[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22521-22524]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Cochran):
  S. 1638. A bill to amend title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
to increase teacher familiarity with the educational needs of gifted 
and talented students, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to help 
prepare new teachers to recognize and meet the needs of gifted and 
talented students. As many of my colleagues are aware, I have been 
working for some time to advance a comprehensive approach aimed at 
improving access to gifted and talented educational services in every 
State. My proposal has been introduced in this Congress as S. 501. 
While I will continue to work to enact this needed legislation, the 
bill I am introducing today addresses the different but related need to 
raise awareness among all teachers about the unique educational needs 
of gifted and talented students.
  Unfortunately, many misconceptions persist about the needs of gifted 
children in both the educational community and in public policy 
circles. There is often a tendency to think of gifted kids as those 
kids who will succeed with or without help. This is simply not the case 
and reflects a misunderstanding of giftedness. What makes a child 
gifted and talented is not how well the child does in school, but how 
he or she learns. A student may get straight A's and not be a gifted 
learner, while a gifted and talented student might do poorly on his or 
her schoolwork. Gifted and talented children actually have a different 
way of looking at the world. They tend to have distinct approaches to 
learning and interacting socially, and they frequently learn at a 
different pace, and to different depths, than others their age.

[[Page 22522]]

The bottom line is that gifted and talented children have unique 
learning needs that need to be met in order for them to succeed in 
school.
  Earlier this year, when I re-introduced my bill to expand the 
availability of gifted education services, I told the Senate about a 
third grade student from Iowa City named Jose. I would like to remind 
the Senate about Jose's experience because I think it illustrates some 
important points about gifted students and their needs. Jose wasn't 
completing his assignments and his grades were suffering. He had 
trouble paying attention and would act up in class. He got along with 
his classmates, but didn't have much social interaction with others. 
Jose's teacher tried to get him to pay attention and do his work like 
the other kids, but was left frustrated. Still, Jose's parents 
recognized in him a real hunger for learning and had his IQ tested over 
the summer. It turns out that, while Jose's teacher saw him as a 
problem student, the problems she noticed were really symptoms of a 
gifted student who was bored because he was not being properly 
challenged. Jose now leaves his regular classroom a couple of times a 
week for what Iowa City schools call the ``extended learning program.'' 
As a result of the added stimulation he now receives, Jose enjoys 
school more, has made friends with his gifted peers, and is doing great 
with his regular school work.
  Jose's experience is more than just a success story showing how 
quality gifted education services can make a real difference for a 
child. It also illustrates that gifted students have real needs that 
can all too easily go unrecognized and unmet. Moreover, Jose' 
experience highlights the need for teachers to understand the 
characteristics of gifted kids. In Jose's case, he had parents who were 
able to recognize his gifts and have him assessed privately. Jose's 
parents were then able to take these findings to the gifted education 
teacher at Jose's school and have him identified to receive gifted 
education services. Had his former teacher been able to recognize the 
indications of giftedness, she could have referred him for services 
earlier and she would have been better able to help him succeed in the 
regular classroom.
  I would like to cite another real-life example; this time of a 12-
year-old girl from Shenandoah, IA named Leah. Leah has two parents with 
a high school education who work hard to provide for her, but they 
don't have much discretionary income. Her parents want her to be 
successful, but they rely on the public school system to meet her 
educational needs. Leah came to school able to read, but was a very 
quiet child so no one noticed anything exceptional about her. A year 
later, the first grade teacher caught Leah reading in the coat closet 
and realized that she could read exceptionally well. Leah's teacher 
referred her to the gifted and talented teacher and she has thrived in 
the gifted and talented program ever since. Leah's experiences have 
been limited by her circumstances. She lives in a small town in rural 
south-west Iowa and has not traveled farther than Des Moines or Omaha. 
Leah hasn't grown up with every advantage, yet she is lucky to have had 
an astute classroom teacher who recognized her abilities. Leah now has 
access to a quality gifted education program of services that includes 
