Title I Integrity Act of 2005

Mr. President, I rise as a leading co-sponsor of the Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2005 introduced today by my colleague and Chairman, Ted Stevens, along with Senators Jay Rockefeller, Olympia Snowe, Frank Lautenberg, Byron Dorgan, Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantwell, Mark Pryor, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Schumer.

Nearly 4 years after the enactment of landmark aviation and maritime security laws, it is time to build upon that foundation, make needed improvements and enhancements to our transportation security efforts across all modes, and reestablish the requisite funding levels. Most importantly, we must restore the sense of urgency that is essential if we are to keep our transportation systems, and our economy, strong, vibrant, and secure. We have worked hard to develop this legislation, and we will continue to improve it with the assistance of committee members and the Department of Homeland Security as we move forward through the legislative process.

Over the past 3\1/2\ years, the administration and Congress have slowly lost the sense of immediacy that once allowed us to recognize that transportation security is a matter of national security. The administration's budget and priorities indicate that they are overlooking glaring security vulnerabilities, disregarding the continuing threats and risks that are reported almost daily, and underestimating the economic consequences that would undoubtedly result from another attack on our transportation systems. I am hopeful that the new leadership will reinvigorate transportation security.

The economic importance of those systems can hardly be overstated: 95 percent of the Nation's cargo comes through the ports; our rail system and our motor carriers move all of those goods from our coasts and borders throughout the interior U.S. to retail outlets and manufacturers that rely on on-time delivery; our aviation system carried 629.7 million domestic passengers during 2004 and averaged 1.5 million enplanements per day in January this year; approximately 24 million passengers ride Amtrak annually, and there are nearly 3.4 billion passenger and commuter rail trips in this country each year. The loss of our aviation system for just 4 days after the September 11th attacks sent shockwaves through the economy that are still being felt today. The al Qaida attack on the passenger trains in Madrid, Spain, killing nearly 200 people and injuring 1,800, unfortunately proved that railroads are vulnerable targets for terrorists. If there is an incident at any one seaport, the whole system for moving cargo into and out of the country would screech to a halt, as we scramble to ensure security at other ports. In addition to the horrible loss of life, the resulting economic damage would be widespread, catastrophic and possibly irreversible. We cannot afford to risk this kind of damage due to a lack of preparedness and forethought.

The terrorists that seek to do us harm are cunning, dynamic, and most of all, patient. While they have not successfully struck our homeland since September 11, 2001, it does not mean that they are not preparing to do so. They work 24 hours a day, studying what we do and how we do it. It is imperative that we stay ahead of them. That means we must constantly anticipate, innovate, and plan. We must continually research and implement the most effective technologies. We must recruit, train and deploy the most skilled security force. Simply put, our entire economy relies on a well-functioning, secure, transportation system. It is in our greatest economic interest to ensure that this system, and the passengers and cargo that use it, are well protected. And, in keeping with transportation security's impact on the nation's physical and economic security, it is the responsibility of the federal government to properly finance that protection.

Following passage of our new aviation security laws, the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, was assembled quickly, presented with an enormous task, and expected to produce immediate results. It has performed admirably, despite the administration's near- constant reorganization of the agency with little to no input from Congress. While we take seriously recent reports about financial mismanagement and the limits of the human capacity to detect security breaches, we cannot and must not use these inadequacies as justification to cast aside the critical work of this agency. There are some in Congress that have never been comfortable with the new Federal role in transportation security, and they look to every negative report to help usher in a return to private security screening companies. We contend, however, that transportation security must not be judged only by the bottom-line commercial pressures of the private sector. Transportation security is a unique national security function and an economic necessity, and like our national defense, it must remain a primary responsibility of the federal government.

The need for Congressional action to secure all forms of transportation infrastructure across the country remains essential, and I, along with many of my colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee, have expressed great reservations about the direction our Nation is now headed on matters of transportation security.

As I noted during the Senate's consideration of the nomination of Michael Chertoff to be the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the administration's budget demonstrates the lost sense of urgency. It shifts critical work away from the TSA. It erodes the Agency's limited focus and accountability. It undermines the effectiveness of our maritime and land security efforts. It underfunds efforts across all modes, but particularly port and rail.

The legislation we are introducing today renews the importance and commitment transportation security deserves. It identifies the numerous, lingering shortcomings that currently exist, re-dedicates our efforts on maritime and surface transportation security, and provides the guidance necessary to adequately defend the nation's infrastructure.

The TSA should not focus almost exclusively on aviation, nor should it be transformed into a glorified, security screener training and placement agency. The TSA is essential, and it possesses critical expertise that must be cultivated and put to proper use. We believe that the TSA, as outlined by our bill, can and will be the difference between a flourishing economy fueled by smooth-running transportation systems and an economy crippled by transportation systems that could fall victim to terrorist attacks.

As such, the Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2005 will authorize the TSA for the next 3 fiscal years and re-dedicate the agency to its mission of providing specialized security for all modes of transportation. It provides further direction to the agency's cargo security functions, strengthens aviation, maritime, rail, hazardous materials, and pipeline security efforts, and enhances interagency cooperation. While the proposal incorporates several Commerce Committee and Senate-passed bills or initiatives from the prior Congress, it also puts forth new ideas to enhance transportation security across all modes.

We recognize that Secretary Chertoff has had only a short time to make changes and that his comprehensive review is pending. Our legislation provides the flexibility necessary to address his findings and prerogatives. However, it is incumbent upon Congress to provide guidance and clarify the expectations.

On the matter of port security, our legislation seeks to improve interagency cooperation with the further development of joint operation command centers. It clarifies the roles and responsibilities for cargo security programs, while establishing criteria for contingency response plans to resume the flow of commerce in the event of a seaport attack. By setting a minimum floor for research and development funding related to maritime and land security, the bill further encourages the development of effective technologies that detect terrorist threats. Conversely, the administration has

continued to consolidate critical infrastructure grant programs, which we believe will effectively decrease funding for port security and eliminate the appropriate expertise necessary to review grant proposals and distribute the funds accordingly.

In addressing aviation security, we continue to be concerned that current budget proposals diminish the TSA's authority and squander its expertise. Airport directors are still struggling to receive the technological and capital improvements that would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the current security system and lower costs considerably. Instead of addressing these shortcomings with aggressive support, the administration has chosen to place a greater burden on the airlines through increased security fees at the same moment that the carriers are facing the most difficult financial period in their history. Not only has the industry lost more than $30 billion cumulatively since 2000, the Federal government has had to bail out the carriers twice. Increasing the carriers' financial burden is ill conceived and counterproductive.

Quietly but consistently, we also hear of some of our colleagues' desire to return to the same privatized security apparatus that proved disastrously inadequate on September 11, 2001. These efforts are short- sighted, defy our experience, and will reverse much of the progress we have made since September 11. Those seeking to return to the old system, at times, claim that the system is no better than pre-September 11. We all know that is not the case. We also know that with new technology, we can improve screener performance. There is no doubt that human factors limit the capabilities of screeners, but as we fund and deploy new equipment, the security system will continue to improve. Our bill seeks to enhance the current screener workforce by directing a more appropriate use of the TSA's resources and through improved training. It would also stimulate efforts to streamline and improve collections of existing airline and passenger security fees to promote a more efficient and healthy aviation industry.

On rail security, our legislation will incorporate an updated version of the Rail Security Act of 2004, which the Senate passed by unanimous consent last year. It features new efforts to ensure the security of hazardous materials that are shipped by rail and improves security training and awareness for our railroad workers and the public. The tragic events in Madrid, Spain, demonstrated to all of us the clear threats to our rail system. We have already been warned publicly twice by the FBI that al Qaida may be directly targeting U.S. passenger trains and that their operatives may try to destroy key rail bridges and sections of track to cause derailments. The rail threat assessment required by our legislation and the grant programs and other measures designed to respond to those threats will strengthen our ability to address them. Until we pass a rail security package, this body is failing its responsibility to try to secure our national transportation system. We owe it to the American people to strengthen the security of our passenger and freight railroads.

To address the security needs of our other surface transportation modes, the proposal will include funding to improve intercity bus security, strengthen hazardous material transportation security efforts, establish new security guidelines for truck rental and leasing operations, and develop pipeline security incident recovery plans. Such action is long overdue as the administration has consistently failed to develop dedicated programs, much less financial support, for rail and other surface transportation security efforts.

We have reached a critical juncture for transportation security in the United States and the steps that we take in the coming months will impact our safety, security and one of our most essential freedoms-- movement--for years to come. We must commit ourselves to ensuring that our transportation security remains a priority and is as strong and effective as possible. I believe the Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2005 will continue to move us in that direction.

Mr. President, it is my honor today to join the distinguished cochairmen of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Senators Ted Stevens and Daniel Inouye, along with our colleagues Senators Byron Dorgan, Frank Lautenberg, Mark Pryor, Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantwell, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Schumer, to introduce the Transportation Security Improvements Act of 2005. This is a vitally important contribution to the security of all Americans, and I commend it to my colleagues for their consideration.

The Transportation Security Improvements Act will increase authorizations for the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, by more than $19 billion through fiscal year 2008, and will forthrightly address continuing vulnerabilities in the security of our various transportation modes that Congress and the administration have as yet virtually ignored.

Americans were shocked to learn just how lax our aviation security was on September 11. Even those terrorists on official Government watch lists, who should have been barred from entering the United States, were able to board planes that they then turned into weapons without any significant interference from airport security staffs. As a wounded Nation tried to overcome the horrors of that day, Congress immediately went about fixing what was so obviously wrong with our aviation security.

Now, as we approach the fourth anniversary of that fateful day, Americans are regaining their confidence about aviation security. There is still work to be done, and my colleagues and I endeavor in this bill to further secure air travel. Still, we have done much to improve domestic aviation security by improving the security procedures we demand of airlines and airport personnel both here and abroad. We need to remain vigilant and avoid the inexcusable error of believing we have done all that needs to be done. We must act with the knowledge that our enemies will continue to probe the system they so successfully breached in 2001 to find new and additional opportunities to kill and terrorize Americans.

What my colleagues and I also have realized for some time is that in devoting our energy and resources to aviation security we have been, in a manner of speaking, ``fighting the last war.'' While the aviation sector is prepared for today's threats, congressional action regarding the level of security of our other transportation modes is not much changed from the blissfully naive standards of September 10.

To be fair, industries in the other transportation modes have worked hard to improve the security of their respective sectors. The relatively little money Congress and the administration have dedicated to improving transportation security has been put to good use. Industry and Government working together, even given the overwhelming scope of the threat, have improved transportation security and protected the lives and property of Americans. We just have not done enough.

The Transportation Security Improvements Act seeks to make overdue improvements to the overall security of this Nation's vast transportation infrastructure. Our bill addresses the security practices and requirements of our Nation's freight and passenger rail network, as well as those of our ocean-going and inland ports, the trucking industry, intercity buses, and the special risks of hazardous materials transportation, regardless of the mode of transportation. It makes the TSA responsible for coordinating international and domestic cargo security. It calls on TSA to work cooperatively with stakeholders in the various transportation modes on preparedness and incident response, and establishes new maritime and land security command procedures. Perhaps most importantly, we acknowledge the need of TSA management to deploy such human resources as it sees fit to protect Americans' lives and property, and it removes the current statutory cap on the agency of 45,000 full-time employees.

To continue the TSA's efforts to improve aviation security, our bill authorizes $15.75 billion over the next 3 fiscal years to fully fund key security programs to defend our Nation's air transportation system. In lieu of recent reports regarding the performance of the airport screening workforce, our bill could not be more timely. We have

included provisions to provide TSA greater flexibility in meeting the staffing needs of screening checkpoints through elimination of an arbitrary staffing cap that was put in place shortly after the agency was created, while also requiring TSA to review the adequacy of recurrent training for these employees. With the difficult economic environment currently faced by the airline industry, the bill takes steps to relieve the carriers of some of the burden that they face through collection of these fees. We would prohibit increasing aviation security fees without Congressional review and approval, while requiring TSA to consider alternative means of collecting such fees. Finally, the bill prohibits the certification of any foreign repair stations until TSA and FAA strengthen the oversight of such facilities by reviewing, auditing and developing regulations to ensure an adequate level of safety and security.

To dramatically improve maritime and land security, we increase funding by $1.099 billion to develop and implement cargo screening and inspection standards, with special attention given to high-risk cargoes. We authorize 10 additional Joint Operation Command Centers to supplement the current positive interagency and public-private cooperation at our ports. We streamline procedures for foreign vessels and those with Coast Guard-certified security plans, require funding for port security technology improvements, and impose a January 2006 deadline for development of a comprehensive Transportation Worker Identification Credentialing Program.

We assist our railroads and hazardous materials shippers in maintaining and improving security along the Nation's nearly 150,000 miles of freight and passenger rail infrastructure. We increase rail security funding by nearly $800 million over 3 years, and with those funds require the TSA to conduct a comprehensive security threat assessment that I first advocated in October 2001. We authorize grants to Amtrak and our freight railroads for overall security improvements, and establish a revamped security training program for railroad employees. Our legislation would allow Amtrak to make specific and long-overdue security improvements along its well-traveled Northeast corridor, and it authorizes development of baggage, passenger, and cargo screening programs, as well as reviews of procedures used by foreign railroads and research into additional improvements.

We seek in this legislation to improve the security of the highway system that is the envy of the world. Our bill makes it a priority to better protect and address the unique security vulnerabilities of intercity buses and their passengers. This is a topic first brought to the attention of Congress by our former colleague Max Cleland, and which I hope we can now see enacted into law as a rightful part of his legacy of service to this country. We further seek to improve highway security by imposing the same level of background checks on foreign drivers transporting hazardous materials as we already require of American drivers. We require vehicles carrying hazardous materials to be equipped with wireless communications equipment, and that their drivers have established plans for the use of alternate routes. We provide funding for the TSA to conduct security inspections of our pipeline network, to develop a pipeline incident response plan, and to analyze the security plans in place for hazmat carriers. We create a public sector response center, and provide for the distribution of emergency wireless communications equipment to first responders, hazmat carriers, and TSA personnel.

Our constituents have sent us here, first and foremost, to protect them. The ruthless attacks of September 11, 2001, exposed inexcusable gaps in our efforts in that regard. At a time when the air in this city is acrid with accusation and acrimony, I ask my colleagues to consider this legislation a priority for quick passage, and an example of the good work this institution can do when we remember why Americans elected us. I ask my colleagues to join us in this effort, and I ask the majority leader to find time on the Senate Calendar for its expeditious consideration by the full Senate.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children and Family HIV/AIDS Research and Care Act of 2005. This bipartisan legislation is similar to a bill that was introduced last year. This legislation will address the special needs of children and youth with HIV/AIDS--needs that are too often overlooked, both domestically and internationally. It recognizes the, simple fact that when it comes to HIV prevention, research, care, and treatment, children and youth are not just small adults. To give them a chance for a healthy future, we must ensure that their unique needs are met. I want to thank my good friend Senator Bond of Missouri for joining me in introducing this important legislation. I am very pleased to work with him to move this bill forward.

Children's growing bodies are especially susceptible to the rapid advancement of HIV infection. Because their immune systems are still immature, the disease typically progresses more rapidly and differently in children than in adults. For example, children with HIV infection are more prone to neurological abnormalities and certain opportunistic infections than adults. In addition, because children's bodies are growing and developing, HIV/AIDS can have profound effects on children's physical growth and ability to reach developmental milestones such as crawling, walking and learning to talk.

While research has definitively shown that initiating drug treatment in children in a timely manner promotes normal growth and development, and prolongs life, treating children with HIV/AIDS presents particular challenges. Appropriately formulated and dosed HIV/AIDS drugs are urgently needed to ensure that children receive optimal care. Currently, liquid formulations that young children can swallow are not always readily available. In addition, pediatric dosing and safety information for these powerful drugs is often lacking, particularly for younger children. This lack of information puts children at risk; too much medication can be toxic and too little will not effectively suppress the virus. Over time, under-dosing can lead to drug resistance, a particularly serious concern for children who will need to use these medications for years, if not decades.

Appropriate HIV/AIDS care and treatment for children and youth also requires that special attention be paid to their social development needs. Children and youth have unique concerns regarding disclosure and stigma that may be exacerbated by frequent absences from school and social activities, and the onset of sexual maturity. Working with schools and other social and community institutions is imperative to promoting a sense of normalcy. Because children are not typically medical decision-makers, developing long-term care partnerships with parents and other caregivers is also crucial to successful care and treatment. At the same time, maximizing each child's own ability to take active participation in different aspects of his or her own care can increase a child's sense of ownership over treatment, improving adherence and overall health.

By reauthorizing and expanding Title IV of the Ryan White CARE Act this legislation will help to ensure that the unique care and treatment needs of children are addressed. This program is a lifeline for more than 53,000 women, children, and youth affected by HIV/AIDS served annually by Title IV-funded projects. Through 91 grants in 35 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Title IV projects provide medical care, case management, support services, mental health, transportation, child care, and other crucial services to families affected by HIV/AIDS. Title IV is the smallest of the four main titles of the Ryan White CARE Act, yet reaches the highest proportion of minorities.

Key to the success of Title IV projects is the model of ``family- centered care.'' This model of care treats the whole family as the client, whether several family members are infected by HIV, or just a parent or child. The family-centered care model is crucial to developing strong partnerships between consumers and providers, leading to better health outcomes for women, children, and youth. By allowing affected family members to receive services, as well as the infected individuals, Title IV projects promote health at the family level, thereby prolonging life, improving quality of life, and saving money by keeping people out of the hospital.

I would like to take a moment to recognize the work done by the Children, Youth and Family AIDS Network of Connecticut, which provides Title IV services to more than 500 children, youth, women, and families affected by HIV/AIDS in my home state. Just earlier today, I had an opportunity to meet with some of these individuals. They made it clear just how important these services are to their quality of life.

While recommitting the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to family-centered care and the unique work of Title IV, this legislation will also expand the innovative strategies Title IV projects have used to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission. Since 1994, when the administration of preventive drug interventions was shown to significantly reduce perinatal HIV transmission, the number of newborns infected with HIV has decreased dramatically. Yet mother-to- children transmission does continue to occur, largely due to missed opportunities for identifying HIV-positive pregnant women and providing the supportive services needed to ensure adherence to recommended treatment regimens. We propose to fund demonstration grants to assess the effectiveness of two strategies in reducing mother-to-children transmission: (1) increasing routine, voluntary HIV testing of pregnant women and (2) increasing access to prenatal care, intensive case management, and supportive services for HIV-positive pregnant women.

In addition, this bill will encourage research into key care and treatment questions affecting the pediatric populations. These include: the long-term health effects of preventive drug regimens on HIV-exposed children; the

long-term health, psycho-social, and prevention needs for children and adolescents perinatally HIV-infected; the transition to adulthood for HIV-infected children; and safer and more effective treatment options for infants, children, and adolescents with HIV disease.

Since history suggests that a vaccine may prove to be the most effective, affordable, long-term approach to stopping the spread of HIV, this legislation will also ensure that children are not an afterthought when it comes to the development of an HIV vaccine. Currently, some of the populations hardest hit by the pandemic--infants and youth--are at risk of being left behind in the search for an effective vaccine. Because we cannot assume that a vaccine tested in adults will also be safe and effective when used in pediatric populations, it will be important to ensure that promising vaccines are tested in infants and youth as early as is medically and ethically appropriate. Failure to begin planning for the inclusion of these groups in clinical trials could mean significant delays in the availability of a pediatric HIV vaccine, at the cost of countless thousands of lives. This legislation will ensure that we begin now to address the logistical, regulatory, medical, and ethical issues presented by pediatric testing of HIV vaccines so that children can share in the benefits of any advances in vaccines research.

I want to thank several organizations for lending their expertise to the development of this legislation, in particular the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth and Families, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, all of whom endorse this bill.

HIV/AIDS is the single greatest health care catastrophe facing the world today. We need to do much more to seek effective treatments and, eventually, a cure for this horrible illness. This legislation is by no means sufficient to reach that goal, but it is a step towards ensuring that children are not left behind as we make progress, and then when we do finally eradicate HIV/AIDS once and for all, children and youth are able to benefit immediately. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Ensign to introduce a bill to ensure that Title I funds are directed towards instructional services to teach our neediest students.

Title I provides assistance to virtually every school district in the country to serve children attending schools with high concentrations of low-income students, from preschool to high school.

It has been the ``anchor'' of Federal assistance to schools, since its inception in 1965. Although it has always

been the intent of Congress for Title I funds to be used for instruction and instructional services, the Federal Government has never provided a clear definition of what instructional services should entail.

This lack of federal guidance has become especially clear now, as States scramble to comply with the Title I accountability standards established in ``No Child Left Behind.''

While State Administrators of Title I are directed by law to meet these specific requirements, they have been given little guidance as to how to ensure that they are in compliance with the law.

I believe that the Federal Government is responsible for making this process as clear to States as possible.

In my view, as it relates to Title I, we have not lived up to our end of the bargain.

During consideration of ``No Child Left Behind,'' I worked hard to get my bill defining appropriate Title I uses included in the Senate version of the bill.

Unfortunately, during conference consideration, my bill was stripped out and in its place language directing the General Accounting Office (GAO) to report on how states use their Title I funds was inserted.

In April 2003, GAO released the report that Congress directed them to submit on Title I Administrative Expenditures.

What GAO found is that while districts spent a relatively small amount, no more than 13 percent, of Title I funds on administrative services, these findings were based on their own definition ``because there is no common definition on what constitutes administrative expenditures.''

Therefore, the accounting office could not precisely measure how much of schools' Title I funds were used for administration.

Because Title I funds are not defined consistently throughout the states, the accounting office created their own definition by compiling aspects of state priorities to complete the report.

You see, the very reason I worked to define how Title I funds should be used--to create consistency and distribution priority nationwide-- became the definitive aspect preventing GAO from effectively drawing conclusions to their report.

The report highlights two concerns that I have with the absence of universal definitions in the Title I program: the lack of Federal guidance on effective uses of Title I funds. The government's inability to accurately measure whether the academic needs of low-income students are being met.

My bill takes some strong steps by balancing the needs for states to retain Title I flexibility and providing them with the guidance needed to administer the program uniformly throughout the country.

Current law on Title I is much too vague.

It says, ``a State or local educational agency shall use funds received under this part only to supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds.''

Basically, it says that Title I funds are to be used for the ``education of pupils.'' This is too nebulous.

The U.S. Department of Education has given states a guidance document that explains how Title I funds can be used.

Under this guidance document, only two uses are specifically prohibited: 1. construction or acquisition of real property; and 2. payment to parents to attend a meeting or training session or to reimburse a parent for a salary lost due to attendance at a ``parental involvement'' meeting.

I believe we should give the Department, states and districts a clearer guidance in law.

This legislation does the following: defines Title I direct and indirect instructional services. Sets a standard for the amount of Title I funds that can be used to achieve the academic and administrative objectives of this program. Ensures that the majority of Title I funds are used to improve academic achievement by stipulating that a local educational agency may use not more than 10 percent of Title I funds received for indirect instructional services.

By limiting the amount of funds that schools can spend on administrative or indirect services, school districts are restricted from shuffling the majority of Title I to pay for non-academic services, but it also gives the districts flexibility to use the remaining funds for the indirect costs administering Title I distribution.

Furthermore, by defining direct and indirect services, all states can apply the same standards for how Title I funds are used nationwide.

Examples of permissible Direct Services are: employing teachers and other instructional personnel, including employee benefits. Intervening and taking corrective actions to improve student achievement. Extending academic instruction beyond the normal school day and year, including summer school. Providing instructional services to pre-kindergarten children for the transition to kindergarten. Purchasing instructional resources such as books, materials, computers, and other instructional equipment. Professional development. Developing and administering curriculum, educational materials and assessments.

Examples of Indirect Services limited to no more than 10 percent of Title I expenditures are: business services relating to administering the program. Purchasing or providing facilities maintenance, janitorial, gardening, or landscaping services or the payment of utility costs. Buying food. Paying for travel to and attendance at conferences or meetings, except if necessary for professional development.

My reasons for introducing this bill are two-fold: First, I believe that states must use their limited federal dollars for the fundamental purpose of providing academic instruction to help students learn.

Secondly, I believe that it is nearly impossible to do so without providing a clear definition of what is considered an instructional service.

I am not suggesting that it is the fault of the school districts for not focusing their Title I funds on academic instruction. They are simply exercising the flexibility that Congress has given them.

If Congress also intended for those funds to educate our neediest children, Federal guidance must be given to ensure that it happens.

It is my view that Title I cannot do everything. Federal funding is only 8 percent of the total funding for elementary and secondary education and Title I is even a smaller percentage of total support for public schools.

That is why it is imperative to better focus Title I funds on academic instruction, teaching the fundamentals and helping disadvantaged children achieve.

Schools must focus their general administrative budget to pay for expenses that fall outside of the realm of direct educational services and retain the majority of Federal funds to improve academic achievement.

It is time to better direct Title I funds to the true goal of education: to help students learn. This is one step towards that important goal.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the legislation directly follow this statement in the Record.

Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Ensign to introduce a bill to ensure that Title I funds are directed towards instructional services to teach our neediest students.

Title I provides assistance to virtually every school district in the country to serve children attending schools with high concentrations of low-income students, from preschool to high school.

It has been the ``anchor'' of Federal assistance to schools, since its inception in 1965. Although it has always

been the intent of Congress for Title I funds to be used for instruction and instructional services, the Federal Government has never provided a clear definition of what instructional services should entail.

This lack of federal guidance has become especially clear now, as States scramble to comply with the Title I accountability standards established in ``No Child Left Behind.''

While State Administrators of Title I are directed by law to meet these specific requirements, they have been given little guidance as to how to ensure that they are in compliance with the law.

I believe that the Federal Government is responsible for making this process as clear to States as possible.

In my view, as it relates to Title I, we have not lived up to our end of the bargain.

During consideration of ``No Child Left Behind,'' I worked hard to get my bill defining appropriate Title I uses included in the Senate version of the bill.

Unfortunately, during conference consideration, my bill was stripped out and in its place language directing the General Accounting Office (GAO) to report on how states use their Title I funds was inserted.

In April 2003, GAO released the report that Congress directed them to submit on Title I Administrative Expenditures.

What GAO found is that while districts spent a relatively small amount, no more than 13 percent, of Title I funds on administrative services, these findings were based on their own definition ``because there is no common definition on what constitutes administrative expenditures.''

Therefore, the accounting office could not precisely measure how much of schools' Title I funds were used for administration.

Because Title I funds are not defined consistently throughout the states, the accounting office created their own definition by compiling aspects of state priorities to complete the report.

You see, the very reason I worked to define how Title I funds should be used--to create consistency and distribution priority nationwide-- became the definitive aspect preventing GAO from effectively drawing conclusions to their report.

The report highlights two concerns that I have with the absence of universal definitions in the Title I program: the lack of Federal guidance on effective uses of Title I funds. The government's inability to accurately measure whether the academic needs of low-income students are being met.

My bill takes some strong steps by balancing the needs for states to retain Title I flexibility and providing them with the guidance needed to administer the program uniformly throughout the country.

Current law on Title I is much too vague.

It says, ``a State or local educational agency shall use funds received under this part only to supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds.''

Basically, it says that Title I funds are to be used for the ``education of pupils.'' This is too nebulous.

The U.S. Department of Education has given states a guidance document that explains how Title I funds can be used.

Under this guidance document, only two uses are specifically prohibited: 1. construction or acquisition of real property; and 2. payment to parents to attend a meeting or training session or to reimburse a parent for a salary lost due to attendance at a ``parental involvement'' meeting.

I believe we should give the Department, states and districts a clearer guidance in law.

This legislation does the following: defines Title I direct and indirect instructional services. Sets a standard for the amount of Title I funds that can be used to achieve the academic and administrative objectives of this program. Ensures that the majority of Title I funds are used to improve academic achievement by stipulating that a local educational agency may use not more than 10 percent of Title I funds received for indirect instructional services.

By limiting the amount of funds that schools can spend on administrative or indirect services, school districts are restricted from shuffling the majority of Title I to pay for non-academic services, but it also gives the districts flexibility to use the remaining funds for the indirect costs administering Title I distribution.

Furthermore, by defining direct and indirect services, all states can apply the same standards for how Title I funds are used nationwide.

Examples of permissible Direct Services are: employing teachers and other instructional personnel, including employee benefits. Intervening and taking corrective actions to improve student achievement. Extending academic instruction beyond the normal school day and year, including summer school. Providing instructional services to pre-kindergarten children for the transition to kindergarten. Purchasing instructional resources such as books, materials, computers, and other instructional equipment. Professional development. Developing and administering curriculum, educational materials and assessments.

Examples of Indirect Services limited to no more than 10 percent of Title I expenditures are: business services relating to administering the program. Purchasing or providing facilities maintenance, janitorial, gardening, or landscaping services or the payment of utility costs. Buying food. Paying for travel to and attendance at conferences or meetings, except if necessary for professional development.

My reasons for introducing this bill are two-fold: First, I believe that states must use their limited federal dollars for the fundamental purpose of providing academic instruction to help students learn.

Secondly, I believe that it is nearly impossible to do so without providing a clear definition of what is considered an instructional service.

I am not suggesting that it is the fault of the school districts for not focusing their Title I funds on academic instruction. They are simply exercising the flexibility that Congress has given them.

If Congress also intended for those funds to educate our neediest children, Federal guidance must be given to ensure that it happens.

It is my view that Title I cannot do everything. Federal funding is only 8 percent of the total funding for elementary and secondary education and Title I is even a smaller percentage of total support for public schools.

That is why it is imperative to better focus Title I funds on academic instruction, teaching the fundamentals and helping disadvantaged children achieve.

Schools must focus their general administrative budget to pay for expenses that fall outside of the realm of direct educational services and retain the majority of Federal funds to improve academic achievement.

It is time to better direct Title I funds to the true goal of education: to help students learn. This is one step towards that important goal.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the legislation directly follow this statement in the Record.