Okay. Oneminute warning. That invigorated people. 30 seconds. 30 seconds was particularly effective. Ill have to remember that. Well, its my happy duty to introduce and moderate the second panel. Let me just begin by introducing myself briefly. Im bill galston, a senior fellow in the Governance Studies Program here at brookings. Delighted to be a small cog in the brookings Service Year Alliance machine that has produced this meeting. I want to thank two people in particular. Bell sawhill for conceiving of this day and working tirelessly over a period of at least six months to bring it about. And also our president john allen for lending his vast experience and immense moral authority to our enterprise this morning. And i think its a sign that brookings is spiritually aligned with the National Service movement. Let me introduce the question this way. If National Service is the answer, whats the question . And we have heard and i think will hear three very different kinds of answers to that question. Its useful to keep them separate. The first has to do with service as an avenue of personal growth, the expansion and the deepening of character. The second has to do with actual good done for others, service in the root sense. But the third, and this is where the paper by john bridgeland begins, is with our broader civic challenges and with National Service as a potential response to those challenges. What are those challenges . Well, first of all, a decline of mutual trust among fellow citizens. Sort of things that the survey researchers call General Social trust. Second is a precipitous rise in devici divisive partisanship. Theres a difference between a party system and participate sanship. Sometime in the past two generations, we have crossed that line and now find ourselves in a very uncomfortable and unproductive place. And third is what i would call the erosion of the problemsolving mentality. The idea that elected and appointed officials are engaged in a common civic enterprise where the problems that the public has identified call out for responses, solutions that the public itself cannot specify, and the job of Public Service is to turn public ends into public means. Ive personally been deeply impressed with the quality of the iraq and afghanistan veterans who have entered Public Service. They have this problemsolving mentality in spades. One of the questions is whether the National Service experience on the civilian side can replicate that kind of were all in it together in the same foxhole, now how do we find a way to prevail . Will that mentality spread . Or to put it in very oldfashioned language that goes all the way back to william james, is National Service the moral equivalent of war . Or is there no moral equivalent of war . Well, we have a fantastic panel to help us address these questions. Ill begin to my immediate left with john bridgeland, who is the former director of the White House Policy Council under president george w. Bush. Currently serves as the vice chair of Service Year Alliance, about which youve already heard and from whom youve already heard. His partner in crime, john, the professor of politics, religion, and civil society, which sort of means youre a professor of everything at the university of pennsylvania. And john also has white house experience as the first director of the White House Office of faithbased and Community Initiatives in 2001, which means that bridge and john were colleagues, perhaps a little more briefly than might have been expected, but yes, they were. To their left is tay adams, the director of Government Relations for the Service Year Alliance, which means she is where the service year hits the political road. That is a very important nexus that shes going to help us explore. And finally, pete, who is currently a Vice President and senior fellow at the ethics and Public Policy center. He also has very substantial white house experience as a speech writer, as the director of strategy, and also i would say as a moral voice, right. Very few have reflected more deeply than pete on what it means to have a Healthy Society and what our current ills are and to what they can be traced. And he will offer some reflections from a distinctively conservative and i would add faithbased perspective on National Service. So without further ado, john and john are going to jointly present their paper will america embrace National Service . Let me just add one note. I think theres a broad commitment to shared ideals and goals in the room, but we cant get carried away with ourselves. This is brookings, so empirical inquiry matters a lot because its where we test the feasibility of the ideas that we cherish and may have to change those ideas in some respects as a result of what honest inquiry discovers. And this paper, if i may say so, is a model of honest inquiry, and brookings is proud to be associated with it. John . Good morning, everyone. 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, wouldnt have come into existence in a time in the life of the country where president clinton said, you invest in your country, well invest in you. It was a galvanizing moment. I want to thank bell. She launched the social genome project and a whole host of initiatives. Seems like anything bell gets behind actually happens. So im more optimistic about National Service now that youre conducting this panel. I want to thank john and pete. I had 15 years in Public Service, greatest years of my life. 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. So thats the model of what were trying to achieve in america, people who view National Service, Citizen Service as fundamental and foundational. I wasnt 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 1soldie, we did not lay down the citizen. When jefferson penned this mystical notion of pursuit of happy, it wasnt just an individual right. As governor patrick reminded us, it was a cooperative, a collective enterprise that we help one another achieve. I cant be truly happy if im not worrying about the happiness of my neighbor and someone whos homeless or vulnerable or worried. Its 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 . Whats the problem were 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. This very shy, reclusive man used to come over for dinner. When i was at a very impressionable age, he said 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 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 9yearold 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 dont see why we dont 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 theres evidence that National Service could help address. Its also interesting to note, you know, whats the problem were trying to address . Robert putnam wrote two wonderful books, actually a third called our kids. When i asked him for an historic 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 1960s and 70s 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 were 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. Its 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 cant tell you the number of audiences we speak to all over the country and stan, whos our chair, comes back from speaking, rallying a chorus of union, but theres always this wonder, could we actually pull it off . Why, for such a big idea, that as jesse coleman, our ceo, has mentioned attracts widespread public support among republicans, democrats, independents. We talk about the civic healing effects. Ive cochaired the earth conservation corps for over a decade. We work with the most vulnerable kids in congress heights, kennelworth. Interest willing 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 . Christians, jews, muslims. And the project that they were working on was actually bringing the bald eagle, our nations symbol, back to the nations capital. We have bald eeg whoagles who fr 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. 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. A young george c. Marshall organized the ccc camps. So the thought 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 wed 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 didnt want to just create a federal program called peace corps, he wanted to run peace corps through nonprofit organizations, colleges, and universities, agencies at all levels. And peace corps remains small today because that vision wasnt fulfilled. And then came americorps roaring along, which 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 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. Thank you very much. Thanks, bridge. I know some of you are wondering what these socks are. They are Philadelphia Eagles socks. So go, birds. I feel your pain, redskins fans. I really do. Go nats. Well, im not going to say anything. No comment. But i want to thank the wonderful bell sawhill for inviting me to participate in this. Its a special treat and honor to be here with three dear old friends, the amazing bill galston, the inspiring john bridgeland, and the brilliant pete. Youre the only one up here whos practicing what everybody is preaching, for real, for real. Its a special treat and honor to meet you and be with you. What im 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 to the present, so im looking at all the surveys that have been done, i think its fair to say that theres one overarching conclusion. There are two corollary findings and one caution. Im going to be very brief in expressing these. The overarching conclusion is that, indeed, most americans do support National Service. Thats every demographic description, every socioeconomic status. Its 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 its mandatory or compulsory, defined as in required by law or enforced administered by the government. One corollary finding is that the infavor majorities shrink if voluntary is government supported. If you say expressly, by the way, governments 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. But theres 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 thats 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 weve heard a lot about this morning, socioeconomic, political, and other divides. So thats 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 theyre not all entirely wellconstructed and wellconducted. 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, it is a relatively anemic survey Research Literature. So whats needed there is a tuneup. If youre interested in that, you look at the appendix to our report, youll 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 with 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 compared to otherwise comparable people who volunteer, right, people who do the volunteering have higher life satisfaction, higher selfesteem, better selfrated health, better occupational and academic outcomes, longer lives. Im 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 ones 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 commitments and any quasi formal or formal programmatic context. 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. The bottom line conclusion of that literature review on National Service programs was that in the vast majority of cases, you have National ServiceProgram Outcomes exceeding null or negative effects by a lot, like six and seven to one. Thats a lot. Thats gargantuan, actually. And many of the benefits in most of the studies i guess if you 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. Its 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 enterprises and voices for National Service, which found a benefit cost ratio of federal National Service programs of about four to one. Thats also a gargantuan finding. But our benefit cost analyses still, too, are surprisingly in their infancy. I hate to conclude with a cliche 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 wouldnt be afraid in this particular area to go with the plural of anecdote is data. And let me just tell you why. This is not in our report. But ive been, you know in fact, i met one of my former princeton students here who works at the Brookings Institution a moment ago, back to 1999. Ive been in the academic dodge for almost 40 years. And i could tell you that in all those years, the last 15, 20 years at the university of penn, running a Academic Leadership and Service Learning program, hundreds and hundreds of former students, i get letters and cards and emails all the time. They say, boy, the best thing we ever did was all those Service Programs like participating in the human, physical, and Financial Recovery process in postkatrina new orleans. Its transformational. Its a laboratory for learning. So you know, i believe it. I think were close i wont say weve proven it, but were getting closer. A little more research. Im not afraid of those data based on those an ek doetds. So bridge, you can go from there. Very good. Way to go. He was going to go into construction with cousin jimmy and turned out to be a professor. Were so glad. What are you going to do . Cousin jimmy is pretty happy about it too. Yeah, i think so. Very quickly, in the paper will america embrace National Service, which open question, we sort of throw down the gauntlet. We outline a plan of action that we also submitted with secretary gates, rice, and others to the National Commission that joe is leading after 9 11 we talked about mandatory National Service and our white House Counsel came down to the office and said it probably violates the 13th amendment, probably violates the 5th amendment, deprivation of liberty. And may violate the First Amendment on religious free exercise and free speech. We did a twoyear study of mandatory National Service in the United States, a lot of people are simp thoympathetic t. Found you could structure a Service Program that would satisfy the constitutional requirements but there is almost zero Political Support to it. Charlie wrangle produces the only bill in Congress Every year and nothing ever happens. So politically its not feasible. What we think is feasible is something approaching National Service which is large scale, universal, voluntary National Service. I want to outline what we propose in the Service Share alliance and sent to the commission in terms of its core elements. Weve done it before, the first is to set a National Goal of 250,000 fulltime National CivilianNational Service opportunities for 18 to 28 year olds. Thats the exact number that the edwards m. Kennedy that orren hatch, who was the first person to call me at 9 11, said im a mormon, i did my mission in the great lakes it ignited my 34 years in the u. S. Senate. It can change the trajectory of young people in the country. So we know we can get there historically, were only at about 66,000 fulltime opportunities today. Second we can link military and civilian National Service together. 75 of the people who apply for the military are disqualified because theyre high school dropouts, bad behavior, some are in prison or in poor health. 75 . Why couldnt the u. S. Selective Service System be a conveyer belt for National Service. So when i got my notice at 18, why didnt i learn about all these other wonderful opportunities. In turn the military tells us that there are communities where the communities arent interested in military recruiting and having civilian National Service opportunities may help military recruitment. Third, linking National Service to college access. All these president ial candidates are coming forward with plans. Why is it if you invest in your country, your country invests to you, why not get a full year of college in the state youre attending for every year you do of national or other service, just like the g. I. Bill. Fourth, recognizing National Service as a civic apprenticeship when you finish your year you get a credential thats relevant to getting a job and employers see the skills, leadership, collaborative problem solving, the social and emotional skills that Many Employers think are missing in our workforce. Finally, a big idea is to demock ratize and open service. They could be called ameri core service. But the individual could be given a choice about what National Service organization they want to serve in. Instead of having large grants going to a new nonprofit organizations in the country you would open up and fulfill the vision, which is college and universities, nonprofit organizations, institutions of civil society, youd have this growing community of institutions and young people with choice, who would really be accelerating and advancing the National Service idea. Thats it from us. We worked hard on this paper, please read it, itll make us feel better. Back to you. Thanks john and john. Well, youve just heard from the best of Academic Research on National Service. Now for some reality therapy. Tay, how does this translate into Actual Service and how is that working for you . Thank you. Can you hear me . Perfect. The trick is to hold it really close. Remind me if i let the mike slide a little bit but its a thrill to be here, a great pleasure to be on the panel, thank you bell, bookings and the great paper. Before i talk about what this looks like on the hill and the policy proposals that Service Alliance is moving forward, i want to tell you about myself and my connection to service. I lead the Government Relations work at Service Alliance, unlike the panelists i didnt complete a year, serve in the military or serve in office. So my connection to service in a real way really started about ten years ago when i was working in philadelphia. I had transitioned from a career practicing law to something more meaningful to me, public education. One of my coworkers was doing a similar transitioning but she was transitions from the new Teachers Program into the policy side. So it was the deep commitment that i saw from her to the students that even though she wasnt teaching anymore, she was still involved in their lives. We walked down the street and people run down and say mrs. Gardner, she was invited to their graduations, proms, unfortunately sometimes their funerals. But it was that deep connection that i saw at that point that introduced me to service. Through my career in philadelphia and then in d. C. , the exposure to programs, tntp, city year, urban teachers, it really kind of developed my commitment. What was interesting to me also is you have this idea of who serves and who is serving whom. And what i noticed is you have people coming from within their communities to serve in their community, outside of the community from different racial or ethnic background, socioand economic, thats where i got inspired. So when i had the opportunity to join Service Alliance, i jumped at it. What i wanted to talk about today is what does this look like . How do we make this happen . We know the federal piece is going to be a large piece. I wanted to elaborate on the piece of federal legislation we are trying to move forward as part of our serve america together campaign. We do call for universal and National Service, but i did want to make sure i clarify once again, we dont advocate for mandatory by universal, we call for an opportunity for all young people to serve. Weve drafted a bill that we think fills the gaps that we see on the federal level. And we also think its a bit strategic we know this is a bipartisan issue. We wanted to draft something we could create a true bipartisan bill. So were calling it the National Service choice act and it does four things, which ill talk about, and then kind of lay out what that looks like in reality. So first and foremost what we think is key is that it focuses on local communities. This is from the bottom up what were hearing from communities, how they view National Service, Meeting Needs in their community. It also connects military and civilian, which is important on the federal level. And then provides a flexibility of fellowship, right now named in the honor of john mccain. And then very important it makes sure that everyone can serve. And then also brings together young people in the community who are serving to form those relationships. I know the word relationships came up earlier so bringing people together in a real way. What does this look like . Were proposing a new council that would be managed between nccs and dod, department of defense making that connection on the civilian and federal level. As bridge mentioned earlier, a lot of people interested in serving in the military are not qualified, why shouldnt they then be directed to National Service opportunities. And there could be some type of joint promotion with National Service programs. So we have that program on the top level. Then we have states that want to raise their hand and say we see service as a strategy to meeting our community needs. So what this would do is the council would review these local plans developed by states talking about how service would be a strategy to Meeting Needs, make sure every young person would have an opportunity to serve, how they bring the young people together through professional development activities, so theres Cross Cultural and interaction between different programs. And then how states would incentivize. We know this isnt just a federal program. So what incentives would there be . It could be housing like we see in flint, michigan, it could be college access. How would states provide individual incentives. And then the flexibility provided through these mccain fellowships where a young person could get the fellowship and create their own Service Opportunity in a local nonprofit. Thats what we envision and what one of the great things has been is that when we have been meeting on the hill theres a great appetite for this. Theres interest in the local focus and weve sbrafted drafte way to currently support other legislation out there, you may have heard about the action bill introduced by senator reed and larsson in the house. Its big, comprehensive and provides intecentives so weve been trying to complement bills outs there. Were in the testing phase, getting feedback, incorporating that feedback in the legislation and hope to move it forward in the upcoming year. Before i turn it over, why now . You know, we know were in a tough environment, but whats been really encouraging to see is despite the proposed cuts to cncs, the appropriation has gone up the past two years. We have a bill with the education award, its taxed. And our partners for voices at National Service have done a job moving forward a bill that would remedy that, its bipartisan in the senate and house. We have the senate coming out with recommendations and communities coming to us every day wanting to become a Service Impact community. We very much believe now is the time. Weve tried to be deliberate in crafting a bill that would move us forward towards the scale and build on the infrastructure we have. And just thrilled to be 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 very clear and compelling summary of a piece of legislation that i think most people didnt know much about until you laid it out. So thank you for that. I also want to thank you for giving me an idea for a new service core. It would be made up of lawyers searching for meaning and it would be massive. I think one of our talking points is that demand outweighs supply and i can guarantee you, that core would be very much the same. Im married to a recovered lawyer, so i can say that. Okay. Now, pete waner, we heard a little bit 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. Though its not nonexistent there. So from your perspective, what does the case for National Service look like . Thank you. Thank you for being here, ladies and gentlemen and the Brookings Institution for organizing this, hosting it. For the colleagues here. Two of whom are longtime friends, great scholars and better people and friends than they are scholars. In my book, friendship and character matters more than scholarship. But they have both. And i do want to say what bill said, which is this report, first its a short report so you should read it. Its interesting and it is a model of honest inquiry and thats not always the case with reports. But this is. The question here is should america embrace National Service. I dont know, should it. I do know, yes, it should. But often the resistance to National Service is found most on the republican side or the conservative side as bill was saying. A lifelong conservative for most of my life, a republican up until about three years ago or so, let me make the conservative case for National Service. There are three areas that i want to briefly touch on. One is i think its good for the unity of the country. Second i think its good for the people who engage in National Service. And third i think its good for the people who are on the receiving end of National Service, the receiving end of relationships of care and of love. So let me take those in order. I think its good for the unity of the country and thats something that conservatives actually once cared a great deal about in a nation of immigrants which conservatives have traditionally celebrated. They often also spoke about the importance of assimilation. It respected the belief was we should respect diversity but there was also a need for a sense of unity that the idea of love of country involved a sense of citizenship. And i think thats right. And i think that needs to be recovered, the motto it shall the american motto, i think you can argue theres too much focus on the pluribis and not on the unum. I think today there are so many sources of social fragmentation and disunity. The social media we see it, its an accelerant to driving force, economic inequality, the rise of identity politics on the left and the right. A lack of trust in institutions and in one another. The term political tribalism i dont recall that being used much prior to a decade or so ago but its now on the lips of almost everyone who speaks about politics. So the sen trif cal forces are overwhelming. The forces in american life, i think were flying apart more than coming together. I think the National Services will help the forces to gain strength. And National Service provides shared experiences in solving public challenges. It connects people from different classes and ethnicities and races and Life Experiences in ways they would often not otherwise connect. And im guessing a lot of you know this from your own personal experience, your own lives, when people Work Together side by side for a common purpose, political differences deintensify. If theres one thing we can use in America Today is the deintensification of political differences. The institute for Public Policy did a study and they said that reports that participants of races and background said their service taught their new perspectives and exposed them to groups of people with whom they had not identified in the past. If you ask me what one of my wish lists were for the country and for us as individuals, one of them would be help me to see the world through the eyes of others. To better see the world through the eyes of others, not necessarily agree with them, buy into everything they believe, but understand their perspective more. Without going into philosophy, its been central to conservatism as i understood it, 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 and part of that is having experiences with people who have standing in your life to be able to impart those different perspectives. The in 1990, bill buckley, really the founder of the modern conservatism wrote a book and he called for a year of voluntary National Service for young people as a way to strengthen their feelings and appreciation for the nation. He said materialistic democracy beckons everyone to make themselves a king, and republican makes everyone want to be a knight. He said Service Calls forth the better angels in our nature and can elevate us from the trough of selfconcern and selfdevotion. He spoke about his experiences in world war ii and spoke about the close affinity that developed in greenwich village. We become links in a Service Chain when were part of National Service. Its good for people who engage in National Service, it benefits the helper, as well as the help. I think National Service helps shape human souls. It can help touch the human heart. I think it can advance human flourishing. The premises here, i think this is a premises thats based on d data, there is a loss of community today, you have the iphone generation, a lot has been written about that. This report makes reference to the latest findings of neuroscience, which is were hard wired to be less in community, empathize with one another. So i think a National Service alliance with an throw apology, how we are and thrive, it provides skills, furnishes educational opportunities. Higher life satisfaction, better selfes ste selfesteem, lower rates of drug abuse and school truancy. And instills an ethic of responsibility and gratitude. I think in National Life and individual lives gratitude is one of the most underrated virtues. I think its extremely important. When you find people who have gratitude it has radiating effects outward. Third i think its good for the people on the receiving end of National Service. It helps repair shattered lives, helps broken communities rebuild. It reaches out often to people in the shadows of society and creates human connections which we all need. And it makes people feel like theyre the object of love and sacrifice and that actually matters as well. Another conservative reason i favor National Service is its doable. It works. It solves problems. John mentioned earlier that review of the literature that was done, 15 years ago, in a book called Civic Service of the 139 studies. As he mentioned positive outcomes exceed the negative outcomes by roughly 7 to 1, that sounds good to me, actually. Conservativism in my understanding is negation of ideology, you wouldnt know that often today. But once upon a time thats what it stood for, embodied it puts a premium on Human Experience and what works on problem solving. And i think National Service can help solve problems. Not all of them, its not a magic bullet but i think it can nudge things in the right direction. Just conclude by saying i think the public is tired, in many ways of where we are, were tired of the divisions and disconnection, the loneliness and isolation, the anger and feeling of grievances towards the other, and the belief that we dont have opponents but we have enemies. I think National Service can be a kind of civic balm for this moment. Ill just conclude one of my favorite lines in poetry is from words worth in the prelude, its a long poem but he has a great line saying what we have loved, others have loved and we will teach them how. National service i think can teach people to do certain things, create greater respect for one another, greater understanding, and it can help heal the wounds of a wounded land and wounded lives. And i think thats an enterprise that conservatives should be able to get behind and all americans. Thanks. That sounded so much like a benediction that im almost unwilling to continue. But it is my duty to continue. So you know, let me just make a couple of remarks before we segue to the next phase of this panel. Remark number one is that for those who have ever doubted brookings bipartisan, i would like to point out we have organized one of the largest reunions of Bush Administration alumni that washington has seen for quite some time. So this you know, the second point is a little bit more serious. It pivots off a piece of what pete just said that jumped out at me. It isnt anything that probably jumped out at any of you, but its what hit me. The phrase, the nature of reality. Okay. It struck me that what liberals and conservatives have in common is a belief in an ascertainable nature of reality although we may have different views as to the best path to it. What right wing populist and left wing have in common is the idea of abolition of the reality. So that, in my judgment, is the real struggle in which were 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. Now, on this side of my notes, i have a long list of rivetingly brilliant questions that i was going to put to the panel. But youve anticipated me. Im going to call an audible here. Im not going to do that because we have a large and well informed audience. You know, of people who have been connected with this movement in if one way or another or who have important questions to put to its advocates. And so, im going to suppress myself. Which, you know, after 25 years of felt like 25 years. 25 hours of yom kippur, just represents a continuation of selfsacrifice because youve been very patient. Its your turn. So let me just take hands as i see them. Please identify yourselves and then ask a question. Yes, sir. Theres a roving microphone thats coming around. Thank you. Carl, retired special agent u. S. Customs. Your reference to lawyers seekingmsee seeking meaning. A supporting document would be throughout the law from the 1950s. National service, does it qualify as a National Service to seek Government Transparency in all things . Is that something that the federal entity will never legislate to support . As a 9 11 responder, i would like to say the service of First Responder gs and engineers, they have said the official report is not true. Is seeking Government Transparency a form of Government Service . Let me take three questions and then ill try to deal with im going to take one more there then shift here, and ill come back. Dont worry. Thank you, peter shely, retired from brookings but 29 years of federal service, state department and the military. My question is about mandatory National Service. During the vietnam years, one of the things that aggravated decession in this country, disunity was the number of people who escaped the drafts through all kinds of devious nefarious ways. Ic i conclude by that, that everybody serves whether youre flat flofooted or not, gets ri those challenges. Wouldnt Something Like that have a benefit . Now over to here. My name is camera, iocameron research fellow. As a recent College Graduate and millennial, what are tools i can use to motivate and inspire my peers to get involved in National Service. Let me start with that one. So we got a call many years ago from a College Student at yale, and he said, im going to start ask not. An ask not chapter and try to get colleges across the country to create ask not chapters. Barbara talked about the lack of awareness of the programs. One to make people aware you dont have to go to a job or grad school, but you can invest a year or more of your life in service to the nation. So my first reaction would be in florida, your Community Get them to start an ask not chapter and get other colleges to do the same. The Service Year Alliance has created serviceyear. Org, which is actually you can go and put your profile on serviceyear. Org and then find a host of opportunities National Service opportunities to connect to. The beauty is its driven by choice and reflective of the vision of democratizing National Services, getting colleges to create mandatory programs. Thank you for your service to the nation in the state department. Were organizing a u. S. Delegation to israel, the first question we usually get in discussions like this, israel has done this successfully at many levels, its had a profound impact on their economy, society, so were going to learn from israel, components relevant to our system here knowing we have a libertarian instinct and there is opposition to service. By having a requirement for 18 year olds to go into the idf and there are exceptions, it has created this environment where more than 35 of those who arent conscripted voluntarily sign up for civilian National Service. By contrast, in the United States, its less than 1 who are serving from these cohorts, so we think it does have a profound affect. Were going to study the program and learn about what we can. Ill let somebody else talk about Government Transparency. Thank you. One thing i want to say, i think theres a tremendous need for greater awareness of these programs and so forth, on the one hand. On the other hand, every year, really since the creation of americorps, there have been more people that want to do it than ready to do it. Theres been a gap between the people that want to do it and the funding is not there. The college and universities that have the four plus one program, paid, thats a practical reality, especially for the vast majority of students that dont have means to take off a year or be supported by family or a trust fund or something, if you offered that Little Program i referenced at one point we did summers and spring breaks but we had a full year of service we would do, it was post katrina new orleans, over the ten years of the commitments we must have had 50 students doing it. But we had 300 students that wanted to do it. If we could have funded it, we would have and we would have been running new orleans from philadelphia. Theres a need to figure out how to inspire and engage and spread information on one hand. On the other hand theres a lot of latent unmet demand, having the infrastructures to make happen. The constitutional questions have been answered. There is a zone of constitutionality. The political question, i think mandatory service would be great. But the Political Support for it isnt there. Im happy on the transparency question. Yeah, i think there is an obligation for government for transparency but i say that transparency is a means and the truth is reality. I would say government has an obligation for transparency but theres a civic obligation also to set reality as well and make sure that transparency isnt used to twist reality into things that arent true. One other thing, cam, on colleges. A lot of schools are looking at making, if you do a service year, its actually really relevant to getting into the college. William mary created these service year scholarships. And its advancing Actual Service year opportunities through the college system. So imagine if you even had a third of the colleges in the United States creating service year im not positifellowships, would have reinforcing benefits and thats something you can advocate too. I want to address a question to tai based on what john just said. He pointed out absolutely correctly, you know, that the problem for service at this point is not on the is not on the demand side, its on the supply side. And with regard to governments role in National Service, i can report to you that from the very beginning, theres been a gap between the authorization process and the appropriations process. And so, my question you know, and