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
January 14, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S393 

while it is true that gas prices have retreated from their historic highs since 

last summer, the principle still stands: 

the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, 

should have discretion in setting the 

mileage rate for charitable organizations. This legislation will provide immediate relief for volunteers serving 

our elderly, poor, frail, and at-risk 

Americans. I’m pleased that the senior 

Senator from Maine, Senator SNOWE, 

and my other colleagues, the senior 

Senator from New York, Senator SCHUMER, and the junior Senator from Nevada, Senator ENSIGN, have joined me 

in introducing this legislation. They 

have worked extremely hard on this 

issue. I would also like to thank Senators GRASSLEY, FEINGOLD, LEAHY, ALEXANDER, SANDERS, BURR, DODD, and 

CANTWELL for being original co-sponsors of this bill. 

The Internal Revenue Code does not 

fix a rate for individuals who are required to use their own vehicle for 

work, or for individuals taking a mileage deduction for moving purposes. The 

IRS is able to increase the deduction 

amount for these purposes to reflect 

the current economic climate and dramatically higher fuel prices. This is exactly what the IRS recently did. 

Last July, the IRS modified the 

standard mileage rates for computing 

the deductible costs of operating an 

automobile for business, medical, or 

moving expenses. The revised standard 

mileage rate for business purposes increased from 50.5 cents per mile to 58.5 

cents. For medical and moving expenses, the IRS increased the rate from 

19 cents per mile to 27 cents per mile. 

I think the Nation’s volunteers who 

travel on behalf of charitable organizations deserve an increase in their mileage rate, too. 

Just recently, the IRS again modified 

the standard mileage rates for computing the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, medical, or moving expenses. As of January 

1, the revised standard mileage rate for 

business purposes was decreased from 

58.5 cents to 55 cents. For medical and 

moving expenses, the IRS decreased 

the rate from 27 cents per mile to 24 

cents per mile. This ability to change 

the rate due to the cost of gasoline or 

the economic climate is crucial and 

should be permitted for the Nation’s 

charitable organizations. 

My bill gives the IRS flexibility in 

setting the rate so that volunteers for 

charitable organizations could be given 

the same tax benefit accruing for moving, medical, and business expenses. It 

also provides a floor for volunteers, not 

allowing their rate to be set lower than 

moving and medical rate. In today’s 

climate of increasing food and fuel 

prices, this bill will help relieve some 

of the pressure on charitable organizations and their volunteers. Additionally, this bill will allow the organization to reimburse the volunteer up to 

the business rate without any tax impact to volunteers. 

Take Meals on Wheels, for example. 

This organization delivers nutritious 

meals and other nutrition services to 

men and women who are elderly, homebound, disabled, frail, or otherwise atrisk. The services Meals on Wheels provides significantly improve the recipients’ quality of life and health, and 

often help to postpone institutionalization. 

Over the past year, there has been 

nearly a 20 percent increase in fuel and 

food prices, coupled with reduced government funding and fewer donations 

across the country. Nearly 60 percent 

of the estimated 5,000 programs that 

operate under the auspices of the Meals 

on Wheels Association of America have 

lost volunteers, in large part because it 

became too expensive for the volunteers to drive back and forth. Nearly 

half the programs have eliminated 

routes or consolidated meal services. 

About 38 percent of the programs have 

switched to delivering frozen meals, 

and about 30 percent are cutting personal visits from 5 days a week to one. 

In Maryland, the Central Maryland 

Meals on Wheels has experienced an increase of 7 percent in food costs and 

suppliers are charging higher delivery 

fees. The cost to fill up the vans with 

gas has increased. Fuel costs averaged 

$72,538.70 in fiscal year 2007; this year, 

the costs have jumped to $86,790.63. 

This is an organization with volunteers 

serving over 3,100 elderly, disabled, 

frail, and at-risk Marylanders. Its volunteers deserve relief from high gas 

prices just as much as people who use 

their car for work or for medical purposes or for moving. 

Throughout the United States, Meals 

on Wheels served over 3 million people 

and more than 250 million meals in fiscal year 2006. This is just one of thousands of charitable organizations. We 

need to encourage and support the 

Meals on Wheels volunteers and all 

other volunteers who need their cars to 

help their neighbors and communities. 

The Giving Incentives to Volunteers 

Everywhere bill will do just that, and I 

hope my colleagues will support it. 

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

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 243 

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 ‘‘Giving Incentives to Volunteers Everywhere Act of 

2009’’ or the ‘‘GIVE Act of 2009’’. 

SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF STANDARD MILEAGE 

RATE FOR CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS DEDUCTION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (i) of section 

170 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to standard mileage rate for use of 

passenger automobile) is amended to read as 

follows: 

‘‘(i) STANDARD MILEAGE RATE FOR USE OF

PASSENGER AUTOMOBILE.—For purposes of 

computing the deduction under this section 

for use of a passenger automobile, the standard mileage rate shall be the rate determined by the Secretary, which rate shall not 

be less than the standard mileage rate used 

for purposes of section 213.’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment 

made by this section shall apply to miles 

traveled after the date of the enactment of 

this Act. 

SEC. 3. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR 

CHARITABLE MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Part III of subchapter B 

of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986 (relating to items specifically excluded 

from gross income) is amended by adding at 

the end the following new section: 

‘‘SEC. 139C. CHARITABLE MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an individual, gross income shall not include 

amounts received from an organization described in section 170(c)(2) as reimbursement 

of operating expenses with respect to the use 

of a passenger automobile for the benefit of 

such organization. 

‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—The amount excluded 

from gross income under subsection (a) shall 

not exceed the product of the standard mileage rate used for purposes of section 162 multiplied by the number of miles traveled for 

which such reimbursement is made. 

‘‘(c) APPLICATION TO VOLUNTEER SERVICES

ONLY.—Subsection (a) shall not apply with 

respect to any expenses relating to the performance of services for compensation. 

‘‘(d) NO DOUBLE BENEFIT.—A taxpayer may 

not claim a deduction or credit under any 

other provision of this title with respect to 

reimbursements excluded from income under 

subsection (a). 

‘‘(e) EXEMPTION FROM REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—Section 6041 shall not apply with respect to reimbursements excluded from income under subsection (a). 

‘‘(f) MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS.—For purposes of this section, no exclusion shall be 

allowed under subsection (a) for any reimbursement unless with respect to such reimbursement the taxpayer meets substantiation requirements similar to the requirements of section 274(d).’’. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of 

sections for part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding at 

the end the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 139C. Charitable mileage reimbursement.’’. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall apply to miles 

traveled after the date of the enactment of 

this Act. 

By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mrs. 

LINCOLN, and Mr. CASEY): 

S. 245. A bill to expand, train, and 

support all sectors of the health care 

workforce to care for the growing population of older individuals in the 

United States; to the Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise 

today to introduce the Retooling the 

Health Care Workforce for an aging 

America Act, a bill that will address 

the impending and severe shortage of 

health care workers who are adequately trained and prepared to care 

for older Americans. The unfortunate 

fact of the matter is that while our 

country is aging rapidly, the number of 

health care workers devoted to caring 

for older Americans is experiencing a 

shortage—one that will only grow more 

desperate as the need for these caregivers skyrockets. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE