Title I Integrity Act of 2007

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

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

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 are struggling to comply with the Title I accountability standards established under ``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.

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

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 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 uses of 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.

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 lack of universal definitions in the Title I program: The lack of Federal guidance on effective uses of Title I funds and the government's inability to accurately measure whether the academic needs of low- income students are being met.

This 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 ambiguous.

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 would: Define Title I direct and indirect instructional services. Set a standard for the amount of Title I funds that can be used to achieve the academic and administrative objectives of this program. Ensure 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. Purchasing instructional resources such as books, materials, computers, and other instructional equipment. 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 and 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 about 9 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.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Water Infrastructure Revitalization Act, which authorizes $60 million through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assist communities in North Dakota with water supply and treatment projects.

Imagine if you went to turn on your kitchen faucet one day and no water came out. This scenario became true for thousands in the communities of Fort Yates, Cannonball, and Porcupine just days before Thanksgiving in 2003. The loss of drinking water forced the closure of schools, the hospital and tribal offices for days. About 170 miles upstream, the community of Parshall faces similar water supply challenges as the water level on Lake Sakakawea continues to drop, leaving its intake high and dry. These and other communities in the State have faced significant expenditures in extending their intakes to ensure a continued supply of water. In addition, the city of Mandan faces the prospect of constructing a new horizontal well intake because changes in sediment load and flow as a result of the backwater effects of the Oahe Reservoir have caused significant siltation problems that restrict flow into the intake. These examples barely scratch the surface of the problems faced by many North Dakota communities in maintaining a safe, reliable water supply.

Since 1999, the Corps of Engineers has been authorized to design and construct water-related infrastructure projects in several different States including Wisconsin, Minnesota and Montana. The State of North Dakota confronts water infrastructure challenges that are just as difficult as those in these other States. In fact, many of these challenges are caused directly by the Corps of Engineers's operations of the Missouri River dams. As a result, it is only appropriate that the Corps be part of the solution to North Dakota's water needs.

The Water Infrastructure Revitalization Act would provide important supplemental funding to assist North Dakota communities with water- related infrastructure repairs. Under the act, communities could use the funding for wastewater treatment, water supply facilities, environmental restoration and surface water resource protection. Projects would be cost shared, with 75 percent Federal funding and 25 percent non-Federal in most instances. However, the bill reduces the financial burden on local communities if necessary to ensure that water rates do not exceed the national affordability criteria developed by the Environmental Protection Agency.

This bill is not intended to compete with or take away funds for the construction of rural water projects under the Dakota Water Resources Act. Instead, it is meant to provide important supplemental funding for communities that are not able to receive funding from the Dakota Water Resources Act. It is my hope that this authorization will be included as part of the Water Resources Development Act.

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation to address an important issue in North Dakota.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct a new municipal water supply system for the city of Devils Lake, ND. This project is very important to the reliability of the water supply for the residents of Devils Lake and is needed to mitigate long-term consequences from the rising flood waters of Devils Lake.

As many of my colleagues know, the Devils Lake region has been plagued by a flooding disaster since 1993. During that time, Devils Lake, a closed basin lake, has risen more than 25 feet, consuming land, destroying homes, and impacting vital infrastructure. As a result of this disaster, the city of Devils Lake faces a significant risk of losing its water supply. Currently, 6 miles or approximately one-third of the city's 40-year-old water transmission line is covered by the rising waters of Devils Lake. The submerged section of the water line includes numerous gate valves, air relief valves, and blow-off discharges.

All of the water for the city's residents and businesses must flow through this single transmission line. It is also the only link between the water source and the city's water distribution system. Since the transmission line is operated under relatively low pressures and is under considerable depths of water, a minor leak could cause significant problems. If a failure in the line were to occur, it would be almost impossible to identify the leak and make necessary repairs, and the city would be left without a water supply.

The city is in the process of accessing a new water source due both to the threat of a transmission line failure and the fact that its current water source exceeds the new arsenic standard. The city has worked closely with the North Dakota State Water Commission in identifying a new water source that will not be affected by the rising flood waters and will provide the city with adequate water to meet its current and future needs.

The bill will authorize the Corps to construct a new water supply system for the city. Mr. President, I believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to address the unintended consequences of this flood and mitigate its long-term consequences. This bill will help the Federal Government live up to its responsibility and ensure that the residents of Devils Lake have a safe and reliable water supply. It is my hope that this authorization will be included as part of the Water Resources Development Act.

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation to address an important issue for the city of Devils Lake.

Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation today that would increase the mileage reimbursement rate for volunteers.

Under current law, when volunteers use their cars for charitable purposes, the volunteers may be reimbursed up to 14 cents per mile for their donated services without triggering a tax consequence for either the organization or the volunteers. If the charitable organization reimburses any more than that, they are required to file an information return indicating the amount, and the volunteers must include the amount over 14 cents per mile in their taxable income. By contrast, for 2007, the mileage reimbursement level permitted for businesses is 48.5 cents per mile, nearly three and a half times the volunteer rate.

While we are asking volunteers and volunteer organizations to bear a greater burden of delivering essential services, the 14 cents per mile limit is imposing a very real hardship for charitable organizations and other nonprofit groups.

I have heard from a number of people in Wisconsin on the need to increase this reimbursement limit. One of the first organizations that brought this issue to my attention was the Portage County Department on Aging. Volunteer drivers are critical to their ability to provide services to seniors in Portage County, and the Department on Aging depends on dozens of volunteer drivers to deliver meals to homes and transport people to their medical appointments, meal sites, and other essential services.

Many of my colleagues know the senior meals program is one of the most vital services provided under the Older Americans Act, and ensuring that meals can be delivered to seniors or that seniors can be taken to meal sites is an essential part of that program. In fact, it is often the case that the senior meals program is the point at which many frail elderly first come into contact with the network of services that can help them. For that reason, these programs are important not only for the essential nutrition services they provide, but also for the many other critical services that the frail elderly may need.

Unfortunately, Federal support for the senior nutrition programs has stagnated in recent years, increasing pressure on local programs to leverage more volunteer services to make up for that lagging Federal support. Regrettably, the 14 cents per mile reimbursement limit has made it far more difficult to obtain those volunteer services. Portage County reported that many of their volunteers cannot afford to offer their services under such a restriction. And if volunteers cannot be found, their services will have to be replaced by contracting with a provider, greatly increasing costs to the Department, costs that come directly out of the pot of funds available to pay for meals and other services.

The same is true for thousands of other non-profit and charitable organizations that provide essential services to communities across our Nation.

By contrast, businesses do not face this restrictive mileage reimbursement limit. As I noted earlier, for 2007 the comparable mileage rate for someone who works for a business is 48.5 cents per mile. This disparity means that a business hired to deliver the same meals delivered by volunteers for Portage County may reimburse their employees nearly three and a half times the amount permitted the volunteer without a tax consequence.

This doesn't make sense. The 14 cents per mile volunteer reimbursement limit is badly outdated. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress first set a reimbursement rate of 12 cents per mile as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and did not increase it until 1997, when the level was raised slightly, to 14 cents per mile, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

The bill I am introducing today is identical to a measure I introduced in the 109th Congress, and largely the same as the version I introduced in the 107th and 108th Congresses. It raises the limit on volunteer mileage reimbursement to the level permitted to businesses, and provides an offset to ensure that the measure does not aggravate the budget deficit. The most recent estimate of the cost to increase the reimbursement for volunteer drivers is about $1 million over 5 years. Though the revenue loss is small, it is vital that we do everything we can to move toward a balanced budget, and to that end I have included a provision to fully offset the cost of the measure and make it deficit neutral. That provision increases the criminal monetary penalties for individuals and corporations convicted of tax fraud. The provision passed the Senate in the 108th Congress as part of the JOBS bill, but was later dropped in conference and was not included in the final version of that bill.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It will help ensure charitable organizations can continue to attract the volunteers that play such a critical role in helping to deliver services and it will simplify the Tax Code both for nonprofit groups and the volunteers themselves.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hunting Heritage Protection Act of 2007. I cannot stress how important this piece of legislation is to ensure that our Nation's rich hunting heritage is passed on to future generations. This legislation preserves and protects the rights and access to Federal public lands that are vitally important to the sportsmen and women of America.

I have been an avid outdoor sportsman for the better part of my adult life and I must say that the times I have spent hunting with my son or with friends have been some of the best times of my life. Recreational hunting provides numerous opportunities to spend time and share valuable experiences of some of life's lessons with children, family and friends.

It is hard to put a price tag on seeing the joy and excitement in a child's eyes during their first hunting experience. It is one of the reasons that I decided to introduce this legislation. I believe that recreational hunting should be an activity that everyone has the opportunity to experience.

One thing that all sportsmen and women have in common is that they are also conservationists. I, like my fellow hunters, understand that without wildlife conservation our Nation's rich hunting heritage will end with this generation. Sportsmen and women have continued to support sound wildlife management and conservation practices since the time of President Theodore Roosevelt who many consider to be the father of the conservation movement. Each year millions of hunters purchase licenses, permits, and stamps that contribute a significant amount of money to wildlife conservation. These hunters also contribute billions of dollars to the U.S. economy from other hunting related activities.

Hunting is a rural development activity. It is quite understandable how hunting provides an important supplement to the income of many farmers and ranchers, and even though this legislation pertains to Federal public lands many people overlook the related rural job opportunities that are created by hunting. These include guiding and increased hotel and restaurant activity to name just a few. As our rural population decreases and our urban/suburban increases, hunting is an activity that allows many families to stay connected to the land and in so doing; it creates economic activity for our rural areas.

Recognizing hunters for their role in conservation efforts throughout the U.S. is very important. The Hunting Heritage Protection Act not only recognizes hunters for their conservation efforts but it also requires that Federal public land and water are open to access and use for recreational hunting when and where hunting is appropriate. It is important to note that this bill does not open all Federal public land to hunting.

Another crucial piece of this legislation is that it creates a policy that requires Federal government agencies to manage Federal public land under their jurisdiction in a manner that supports, promotes, and enhances recreational hunting opportunities.

As I mentioned before, sportsmen and women have contributed greatly to wildlife conservation over the years and it is important that Congress acknowledge this contribution by ensuring that the amount of Federal public land open to recreational hunting does not decrease. That is why this legislation requires that actions related to the management of Federal public lands should result in a ``no net loss'' of land area available for recreational hunting.

It is vitally important that we, as Members of the Senate, do all we can to protect and preserve the tradition of hunting so that future generations will be able to experience this great outdoor recreational activity. I believe that the ``Hunting Heritage Protection Act of 2007'' meets these goals.

I want to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting and preserving our Nation's rich heritage of hunting by supporting this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to require the Government to label any food that comes from a cloned animal.

I am strongly opposed to the FDA approving meat and milk products from cloned animals. No one needs cloned milk and meat. Most Americans actively oppose it.

But the Food and Drug Administration has decided that food from cloned animals is safe to eat. And, since they have decided this is ``safe,'' they will not require that it be labeled as coming from a cloned animal.

The American people don't want this. Gallup Polls report over 65 percent of Americans think it is immoral to clone animals and the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found that a similar percentage say that, despite FDA approval, they won't buy cloned milk.

The National Academies of Science reported that so far, studies show no problems with food from cloned animals but they also admit that this is brand new science. What about the possibility of unintended consequences a few years from now? They cautioned the Federal Government to monitor for potential health effects and urged diligent post-market surveillance.

So even if we agreed the science appears safe, we need to follow it closely. But, once the FDA determines this is safe they said they will allow the food to enter the market unidentified, unlabeled, unbeknownst to all of us and completely indistinguishable from all other food. We won't be able to tell which foods were made the good old fashioned way and which came from a cloned animal

Must we be compelled to eat anything a scientist can produce in the laboratory? Just because they can make it, should Americans be required to eat it? Of course not. The public deserves to know if their food comes from a cloned animal.

To help the American public make an informed decision on this, today I will introduce a bill to require all food that comes from a cloned animal to be labeled. This legislation will require the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture to label all food that comes from a cloned animal or their offspring. We need to know and we must be able to decide for ourselves. And I mean all food--not just the packages we buy in the supermarket but the meals we choose from a menu.

The FDA has a responsibility to guarantee the safety of our food. Though many aspects of food safety are beyond their control--this is not. We do not know enough about the long term effects of introducing cloned animals, or their offspring, into our food supply to guarantee this is safe. Is this decision to allow cloned animals into our food supply influenced by factors other than keeping the public safe? Are they allowing an eager industry to force a questionably scientific process on an unknowing public?

We simply don't have the same trust in the FDA as we once had. Recently the Wall Street Journal found that over half of Americans feel the FDA does not do a good job keeping our drug supply safe. We want to trust them with the safety of our food supply but what if they are wrong?

What if the FDA has made a mistake and finds out a few years from now that there was a problem with this. If we do not keep track of it from the very beginning--by clear and dependable labeling--we could contaminate our entire food supply. If the food is not properly labeled we can't remove it from the shelves like we did with problematic drugs such as Vioxx and Celebrex. We must be proactive. We must label these foods.

I reject the notion that the FDA or anyone else should force Americans to accept and consume any product that can be manufactured in a lab--no matter how offensive the product is. We need to insist that the FDA treat the public fairly. If cloned food is safe, let it onto the market, but give consumers the information they need to avoid these products. We need to let Americans speak with their dollars and choose the food they have confidence is safe.