend provided, should it – and other benefits such as health coverage and childcare – be awarded based on financial need?
  
  
• Should there be a cap on the federal share of benefits provided to AmeriCorps participants?
  
  
• If programs are operating indefinitely with full-time, federally-supported participants, should the Congress limit the number of years a grantee may receive funds to support full-time participants to help encourage long-term program sustainability with non-federal funds?

In light of the many issues and programs associated with the Corporation, and the fact that the national service laws have not been authorized since fiscal year 1996, this Subcommittee has a lot of work to do. I look forward to crafting legislation that builds on last year’s progress and focuses on improved performance, accountability, and reforms at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

I would like to thank our distinguished witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today – I look forward to hearing your testimony and the unique perspective that each of you brings to this discussion. At this time, I would yield to my colleague from Texas, Mr. Hinojosa, for any opening statement he may have.