January 14, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S391 

New Hampshire is currently the only 

State that does not have a full-service 

veterans hospital or a military hospital 

that provides comparable care to veterans. This imposes a great burden on 

too many New Hampshire veterans who 

are forced to travel out of State for 

routine medical services. New Hampshire has over 130,000 veterans and this 

number is projected to grow over the 

next 10 years. It is unconscionable that 

New Hampshire veterans must board 

buses in order to be transported to 

Massachusetts to get necessary medical care. New Hampshire’s entire congressional delegation, Senate and 

House, Republican and Democratic, is 

united in our commitment to end this 

unfair treatment of veterans. I am 

pleased the senior Senator from New 

Hampshire, JUDD GREGG, has agreed to 

cosponsor this legislation with me. 

Our bill is companion legislation to 

that introduced last week in the House 

by Representative CAROL SHEA-PORTER

and cosponsored by Representative 

PAUL HODES. I wish to take this opportunity to salute Representative SHEAPORTER for the leadership she has 

shown on this issue. 

Our goal is to ensure that New Hampshire veterans can get the care they 

need and deserve instate. Our legislation provides the Veterans’ Administration with flexibility to achieve this 

end. If it is not feasible for the VA to 

construct a new full-service hospital in 

New Hampshire or to restore full services at the VA hospital in Manchester, 

this legislation simply requires the 

Veterans’ Administration to contract 

for comparable instate care. 

My father served in Europe during 

World War II, my husband is a Vietnam 

era vet from the Army, and my son-inlaw Ryan recently served in the Air 

Force. I am proud of my family’s service and the service of all the veterans 

of New Hampshire and across this 

country. Every freedom and right we 

enjoy today was paid for with the sacrifices of the men and women who have 

served in our Nation’s Armed Forces. 

Our veterans deserve first-rate medical care, regardless of where they live. 

There are full-service veterans hospitals in 47 States and veterans in 

Alaska and Hawaii are able to receive 

care at military hospitals. New Hampshire alone has neither. I am hopeful 

our colleagues will recognize this inequity and support our efforts to provide New Hampshire veterans with the 

same access to health care that veterans in every other State receive. 

I look forward to working with New 

Hampshire’s congressional delegation, 

with my Senate colleagues and with 

the new Obama administration to end 

this injustice. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 239 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans 

Health Equity Act of 2009’’. 

SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF FULL-SERVICE HOSPITAL OF THE VETERANS HEALTH 

ADMINISTRATION IN CERTAIN 

STATES OR PROVISION OF COMPARABLE SERVICES THROUGH CONTRACT WITH OTHER HEALTH CARE 

PROVIDERS IN THE STATE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 17 of title 38, 

United States Code, is amended by inserting 

after section 1716 the following new section: 

‘‘§ 1716A. Access to full-service hospitals in 

certain States or comparable services 

through contract 

‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT.—With respect to each 

of the 48 contiguous States, the Secretary 

shall ensure that veterans in the State eligible for hospital care and medical services 

under section 1710 of this title have access— 

‘‘(1) to at least one full-service hospital of 

the Veterans Health Administration in the 

State; or 

‘‘(2) to hospital care and medical services 

comparable to the services provided in fullservice hospitals through contract with 

other health care providers in the State. 

‘‘(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in 

subsection (a) shall be construed to restrict 

the ability of the Secretary to provide enhanced care to an eligible veteran who resides in one State in a hospital of the Veterans Health Administration in another 

State.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of 

sections at the beginning of such chapter is 

amended by inserting after the item relating 

to section 1716 the following new item: 

‘‘1716A. Access to full-service hospitals in 

certain States or comparable 

services through contract.’’. 

(c) REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION.—Not later 

than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs shall submit to Congress a report describing the extent to which the Secretary 

has complied with the requirement imposed 

by section 1716A of title 38, United States 

Code, as added by subsection (a), including 

the effect of such requirement on improving 

the quality and standards of care provided to 

veterans. 

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to 

discuss the Veteran’s Health Equity 

Act, a bill that has been introduced by 

my friend from the other side of the 

aisle, Senator JEANNE SHAHEEN. I am 

pleased to start the 111th Congress in a 

bipartisan fashion and to support legislation that addresses an issue that is 

extremely important to our Nation’s 

heroic military veterans, especially in 

my home State of New Hampshire. 

This important piece of legislation, 

which I hope will have the Senate’s full 

support, would require the Department 

of Veterans Affairs to guarantee that 

veterans in every State have access to 

instate hospital care. More specifically, the Veteran’s Health Equity Act 

would require the VA to either provide 

a full-service VA hospital in every 

State or contract with one or a number 

of full-service hospitals to provide veterans with a comparable level of care. 

At this time, New Hampshire, like 

Alaska and Hawaii, is without a fullservice VA hospital and veterans are 

being forced to travel to Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont in order to receive necessary medical treatment. Oftentimes, especially during the winter 

months, interstate travel can be extremely dangerous in New England, 

and our veterans should not be forced 

to travel long distances in order to receive the medical care they have 

earned and deserve. 

I will continue to press the VA until 

veterans have access to local, full-service medical care. Our Nation’s veterans, who have selflessly served our 

country, are owed high-quality medical 

care in exchange for their courageous 

service. The Veteran’s Health Equity 

Act will guarantee that they receive 

that care in a local health care facility. 

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself 

and Mr. ENSIGN): 

S. 242. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965 to specify the purposes for which 

funds provided under part A of title I of 

that Act may be used; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I 

rise today with Senator Ensign to introduce legislation to ensure that Federal Title I education funds are targeted to help our Nation’s neediest students learn. 

Title I provides assistance to virtually every school district in the 

country, serving over 12.5 million children in low-income schools, including 

about 3 million California school children. 

Although it has always been the intent of Congress for Title I funds to be 

used for academic instruction and instructional services, the Federal Government has never provided clear 

guidelines for how these important dollars should be used. 

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 as possible to States 

and school districts. 

This legislation would define Title I 

direct and indirect instructional services. 

It would set a standard for the 

amount of Title I funds that can be 

used to achieve the academic and administrative objectives of this program. 

It would ensure that the majority, 90 

percent, of Title I funds are used to improve academic achievement by stipulating that a school district may not 

use more than 10 percent of these funds 

for administrative or indirect instructional services. 

By setting a standard for the amount 

of funds that school districts can spend 

on administrative or indirect services, 

we ensure that the majority of Title I 

dollars are used by districts to help improve student academic achievement. 

Furthermore, by defining direct and 

indirect services, all States can apply 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
S392 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 2009 

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 or 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. 

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: 

construction or acquisition of real 

property; and 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. 

We should give the Department, 

States, and school districts clearer 

guidance in law. 

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 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 

its 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. 

My reasons for introducing this bill 

are two-fold: First, I believe that 

States must use their limited Federal 

Title I dollars for the fundamental purpose of providing academic instruction 

to help students learn. 

Second, I believe that it is nearly impossible to achieve this fundamental 

purpose without providing a clear definition of what is considered an instructional service. 

Federal funding is only about 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. 

It is critical that Federal guidance be 

provided to ensure that Title I funds go 

where they are needed most—improving the academic performance of lowincome children. 

I urge my colleagues to support this 

legislation. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 

in the RECOD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 242 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Title I Education Funding Integrity Act of 2009’’. 

SEC. 2. DIRECT AND INDIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL 

SERVICES. 

Subpart 1 of part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is amended by 

adding at the end the following: 

‘‘SEC. 1120C. DIRECT AND INDIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.— 

‘‘(1) USE OF FUNDS.—Notwithstanding any 

other provision of this Act, a local educational agency shall use funds received 

under this part only for direct instructional 

services and indirect instructional services. 

‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON INDIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL

SERVICES.—A local educational agency may 

use not more than 10 percent of funds received under this part for indirect instructional services. 

‘‘(b) INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES.— 

‘‘(1) DIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES.—In 

this section, the term ‘direct instructional 

services’ means— 

‘‘(A) the implementation of instructional 

interventions and corrective actions to improve student achievement; 

‘‘(B) the extension of academic instruction 

beyond the normal school day and year, including during summer school; 

‘‘(C) the employment of teachers and other 

instructional personnel, including providing 

teachers and instructional personnel with 

employee benefits; 

‘‘(D) the provision of instructional services 

to prekindergarten children to prepare such 

children for the transition to kindergarten; 

‘‘(E) the purchase of instructional resources, such as books, materials, computers, other instructional equipment, and 

wiring to support instructional equipment; 

‘‘(F) the development and administration 

of curricula, educational materials, and assessments; 

‘‘(G) the transportation of students to assist the students in improving academic 

achievement; 

‘‘(H) the employment of title I coordinators, including providing title I coordinators 

with employee benefits; and 

‘‘(I) the provision of professional development for teachers and other instructional 

personnel. 

‘‘(2) INDIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES.—In 

this section, the term ‘indirect instructional 

services’ includes— 

‘‘(A) the purchase or provision of facilities 

maintenance, gardening, landscaping, or 

janitorial services, or the payment of utility 

costs; 

‘‘(B) the payment of travel and attendance 

costs at conferences or other meetings; 

‘‘(C) the payment of legal services; 

‘‘(D) the payment of business services, including payroll, purchasing, accounting, and 

data processing costs; and 

‘‘(E) any other services determined appropriate by the Secretary that indirectly improve student achievement.’’. 

By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. 

SNOWE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. ENSIGN, Ms. FEINGOLD, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BURR, Mr. DODD, 

Ms. CANTWELL, and Mr. SANDERS): 

S. 243. A bill to amend the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to establish the 

standard mileage rate for use of a passenger automobile for purposes of the 

charitable contributions deduction and 

to exclude charitable mileage reimbursements for gross income; to the 

Committee on Finance. 

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise 

today to reintroduce a bill, the Giving 

Incentives to Volunteers Everywhere 

Act. In today’s economic climate, 

Americans need relief—especially people who volunteer to help the less fortunate in their communities. We can’t 

let an out-of-date mileage rate for volunteers who use their vehicles for charitable purposes exacerbate the pinch at 

the pump they are experiencing. Now, 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE