Skip to main content

tv   Policy Governance Studies Experts Discuss National Service  CSPAN  October 15, 2019 4:36am-5:46am EDT

4:36 am
dynamite. so many thanks to all of you. reconvening soon. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] now, more from the brookings institution forum on the importance of military and civilian national service programs. discusses large-scale national service in the u.s. this is just over one hour. 30 seconds. 30 seconds is particularly effective, i will have to remember that. [laughs] tol, it is my happy duty
4:37 am
introduce and moderate second panel. let me begin by introducing myself briefly. my name is bill galston. am a senior fellow here at brookings and delighted to be a small cog in the institution. people,o introduce two bell, for working tirelessly to bring about, and also, our president, john allen, for letting his vast experience and moral authority to our enterprise this morning, and i think it is a sign that brookings is spiritually aligned
4:38 am
with the national service movement. introduce the question this way. service is the answer, what is the question? and we have heard, and i think we will hear three different kinds of answers to that question, and it is useful to keep them separate. the first have to do with service as an avenue of personal growth, the expansion, the deepening of character. actualond has to do with good done for others, service and the roof cents. sense.he root wheree third, and this is the work of john richland and
4:39 am
bridgeland and john dilulio begins, what are those challenges? first, a decline of mutual trust among fellow citizens. that surveying researchers call general social trust. a precipitous riseus and divisive partisanship. there is a difference between party system and partisanship, and somehow in the past two generations, we have crossed that line and now find ourselves in a very uncomfortable and unproductive place. third is what i would call the erosion of the problem-solving mentality. andidea that elected hi appointed officials are engaged
4:40 am
in a common civic enterprise where the problem with the public is identified, callout for responses, solutions that the public itself cannot specify, and the job of public service is to turn public ends into public means. i personally have been deeply impressed with the quality of the iraq and afghanistan veterans who have entered public service. they have this problem-solving mentality in spades. the problem is whether the national service experience, on can replicateide, that kind of "we are all in it together in the same foxhole now, how do we find a way to prevail?" -- will that mentality spread? it to very old-fashioned language that goes all the way back to william
4:41 am
thes, is national service moral equivalent to war? or is there no moral equivalent to war? well, we have a fantastic panel to help us address these questions. i will begin to my immediate left with john bridgeland, who is the former director of the white house policy council under president george w. bush, and currently serves as the vice chair of the service year you have already heard -- from whom you have already heard. his partner in crime, john who is the., professor of politics, religion, and civil society, which means you are the professor of everything -- [laughter] bill: at the university of
4:42 am
pennsylvania, and he serves as the commissioner faith-based initiatives in 2001, which means they were collects, perhaps -- brieflyes perhaps more than you would have expected. adams, him is tai director of the service year alliance, which means she is where the service year hits the political road. important nexus that she is going to help us explore. is finally, pete wehner, who currently be vice president at the ethics and public policy center. extensive experience as a , andhwriter, as a director also, i would say, as a moral
4:43 am
voice, right? very few have reflected more than pete on what it is to have a healthy society, what our current ills are, to what they an be traced, and he offers conservative and i would say faith-based perspective on national service. without further ado, john bridgeland and john dilulio are going to jointly present their paper, "will america embrace national service?" let me just add one note. i think there is a broad commitment to shared ideals and goals in the room, but we cannot get carried away with ourselves, right? empiricalookings, so inquiry matters a lot, because it is where we test the feasibility of the ideas that we
4:44 am
cherish and may have to change those ideas in some respects as a result of what honest inquiry discovers, this paper, if i may say so, is a model of honest inquiry, and it does its co-authors proud, and brookings is proud to be associated. john bridgeland? mr. bridgeland: thank you. good morning, everyone. it is nice to see a packed house. we need packed houses for national service all across america. i want to thank bill galston, without whom actually americorps, susan stroud, alan casey, a lot of people in the audience, wouldn't have come into existence in a time in the life of the country where president clinton said, you " invest in your country, we'll invest in you." it was a galvanizing moment. i also want to thank bell. she launched the social genome project and a whole host of initiatives. it seems like anything bell gets behind actually happens. so i'm more optimistic about national service now that you're
4:45 am
conducting this panel. i also want to thank john dilulio and pete wehner. i had 15 years in public service, greatest years of my life, and having the opportunity to serve side by side with john and pete after 9/11 and seeing this emergence from the country of people all over the globe, wanting to make common cause, to make a better country and world together, was really quite extraordinary. when i came in this morning, i met general, congressman, and dr. joseph heck. i said, "is that all?" he goes, "no, actually, i founded the medical reserve corps after 9/11." [laughs] mr. bridgeland: so that's the model of what we're trying to achieve in america, people who view national service, citizen service as fundamental and foundational. i wasn't going to go into it, but now that joe said that the commission is going to focus on civic education, it just reminds me that the people who founded our country, george washington said when we assume the
4:46 am
soldier, we did not lay down the citizen. when jefferson penned "this mystical notion of pursuit of happiness," it wasn't just an individual right. as governor patrick reminded us, it was a cooperative, a collective enterprise that we help one another achieve. i can't be truly happy if i'm not worrying about the happiness of my neighbor and someone who's homeless or vulnerable or worried. it's that spirit, you know, we the people, that really was the foundation of our democracy and the foundation of this country. i think we have to rescue that spirit. so why now? why always for national service? what's the problem we're trying to address? the first panel spoke so eloquently about our civic collapse. but i want to share a story. i grew up on drake road in cincinnati, ohio, just a few doors down from a man named neil armstrong. and this very shy, reclusive man used to come over for dinner. and when i was at a very impressionable age, he said the
4:47 am
know, the audacity of this young president to go to the well of the house and summon the nation to put a man on the moon within a decade and return him safely, you know, within ten 10 years, and we actually had no idea how to pull it off. and yet, 400,000 engineers around the country worked together to make it happen. i remember being a 9-year-old kid on the screened porch watching neil armstrong land on the moon. and it seems to me that, as governor patrick and others mentioned, we have so many challenges in this country that national service can help address. i don't see why we don't have an opportunity, millennium goals in the country, to take on education and conservation and poverty and a whole host of issues that national service -- there's evidence that national service could help address. it is also interesting to note, you know, what's the problem we're trying to address? robert putnam wrote two wonderful books, actually a third called "our kids." when i asked him for an historic
4:48 am
perspective, he said, you know, social cohesion or social fragmentation, political polarization, economic inequality, and civic collapse all actually work in virtual lock step. if you look at trends from the guilded age through the 1960's and 1970's, and even today, you see them moving together. so what we do as a nation civically, how we take care of our communities matters significantly to how we view one another, how we view inequality economically, and of course i think we're having a political, cultural, and economic nervous breakdown in this country. so we see the effects of a lack of understanding of the constitution. there was this wonderful book called "we hold these truths" on the 200th anniversary of the celebration of the declaration that said the highest office in the united states is not the presidency.
4:49 am
it's citizen. we need to remind young people of this country that citizenship is really the wave of the future. i want to talk concretely, though, because i know -- and i can't tell you the number of audiences we speak to all over the country, and stan, who's our chair, comes back from speaking, rallying a chorus of union, but there's always this wonder, could we actually pull it off? why, for such a big idea, that colvin, our ceo, has mentioned attracts widespread public support among republicans, democrats, independents. we talk about the civic healing effects. i have co-chaired the earth conservation corps for over a decade. we work with the most vulnerable kids in congress heights, kennelworth.
4:50 am
interestly, one day, they were serving and we brought kids from mcclain and potomac and had this great mixing in our service efforts. i sort of had the audacity to ask, what politics are you? there were republicans. there were democrats. there was even a libertarian. what faiths are you? they were christians, jews, muslims. and the project that they were working on was actually bringing the bald eagle, our nation's symbol, back to the nation's capital. we have bald eagles who fly over this beautiful landscape day in and day out because of the work of those national service participants. but i want to talk just briefly about -- could we bring this idea to scale, and what have we learned from various models? interestingly, in 1933, franklin roosevelt calls congress into emergency session. by summer has 250,000 young unemployed men in the woods through the civilian conservation corps. by the end of the program, 3 million had served, 3 billion trees had been planted, 84 million acres of land had been saved, which is the entire acreage of our national park system today.
4:51 am
and when you talk to the ccc boys, it was a spiritual experience for them. it changed the trajectory of the rest of their lives. it was also run by the u.s. army. and a young george c. marshall organized the ccc camps. so the thought that we would have, for the first time since 1933, a commission looking how we marry military, civilian, and national service opportunities together is really compelling. second, the peace corps, the thought that we'd have u.s. policy to send our sons and daughters, our mothers and fathers, eventually our grandmothers and grandfathers to remote areas all across the world to meet needs in other countries was sort of a bold experiment. but when shriver sent his memo to john kennedy in 1961, he actually didn't want to just create a federal program called peace corps, he wanted to run peace corps through nonprofit organizations, colleges, and and universities, agencies at all levels. and peace corps remains small
4:52 am
today, because that vision was not fulfilled. and then came americorps roaring that, which actually took had that instinct to go to the , strength of america, to its nonprofit institutions and colleges and universities, and to give support to those institutions and build off the strength of civil society. so i think those models are really instructive as we think about how do we marry military, civilian, and public service and , and how do we go to where the strength of the country is today, which is in its institutions of civil society. so over to brother d to talk about other elements of our report, including mandatory versus civilian national service. prof. dilulio: thank you very much. thanks, bridge. i know some of you are wondering what these socks are. they are philadelphia eagles socks. i fee so go, birds. i feel your pain, redskins fans. i really do.