a specially trained teacher available to help Leah develop her gifts.
  While Leah is another success story, it is easy to see the important 
role that teachers played in her experience. It is important to 
remember that gifted and talented students come from all backgrounds 
and can be found in any community. A gifted student could be the child 
of a single mom working three jobs, the child of recent immigrants, or 
a foster child. I've even heard stories of a gifted child in Iowa who 
missed school because her parents had her begging for money on the 
streets. Not all gifted children have parents who are equipped to 
recognize their child's gifts or have the resources and ability to see 
that their child gets the services he or she needs to be successful. 
That is why it is so important that classroom teachers have some 
understanding of how to identify gifted kids and how to meet their 
needs while they are in the regular classroom. It is impossible to know 
how many gifted students are overlooked because their teachers do not 
know how to recognize the signs of giftedness or are unprepared to deal 
with the unique needs that gifted kids have. While Iowa requires school 
districts to provide gifted and talented services, a great many school 
districts in many States have little or no programs for gifted kids. 
Moreover, according to the federally funded National Research Center on 
the Gifted and Talented, the large majority of gifted and talented 
students spend at least 80 percent of their time in a regular education 
classroom. As a result, it is vital that all teachers have at least 
basic knowledge and skills to address gifted students' learning needs. 
However, a national survey of third and fourth grade teachers by the 
National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented found that 61 
percent had no training whatsoever in teaching highly able students.
  Ultimately, all teachers should have at least some exposure to the 
characteristics of gifted and talented students and strategies to 
address their needs. Yet, only one State currently requires regular 
classroom teachers to have coursework in gifted education. Some of the 
techniques used in classrooms to accommodate gifted kids include 
differentiated curriculum, cluster grouping, and accelerated learning. 
The time to make sure teachers have the necessary knowledge is when 
prospective teachers are in their pre-service training programs. If 
teachers aren't exposed to information about the needs of gifted 
students in their pre-service training, they may never acquire the 
necessary knowledge. Title II of the Higher Education Act already 
contains grants designed to enhance the quality of teacher preparation 
programs. My bill would simply add allowable uses to these existing 
grants to provide an incentive for States and teacher training programs 
to incorporate the needs of gifted and talented students into teacher 
preparation and licensure requirements.
  Under current law, Title II State grants are awarded directly to 
States and are to be used to reform State teacher preparation 
requirements. The law lists seven potential reforms under the allowable 
uses for grant funds. The first three allowable uses include: 
strengthening State requirements for teacher preparation programs to 
ensure teachers are highly competent in their respective academic 
content areas, reforming certification and licensure requirements with 
respect to competency in content areas, and providing alternatives to 
traditional teacher preparation programs. My legislation would add 
another allowable use, referencing these three reforms, to encourage 
States to incorporate a focus on the learning needs of gifted and 
talented students into reforms of State requirements for teacher 
preparation programs, reforms of State certification and licensure 
requirements, or new alternative teacher preparation programs. In 
addition, my bill would add a new allowable use so that States could 
use grant funds to create or expand new-teacher mentoring programs on 
the needs of gifted and talented students. This way, new teachers could 
learn from veteran teachers about how to identify classroom indicators 
of giftedness and provide appropriate instruction to gifted students.
  My bill would also add language to the Partnership Grants, which 
provide funds to partnerships among teacher preparation institutions, 
school of arts and sciences, and high-need school districts to 
strengthen new teacher education. These grants come with three required 
uses, including reforming teacher preparation programs to ensure 
teachers are highly competent in academic content areas, providing pre-
service clinical experience, and creating opportunities for enhanced 
and ongoing professional development. One allowable use for which a 
partnership may use funds is preparing teachers to work with diverse 
populations, including individuals with disabilities and limited 
English proficient individuals. To this section, my legislation would 
add gifted and talented students. Recognizing that every teacher will 
have