this report makes clear, you know, that the edward m. Kennedy service act authorized four times as many positions as are funded. So as you redesign the architecture of National Community service in the way that youve proposed, do you have a strategy for closing that gap between authorization and appropriation . Yes. I continue to struggle with the mike. We do. I dont know if its the perfect answer but one of the ways we look at this is because theres that gap we do have servi serviceyear. Org. So we do want a way we can move forward and experience growth even if were not seeing it on the federal level. I think one of the ways we drafted our legislation, because it is going to be at the end of the day very much tied to a reauthorization of ameri corp. But the focus on the communities and that demand and raising their hand and providing incentives on the community level. We see that as a first step to get towards that growth. By no means do we have the complete answer but we think its starting at the local level and growth through our service year exchange. We have time for one more round of three. So im going to take this gentleman, i promised him. And then the woman in the aisle there are two hands in the back, i can only take one of them. Ill take the gentleman on the aisle as well. Over here first. Thank you, bill. Hope your fast was easy. It was not. Max finberg, director of ameri corp. Vista. The last time i was here was on a panel on the Faith Based Initiative that both of you had a hand in. Speaking of that, whats the role of faith in National Service especially looking forward to the future . Now two questions on the aisle. You have the microphone, good . Jenny lawson, points of light. In my role i work a lot with the business community. So my question is a corollary, which is whats the role of business . I know theres been some demonstration of National Service projects but how does business play into solutions for National Service . Then the gentleman on the aisle. There you go. That was my question, so i will yield to the other hand. Actually, mines a perfect corollary. Sean riley. Whats the role ofty l philanth . I could not have planned these questions better. I assure you i did not. We have seven minutes to answer the questions. Bridge asked me to do faith. Ill do faith. I think the most important observation to make in the time we have is to note if you look at the partnerships, the word partnerships and relationships, those words have come up a lot, in the actual administration, the translating of the ideals and ideas of National Service into action, the faithbased communities are all over it, they have been, continue to be. Its inconceivable without them. The problem there too is problem of resourcing and capacity. Doing the knitting, doing the dot connecting. That has long been the problem and without getting very side tracked, i think it was a problem on which we were making some nontrivial progress in the not too distant pass but i think those programs and policies have fallen away. When you start a couple years ago with a proposal to eliminate the corporation for the National Community service, that means eliminating all it does and its partnerships. Thats a bad idea. It creates a Chilling Effect for partners out there. You talk to big churches or Small Community based congregations or networks, and they worry about getting involved to the extent that, you know, is this going to be sustainable . But the faith communities remain, i would say if not the primary partners, substantial partner in the cause of National Service programs. Id say quickly on business and fphilanthropy, the encouraging note they invest 1. 2 billion for the 1 billion invested by the federal government today. Thats encouraging. I think businesses can look at what are the institutional changes we can make to foster and ignite a culture of service. Its highly relevant to get a job at this company or that company if you have a year or more of service. Just like the State Government if you served in the peace corp. , you had preference to get a job. If we have every governor in the United States to do that and every business. Now that the business round table redefined the purpose of a corporation and more than 200 ceos have signed onto it, which is quite a change, including giving back to communities, why not challenge americas businesses to take on large public challenges like at t over a dozen years said were going to move the High School Graduation rate from 66 to 90 and theyve stuck with it, invested 500 million in it, and National Service through city year, allens organization, communities and schools, these organizations are actually at the center of providing the students support to keep the kids on track. I think issue based, investment, and finally impact communities, why they cant help organize with us in flint and san jose and these communities were working in. Universal National Service efforts where we knit military and Community Service together. And points of light, your service is extraordinary. Thanks for what you do. Any concluding comments . No. Very good. Let me bridge to the next panel by saying that allen casey, whose name was just invoked will be leading it. I can report to you that i learned everything i brought with me into the white house about National Service from allen casey, because of a site visit i did to the program back in 1992. So never doubt the possibility of a small band of determined people making a very, very big impact. With that, onto the final panel. Can takeei