4:53 am
go nats. well, i'm not going to say anything. no comment. but i want to thank the wonderful bell sawhill for inviting me to participate in this. it's a special treat and honor to be here with three dear old friends, the amazing bill galston, the inspiring john bridgeland, and the brilliant and the bold the winner. -- pete wehner. you are the only one up here who is practicing what everybody is preaching, for real, for real. it is a special treat and honor to meet you and be with you. what i'm going to do is take a little time. i will, as they say in congress, yield the balance of my time back to brother bridgeland, and just talk about two aspects of this will america embrace the national b service report. the part that deals with public opinion and the part that deals with evidence on the benefits of national service. so if you go back and look at the polling data on national service, all the way back to the creation of americorps from 1993
4:54 am
to the present, so i'm looking at all the surveys that have been done, i think it's fair to say that there's one overarching conclusion. there are two corollary findings and one caution. i'm going to be very brief in expressing these. the overarching conclusion is that, indeed, most americans do support national service. that is every demographic description, every socioeconomic status. it is without regard to partisan identification or ideological disposition. they favor national service. if it is voluntary. that is, unpaid, not required by law, or both. and majorities tend to oppose it if it is mandatory or compulsory, defined as in required by law or enforced , administered by the government. one corollary finding is that the in-favor majorities shrink if voluntary is government -supported. if you say expressly, "oh, by the way, government's got a nickel on the quarter or 25 cents in the dollar," it shrinks a bit. and if it is mandatory or compulsory, again, it goes down even more.
4:55 am
but there's no question that the overall finding still is that americans of every demographic description favor national service. another corollary finding is that most people believe that service, and that's whether the service is national or community, paid or unpaid, benefits the servers. people believe that, that it develops skills, enhances civic responsibility. they believe it benefits the persons, organizations, and communities where people serve by supplying direct services or performing vital work in the community. and they believe it benefits the wider society. that is, that it elevates citizenship, helps to model civic responsibility, helps to bridge, which we've heard a lot about this morning, socioeconomic, political, and other divides. so that's what the folks believe. but there is one caution here. and the caution is that for all the polls that have been done, the fact is we still have a relatively limited universe of polls, and they're not all entirely well-constructed and well-conducted.
4:56 am
there are all kinds of stratification and sampling issues and interpretation issues and so forth. in fact, even if you compare the polling, the research, the survey research on national service to polling data and survey research on other not top, top line issues, like faith-based, it is a relatively anemic survey research literature. so what's needed there is a tune-up. if you're interested in that, you look at the appendix to our report, you'll find that we have some suggestions about how you could go about at a relatively inexpensive -- because good polls are expensive and doing them right is expensive -- how you might be able to improve survey research on national service. let me now turn quickly to the benefits of national service. we know -- i mean, we could probably fill this very nice room here at brookings with all the studies that have been done
4:57 am
with empirically looking at the benefits of national service, and the vast majority of those suggest that national service works. but we need to make a couple of distinctions here. we know that volunteering works. we know that, compared to otherwise comparable people who volunteer, right, people who do the volunteering have higher life satisfaction, higher self-esteem, better self-rated health, better occupational and academic outcomes, longer lives. getting to "elder elder" myself these days. longer lives and lots of other positive outcomes. but we need to remember that the evidence on the benefits of volunteering is not, of course, synonymous with the evidence on the benefits of volunteer programs, per se, or of national service programs in particular. so whether with respect to helping out at one's church or neighborhood school or community elder care facility or in other ways, much of what counts and gets counted as volunteering occurs wholly outside the context of any regular
4:58 am
commitments and any quasi formal or formal programmatic context. organizational setting or context. we have to make that decision. now that duly remembered, that , duly said, the fact is that when you do look at the research literature that does address national service programs in particular, the findings are very positive. there was a landmark literature review done in 2004, nothing has quite been done at that level of sophistication since, that looked at 139 pretty good studies. and the bottom line conclusion of that literature review on national service programs was that in the vast majority of cases, you have national service program outcomes exceeding null or negative effects by a lot, like six and seven to one. and that is a lot. i mean, that is gargantuan, actually. and many of the benefits in most of the studies -- i guess if you
4:59 am
were to say what benefits are most well documented, it really would be the servers' skill development, the benefits, direct benefits to beneficiaries of the programs, service expansion, and harder to measure improvements in service quality. it is all there. so we also have made a promising start, i would say, with respect to benefit-cost analyses of national service programs. there was a wonderful study done in 2013 by clive bellfield, a study that was done for, i guess the franklin project and civic enterprises and voices for national service, which found a benefit-cost ratio of federal national service programs of , americorps in particular of , about four to one. and that is also a gargantuan finding. but our benefit-cost analyses still, too, are surprisingly in their infancy.
5:00 am
i hate to conclude with a clicée that more research is needed, but more research is needed. and i think that -- but that all said, i want to just conclude before i turn it back to bridge, i want to conclude by saying that i wouldn't be afraid in this particular area to go with the plural of anecdote is data. and let me just tell you why. wh the plural of anecdotal data. .et me tell you why i met one of my former princeton students here who works at the brookings institute back to 1999. i have been in the academic the academic dodge, i haven't had a real job, in almost -- for almost 40 years. the last 15 to 20 years at the university of penn running and academic leadership and service learning program, hundreds and hundreds of students, i get the cards and emails all the time. wey say i the best thing ever did was their service programs like participating in
5:01 am
the recovery process in new orleans. it was transformational, laboratory for learning. i won't say that we have proven it, but we are getting closer. i little more research, i am not afraid of data based on those anecdotes. going into construction with jimmy turned out to be a professor, and we are glad. >> jim is pretty happy about that. >> will america embrace national surveys, which is an open question, we throw down the gauntlet. we outline a plan of action that we submitted with secretary rice and others to the national commission. we actually talked about mandatory national service. our white house counsel came down to the office and said it
5:02 am
probably violates the 13th amendment prohibition on involuntary servitude in the fifth amendment, deprivation of liberty, and it may amendment onirst religious free exercise and free speech. two-year service of mandatory national service in the united states. a lot of people are sympathetic to it. there is a zone of constitutionality. you can structure a mandatory national service program that would satisfy the constitutional requirements, but there is almost zero political support. in thes one lonely bill u.s. congress every year, a few people join, and nothing happens. feasible.y it isn't what we think is feasible is something approaching mandatory national service, large-scale voluntary national service. i want to outline what we linpose in the service thre
5:03 am
ande its core elements. the first is to set a national goal of 250,000 full-time national civilian national service opportunities for 18 to 28-year-olds. that is the exact number that orrin hatch, the first person to call me after 9/11 said i am a mormon, i did my mormon mission in the great lakes when i was young man, it ignited my 34 years of service in the u.s. senate. it can change the trajectory of young people in this country. we know that we can get there historically. we are only at 56,000 full-service opportunities today. we can link military and civilian national service together. who apply forple the military are disqualified
5:04 am
because they are high school dropouts, bad behavior, prison, or are in poor health. 75%. why couldn't it be a conveyor belt for civilian national service? learning about the five branches of the military, why didn't i learn about habitat and all of these other wonderful opportunities? the military tells us there are communities where communities are interested in military recruiting. having civilian national service opportunities as part of that system may help military recruitment. third, linking national service college access. all of the presidential candidates are coming forward with plans. why don't you invest in your country? your country invests in you? you get a full year of attending for every year that you do national or other service, like the g.i. bill. fourth, recognizing national
5:05 am
service as a civic apprenticeship. when you finish your year of national service you get a credential that is relevant to getting a job in an employer field, leadership, collaborative problem solving, social and emotional skills that many employers think is missing in our workforce. idea is tog democratize and open national service by creating service fellowships. they can be called americorps service year fellowships. theng it to the individual, individual can make a choice as to what accredited national service organization they want to serve in. instead of having the large branch going to a few nonprofit organizations in the country, you would open and really and institutions of civil society. this growing community of institutions and young people with choice who would really be
5:06 am
accelerating and advancing the national service idea will stuff that is it from us. we worked hard on the paper, please read it. it will make us feel better. >> thanks, john and john. you have just heard from the best of academic research on national service. now for some realities. how does this translate into actual legislation, and how is that working for you? can you hear me? perfect. >> the trick is to hold it really close. slideind me if i let mic a little bit. thank you for this great paper. before i talk about what this looks like on the hill and the policy proposals moving forward,
5:07 am
i want to tell you about myself and my connection to service. i leave the government relations work. unlike a lot of the panelists, i didn't complete a service year, didn't serve in the military, did not serve in office. my connection to service and a real way started about 10 years ago when i was working in philadelphia. i transitioned from a career practicing law to something more meaningful for me, public education. one of my coworkers was doing a similar transition. she was transitioning from teaching, and americorps program, into the policy side. it was really the deep commitment that i saw from her to the students, that even though she wasn't teaching anymore she was involved in their lives. you would walk down the street, and people would run down and say ms. gardner, ms. gardner. she was invited to their
5:08 am
graduations, problems, and unfortunately sometimes their funerals. icorpxposure to amer programs, urban teachers, it built my commitment. what is interesting to me as you have the idea of who serves and who was serving home. what i noticed is you had people coming from within their communities to serving their communities outside of their economic backgrounds, social and economic. that is where i got said join the revolution. i jumped at a chance to bring service at scale to young people and make sure it's a common opportunity. what i want to talk about is what does this look like? we know that the federal piece will be a large piece. i wanted to elaborate on that piece of federal legislation we are trying to move forward as part of our serve america together campaign. we call for universal national
5:09 am
service, but i want to clarify once again that we don't advocate for mandatory. i universally mean common opportunity and expectation for young people to serve. we have done a bill that we think fills the gap that we see on the federal level. we also think that it is strategic. we know it's a bipartisan issue, but we want to create a true bipartisan bill. we calling it the national service -- act. it does four thighs. ngs. what we think is key is that it focuses on local communities. this is from the bottom up, how they view national service eating needs in their community. it connects military and civilian, which is important on the federal level. it provides the flexibility of fellowship, now named in the honor of the late senator john
5:10 am
mccain. the mccain fellows will be issued to states to develop these plans. it makes sure that everyone cancer then brings together young people in the community bringe serving to people together in a real way. what is this look like? we are proposing an interagency council that would be managed , the department of defense really making the connection between civilian and national service. aret of people who interested in serving in the military are not qualified. why shouldn't they then be directed to national service opportunities? we foresee a world where the department of defense could do joint promotion with national service programs. we have that connection on the top level. we have states that want to raise their hand and say we see meeting ourtegies community needs.