[[Page 22523]]

gifted students in his or her classroom, my bill would also add a new 
allowable use so that teacher preparation programs could use the funds 
to infuse teacher coursework with units on the characteristics of high-
ability learners. In other words, the idea is not to require additional 
courses, but rather to discuss how to accommodate for the needs of 
gifted students throughout the teacher preparation curriculum when new 
teachers are learning how to present lessons.
  My bill does not create a new grant program or require new funds. It 
simply provides an incentive through existing grant programs that will 
encourage States and teacher preparation programs to improve the 
knowledge of new teachers about the unique needs of gifted and talented 
students. New teachers will encounter gifted and talented students. It 
is important they know how to recognize them and how to help them 
succeed. As we have seen with Jose and Leah, having a teacher that 
understands a child's needs can make a huge difference. In fact, it can 
mean the difference between a child hating school and a child loving 
school; a child falling behind, and a child succeeding beyond all 
expectations. When a gifted child is left behind, the loss of human 
potential is tragic. We may not know what we are missing, but it is 
more than we can afford to lose. The legislation I have proposed today 
is a relatively modest step that could have a tremendous impact. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in this effort.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1638

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

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE II OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT 
                   OF 1965.

       (a) State Grants.--Section 202(d) of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1022(d)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(8) Gifted and talented students.--Incorporating the 
     learning needs of gifted and talented students into the 
     activity described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) in order to 
     ensure that new teachers possess basic knowledge and skills 
     necessary to meet the educational needs of gifted and 
     talented students.
       ``(9) New-teacher mentoring on the needs of gifted and 
     talented students.--Establishing or expanding new-teacher 
     mentoring and assessment programs (including induction and 
     evaluation programs) that are a part of the licensure process 
     that includes the development of a portfolio produced by the 
     new teacher, under the supervision and guidance of a veteran 
     teacher mentor, which is designed to demonstrate that the new 
     teacher possesses basic knowledge of the classroom indicators 
     of giftedness, is able to identify student learning 
     differences among gifted students, and is able to provide 
     instruction to accommodate such differences.''.
       (b) Partnership Grants.--Section 203(e) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1023(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and limited English 
     proficient individuals'' and inserting ``, limited English 
     proficient individuals, and gifted and talented students''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Gifted and talented students.--Increasing the 
     knowledge and skills of preservice teachers participating in 
     activities under subsection (d) in the educational and 
     related needs of gifted and talented students by, among other 
     strategies, infusing teacher coursework with units on the 
     characteristics of high-ability learners, using assessments 
     to identify preexisting knowledge and skills among students, 
     and developing teaching strategies that are driven by the 
     learner's progress.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Ensign):
  S. 1639. A bill to amend the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act to 
extend certain protections to franchised refiners or distributors of 
lubricating oil; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, during the 103rd Congress in 1994, the 
Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, PMPA, was amended to protect 
independent petroleum wholesalers and retailers from arbitrary and 
unfair termination or non-renewal of their franchise relationships with 
major oil companies.
  However, this protection was provided only to motor and diesel fuel 
franchisees.
  Franchisees of other petroleum products sold by the major oil 
companies lack similar protection.
  Today, I rise with Senators Burns and Ensign to introduce a bill that 
extends the same protections enjoyed by the motor fuel industry to the 
lubricant industry.
  I have heard from a constituent in Nevada that his franchise 
agreement to sell lubricating oils to car dealers in Las Vegas was 
arbitrarily canceled with 30 days notice.
  In essence, he had thirty days to convert all of his customers to a 
new brand.
  This seems grossly unfair and, in fact, if the product sold by my 
constituent were gasoline or diesel fuel rather than lubricating oil, 
it would have been illegal.
  I have been made aware of similar terminations or non-renewals in 
other States.
  Without equal protection under the law, lubricant franchisees are 
vulnerable to predatory cancellation by their suppliers. This situation 
is exacerbated by recent mergers and acquisitions in the petroleum 
industry.
  The merger of oil giants Chevron and Texaco and Shell Oil's recent 
acquisition of Penzoil-Quaker State will undoubtedly result in the 
termination of many independent lubricant franchisees.
  In New Mexico, there was a lubricant franchisee who had been 
promoting and distributing a branded lubricant to his customers for 
over 30 years, only to be canceled with 30 days notice following a 
merger of refiners.
  This unfair practice stifles competition in the marketplace and 
invariably results in raising the price of the product, which hurts 
American consumers and small businesses.
  This is especially troublesome in rural areas.
  Given the increasingly anti-competitive nature of the petroleum 
industry, the time has come to extend protections under current law for 
motor fuel marketers to include lubricant franchisees.
  There are approximately 3,500 independent distributors and nearly 
25,000 commercial retail lube oil outlets that could be impacted by the 
increasing frequency of lubricant franchise cancellations.
  Refiners have not suffered by complying with PMPA in motor fuels.
  Consequently, it is hard to believe it would be much of an imposition 
to include the much smaller segment of lubricant franchisees.
  I introduce this bill today because it protects small businesses, 
benefits consumers and ensures fair competition in the marketplace.
  In short, this bill is the right thing to do and I hope my colleagues 
will support it.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1639