5:11 am
interagency council would review these local plans created by states talking the whole service to strategy meeting needs, how to make sure every young person would have an opportunity to serve, how they would bring those young people together through professional development activities. so there is cross-cultural and programs,n between and how states would incentivize. a federalst program, what state incentives where there be? it could look like college access. also provide individual incentives? and use flexibility provided through the mccain fellowships through the interagency council where young person could get this fellowship and also create their own service opportunity in a local nonprofit. that is what we envision. what is one of the great things is when we have been meeting on the hill there is a great
5:12 am
appetite for this. there is interest in the local focus. we drafted it in a way to support legislation currently out there. you may have heard of the reaction bill introduced by some of our great champions in the house. is comprehensive and provides education incentives. we have been deliberate in crafting a bill that compliment some of the bills that are already out there. we are in the testing phase, getting feedback, incorporating that feedback into legislation. we hope to move this forward in the upcoming year and get a true bipartisan bill. before i turn it over, why now? we are in a tough environment. what has been encouraging to see is that despite the proposed cuts to see in cs come the appropriation has gone up the past two years. we have a true bipartisan bill with the education award. the education award is -- and
5:13 am
-- it is a true bipartisan bill in the senate and the house. we have the commission that is going to be coming out with recommendations. we have communities coming to us every day wanting to become a service impact community, raising their hand saying we see service as a strategy. we believe now is the time. we have tried to be deliberate crafting a bill that would move us forward and building upon the infrastructure we already have and relatively part of the discussion today. >> let me just briefly bridge from number three to number four. first of all, tai, thank you very much for a very clear and compelling summary of a piece of legislation that i think most people did not know very much about until you laid it out. thank you. i also want to thank you for giving me an idea for a new
5:14 am
service corps. it would be made up of lawyers searching for meaning, and it would be massive. [laughter] >> i think one of our talking points is the demand outweighs supply. i guarantee that corps would be very much the same. >> i am married to a recovering lawyer, so i can say that. we heard a little earlier that from a public opinion standpoint support for national community service might be a little stronger on the democratic and independent side than it has been historically on the republican side. it is not nonexistent there. from your perspective what is the case for national service look like? ladiesk you, thank you and gentlemen for being here.
5:15 am
in the brookings institution for organizing this, hosting it, f colleagues, two of whom are longtime friends and great scholars. they are better people and better friends than they are scholars. in my book character and friendship matters more than scholarship, but they have both. had the first, we short report, you should read it is a model of honest inquiry. that isn't always the case with reports, but this is. the question is, should america embrace national service? i don't know. should it? i do know, yes it should. the resistance to national service is found most on the republican side or the waservative side, as bill
5:16 am
saying. as a lifelong conservative for most of my life a republican, until about three years ago or so, let me make the conservative case for national service. there are three areas i want to touch on. it is good for the unity of the country, it is good for the people who engage in national service, and it is good for the people who are on the receiving end of national service. the receiving end of relationships of care and of love. let me take those in order. i think it is good for the unity of the country. that is something conservatives care a great deal about. whichation of immigrants, conservatives have traditionally celebrated, they often spoke about the importance of assimilation. they respected that the belief was we should respect diversity, but there was a need for a sense
5:17 am
of unity. that the idea of love of country involved a sense of citizenship. and i think that is right. i think that needs to be recovered. the american motto is e pluribus unum, there is too much focus on unumbus and not enough on these days. there is so much social fragmentation and disunity. social media, we see it as a driving force of economic inequality, polarization, the rise of identity politics on the left and right, a lack of trust in institutions and in one another. the term political tribalism, i don't recall that being used prior to a decade or so ago, but now it is on the lips of almost everyone who speaks about politics.
5:18 am
forces areetal overwhelming this center vocal forces in american life. we are flying for more than we are coming together -- we are flying apart more than we are coming together. national service will help centripetal forces to gain strength. service provide shared experiences in solving public challenges. it connects people from different classes, ethnicities, and life experiences in ways that they would often otherwise not connect. i'm guessing a lot of you know this from your own personal experiences, your own lives, when people work side-by-side for a common purpose, political -intensify. de if there's anything we can use in america is the de -intensification of political differences. participantsf the
5:19 am
of all races and backgrounds describe their service is exposing them to groups of to groups of people with whom they would not have identified in the past. if you ask me what one of my wish lists were for the country, and for us as individuals, one would be help me to see the world through the eyes of others. better see the world through the others. not necessarily to agree with them, but to understand their perspective more. without going too much into has beeny, modesty central to conservatism as i it.rstand the notion that none of us by ourselves can have anything like a full understanding of the nature of truth and reality. we need other people to gain those things. part of that is having experiences with people who have standing in your life to be able to impart those different perspectives.
5:20 am
in 1990, bill buckley, the founder of modern conservatism, wrote a book called gratitude: reflections on what we owe our country. he wrote about a year volunteering volunteering national surveys for young people to strengthen their feelings and appreciation for the nation. materialistic democracy inspires every man to be a king, service inspires every man to be a knight. they can ever so slightly elevate us from the trough of self concern and self devotion. he spoke about his own experiences in world war ii. a close affinity that developed between the hawaiian beachcomber and the cowboy and the college campus students in greenwich village. s in aense we become link golden chain when we are part of national service. it is good for people who engage in national service, it benefits
5:21 am
the helper as well as the helped. national service helps shape human souls. i think you can touch the human hear and advance human flourishing. -- human flourishing. this is based on data. there is a feeling of a loss of connection, loss of communication in america. you have the iphone generation. reports to makes neuroscience that we are hardwired to be in community, to cooperate, to empathize with one another. i think national service aligns with human anthropology, the way thrive.the way we it develops practical skills, for example educational
5:22 am
opportunities. you go through the date of people engaged in national service they report higher life satisfaction, self-esteem, higher academic achievement, lower drug use, and school truancy. it is an ethic of responsibility and a sense of gratitude. i actually think that national lives and individual lives, gratitude is one of the most underrated virtues. i think it is extremely important. people whond have gratitude, it has radiating effects outward. it is good for people on the receiving end of national service. it helps to repair shattered lives and helps broken communities rebuild. he reaches out often to people in the shadows of society and creates human connections, which we need. it makes people feel like they are the object of love and sacrifice and matter as well. conservative reason is it is doable, it works, and it solves problems. john dooley, i mentioned
5:23 am
earlier, that reviewed the literature done 15 years ago in a book called "civic service", it was 139 studies. he mentioned that you see the positive outcomes to negative outcomes seven to one. that sounds good to me. service is the negation of ideology. you wouldn't know that today, but once upon a time that is what it stood for and embodied. it puts a premium on human experience and what works on problem-solving. i think national service can help solve problems. not all of them, it is not a magic bullet, but it can nudge things in the right direction. i conclude by saying that i think the public is tired in many ways of where we are, tired of the acrimony and antipathy, divisions, and disconnection, loneliness and isolation,
5:24 am
pulsating anger and feelings of grievances toward the other, and the pernicious belief that we don't have opponents, but we have enemies. i think national service can be a kind of civic balm for this moment. i conclude with one of my favorite lines from poetry, from from wordsworth. it is a great line in prelude where he says we have loved others who love and we will how.ithem think national service can teach people how to do certain things, how to create greater respect for one another, greater understanding, and can help heal the wounds of a wounded land and wounded lives. i think that is an enterprise that conservatives should be able to get behind and all americans. thanks. [applause] that sounded so much like a bad diction i am almost
5:25 am
unwilling to continue. sois my duty to continue, let me just make a couple of remarks before we segue to the next phase of this panel. for thoseber one is who have ever doubted brookings bipartisanship, i would like to point out that we have organized one of the artist reunions -- one of the largest reunions of bush administration alumni that washington has seen for quite some time. the second point is a little more serious. of whats off a piece was just said that jumped out at me. that probablying jumped out at any of you, but it is what hit me. the phrase "the nature of reality." what liberalshat
5:26 am
and conservatives have in common an ascertainable nature of reality, although we may have different views as to the path to it. what right-wing wing populace and left-wing postmodernists have in common is the abolition of the idea that nature of reality. that, in my judgment, is the real struggle in which we are engaged, and one of the great things about national service is that it is intense reality therapy. in addition to all of its other benefits. on this side of my notes i have a long list of riveting lee brilliant questions that -- ly brilliant questions. audible, buto call
5:27 am
we have a large audience of people that have been connected to the movement in one way or another, or who have important questions for its advocates. i'm going to suppress myself, which after 25 years -- something like 25 years, 25 hour of yom kippur represents a continuation of self-sacrifice. you have been very patient. it is your turn. as i seest take hands them. please identify yourselves and ask a question. yes, sir. there is a roving microphone coming around. >> thank you. your reference to lawyers seeking meaning, i have to share
5:28 am
perhaps enabling documents for that organization would be the law from 1850. it gives new meaning to the purpose of lawyering. , does itservice qualifies national service to seek government transparency in all things? is that something the federal entity will never legislate to support. as a 9/11 responder i would like to share the national service of thousands of architects and they have documented there is evidence of explosive demolition. the seeking government transparency, is it a form of government service? >> let me take three questions, then we will -- i will try to deal with -- ok, i will take one more there, then i will come back, don't worry. from brookings, but
5:29 am
29 years of federal service state department in the military. my question is about mandatory national service. one ofthe vietnam years, the things that aggravated dissension in this country, disunity, was the number of people who escaped the draft through all kinds of devious, nefarious ways. aconclude from that that mandatory system whereby everybody serves, if you are flat-footed or not, would overcome those differences and antagonisms. my question to the group is, wouldn't mandatory challenges have that benefit? here, microphone, please. thank you. >> morning, everyone. i am a research fellow at civic enterprises. is, astion to the panel
5:30 am
a recent college graduate and a millennial, what are some tools that i can use to motivate and inspire my peers to get involved in national service. >> panel? alright, let me start with that one. we got a call many years ago from a college student at yale, he said i am going to start an andnot chapter at yale try to get colleges across the country to create ask not chapters. you don't just have to go into a job or onto grad school, you can invest a year or more of your life in service to the nation. my first reaction would be in florida, in your community, chapter and get other colleges to do the same. the service year alliance has created
5:31 am
put your profile on and find a host of opportunities, national service opportunities, to connect to. the beauty as it is driven by choice, reflective of shriver's vision of democratizing national service and getting institutions across the country, including colleges, to create service year programs. on mandatory national service, it is a brilliant point, thank you for your service to the nation and the state department. we are organizing u.s. delegation to israel. it is the first question we usually get in discussions like this. israel is done successfully at many levels. it has had a profound impact on their economy and entrepreneurship. we wanted to learn from israel to ournts relevant system knowing that there is a lot of opposition to mandatory national service. by having a requirement for 18-year-olds to go into the
5:32 am
idf with exceptions for orthodoxy or religious views or stability, it has created an environment where more than 35% of those who are not conscript did voluntarily -- conscripted voluntarily signed up for national service. in the united states it is less than 1% serving from these cohorts. we think it does have a profound effect. we will learn what we can. i will let someone else talk about government transparency. >> thank you. one thing i want to say, i think there is a tremendous need for greater awareness of these programs, and so forth, on one hand. on the other hand every year since the creation of americorps there have been more people that have wanted to do it than funds for it. in some years it has been a dramatic cap for people ready to do it and the funding is not there.
5:33 am
at colleges and universities that have the equivalent of a four plus one program or some degree fully paid, a very practical reality, especially for the vast majority of students who do not have means to just take off a year or be supported by family or by a trust fund or something. if you offered that, the program that i referenced at one point we did summers and spring breaks, but we also had a full year of service that we would do in new orleans. over the 10 years of our commitment they must have had 50 students do the one year commitments. we had 300 students who wanted to do it. if we could have funded 300 we would be running new orleans and philadelphia. there is a need to figure out how to inspire and engage and spread information on the one hand. on the other hand there is a lot of latent and unmet demand about having the human and financial
5:34 am
organizational infrastructures regard to mandatory national service, there is the constitutional question that has been answered. that is the zone of constitutionality. the political question, i think mandatory service would be great, but the political support isn't there. >> i am on the transparency question. i think there is an obligation for government transparency, but transparency is a means and the ends is truth and reality. the government has an obligation for transparency, but a civic obligation to accept reality as thatand make sure transparency isn't used to twist reality into things that aren't true. on colleges, a lot of schools are looking at making a service year, it is really relevant to getting into a college.
5:35 am
william and mary created service year fellowships with robert yates as the chancellor believing as the cochair of our campaign, advancing in actual service year opportunity through the college system. imagine if you had a third of the colleges in united states greeting service year fellowships, opportunities connected to courses of studies with reinforcing benefits. that is something you could advocate to. >> before the next round of questions i want to address a question to tai, based on what was said. he pointed out correctly that the problem for service at this the demand side, it is on the supply side. to government's role in national service, i can report that from the very beginning of americorps there has been a gap between the authorization process and the
5:36 am
appropriations process. my question, and this report edward and, the edwar kennedy service act has authorized more positions than is funded. as you redesign the architecture of national community service and the admirable way you have proposed, do you have a strategy for closing that gap between authorization and appropriation? yes, we do. i don't know if it's a perfect answer, but one of the first things, ways that we look at this, because there is the gap we do have and program precertified positions. we merit the service process that cncs goes through. think one of the ways we drafted our legislation, because
5:37 am
it is going to be at the end of the daytime to a reauthorization of americorps, but the focus on local communities creating evidence points at scale and demand and raising their hands and providing incentives, at the community level to incentivize services at the first step to get to that growth. by no means do we have the complete answer, but we think it is starting at that level and also growth through our service year exchange. more have time for one round of three. i'm going to take this gentleman. i promised him. then the woman in the aisle, and there are two hands in the back and i'm only going to be able to take one. i will take the gentlemen on the aisle as well. >> thank you and i hope your fast was easy. >> it was not. the last time that i was here
5:38 am
at brookings was on a panel on based initiative you both had a hand in. what is the role of faith in national service, especially looking forward to the future? questions in the aisle. >> chief civic innovation officer at points of light. in my role i worked a lot with community.s my question is a corollary, what is the role of business? i know there has been demonstration of the national service project, but how does business play into solutions for national service? >> the gentleman on the aisle? >> that was my question, so i will yield to the other hand. mine is a perfect corollary. what is the role of philanthropy?
5:39 am
>> i could not have planned these questions better, but i assure you i did not.we three minutes and five seconds to answer these questions. >> i will do faith. i think the most important observation to make in the time we have is to note that if you look at the partnerships and relationships in the actual administration, the translating of the ideals and ideas of national service into action, faith-based communities are all over. it is inconceivable without them. the problem is a problem of resourcing and capacity, a problem of doing the dot connecting. that has long been the problem. without getting very sidetracked i think it was a problem on which we were making nontrivial progress in the not-too-distant
5:40 am
past, but i think a lot of those programs and policies have fallen away. when you start a couple of years ago with their proposal to eliminate the corporation for national community service, eliminating all it doesn't all the partnerships, that is a bad idea. a chilling effect for the partners. you talk about faith communities across the board, either congregations or networks, and they worry about getting involved to the extent that this is -- is this going to be sustainable? the faith communities remain, i would say if not the primary partners, substantial partners in the cause of national service programs. philanthropy, and encouraging they invest $1.2 billion for the $1 billion invested by the federal government today is encouraging. i think that businesses can look at what are the institutional
5:41 am
changes that we can make, foster, and ignite a culture of service is highly relevant to get a job at this company or that company if you have done a year or more of national service. if you served in the peace corps, americorps, or vista you had preference to get a public service job in the government. with we get every governor in the united states, every business. now that the business roundtable has redefined the purpose of a corporation and more than 200 ceos have signed on to it, which has a key change, including giving back to communities, why not challenge america's businesses to take on large public challenges like at&t over a dozen years said we are going to move the high school graduation rate from 66% to 90%, and they invested $500 million in it. in schools and
5:42 am
organizations are at the center of providing students a force to keep those kids on track. issue-based investment and finally impact communities was that why can't they help organize those with us in flint, san jose, and communities we are working, and universal national service efforts, military, public, national service together, and points of light, your legacy is so extraordinary with president george w. bush, thank you for what you do. comments?cluding very good. let me just bridge to the next casey willying alan be leading it. i can report that i learned everything that i brought with me into the white house about national service from alan casey because of a site visit that i did to the city year program back in 1992. the possibility of a
5:43 am
small band of determined people making a very very big impact. with that, onto the final panel. [applause] c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact to you. coming up the cato institute's patrick eddington talks about his experiences as a whistleblower. and a former new york congressman discusses the latest on the house democrats' impeachment inquiry and how it could impact races in 20 20. the editor of the american conservative on president
5:44 am
trump's recent decisions on syria. 's washington journal at 7:00 a.m. eastern this morning. watch wednesday following the fourth democratic presidential candidates debate. >> live tuesday on the c-span 12: 40 5 p.m. a system secretary of defense randall shriver speaks at the china defense and security conference on c-span. at 2:00 p.m., the house returns from the district work period to take up several bills. on c-span two at 9:30 am a discussion on the latest developments in turkey and syria in the future of u.s. middle east policy. wilbur ross speaks
5:45 am
at the federalist society on the trump administration's free-trade the lessee. the senate returns at 3:00 p.m. eastern to consider the nomination of barbara barrick to be the 26th secretary of the u.s. air force. on c-span3 at 9:00 a.m., the u.s. coast guard commandant karl schultz on national security. gary lawsonofessor explains why he thinks robert mueller's appointment as special counsel was unlawful. he is a founding member of the federalist society and spoke to law students at this event at boston university. it is about an hour and 15 minutes. .> good afternoon i'm the dean of austen university's school of law, and


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on