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

     SECTION 1. PROTECTION OF FRANCHISED DISTRIBUTORS OF 
                   LUBRICATING OIL.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 101 of the Petroleum Marketing 
     Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 2801) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B)--
       (A) in clause (ii)(II), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); and
       (C) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
       ``(iii) any contract under which a refiner authorizes or 
     permits a distributor to use, in connection with the sale, 
     consignment, or distribution of lubricating oil, a trademark 
     that is owned or controlled by the refiner; and'';
       (2) in paragraphs (2), (5), and (6), by inserting ``or 
     lubricating oil'' after ``motor fuel'' each place it appears;
       (3) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(3) Franchisee.--The term `franchisee' means--
       ``(A) a retailer or distributor that is authorized or 
     permitted, under a franchise, to use a trademark in 
     connection with the sale, consignment, or distribution of 
     motor fuel; or
       ``(B) a distributor that is authorized or permitted, under 
     a franchise, to use a trademark in connection with the sale, 
     consignment, or distribution of lubricating oil.

[[Page 22524]]

       ``(4) Franchisor.--The term `franchisor' means--
       ``(A) a refiner or distributor that authorizes or permits, 
     under a franchise, a retailer or distributor to use a 
     trademark in connection with the sale, consignment, or 
     distribution of motor fuel; or
       ``(B) a refiner that authorizes or permits, under a 
     franchise, a distributor to use a trademark in connection 
     with the sale, consignment, or distribution of motor fuel.''; 
     and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(20) Lubricating oil.--The term `lubricating oil' means 
     any grade of paraffinic or naphthenic lubricating oil stock 
     that is refined from crude oil or synthetic lubricants.''.
       (b) Protection of Franchised Distributors of Lubricating 
     Oil.--Section 102(b)(2) of the Petroleum Marketing Practices 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 2802(b)(2)) is amended by inserting after 
     subparagraph (E) the following:
       ``(F) Franchised distributors of lubricating oil.--In the 
     case of a franchise between a refiner or a distributor for 
     the sale, distribution, or consignment of trademarked 
     lubricating oil, a determination made by the franchisor in 
     good faith and in the normal course of business to withdraw 
     from the marketing of the lubricating oil in the relevant 
     geographic market in which the franchised lubricating oil is 
     distributed, if--
       ``(i) the determination is made--

       ``(I) after the date on which the franchise is entered into 
     or renewed; and
       ``(II) on the basis of a change in relevant facts or 
     circumstances relating to the franchise that occurs after the 
     date specified in subclause (I); and

       ``(ii) the termination or nonrenewal is not for the purpose 
     of converting any accounts subject to the franchise to the 
     account of the franchisor.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Bond, Mr. Warner, 
        Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. 
        Murkowski, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Allard):
  S. 1640. A bill to provide an extension of highway programs funded 
out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a law reauthorizing 
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President. I am introducing today the Transportation 
Extension Act of 2003 which will extend the expiring Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century an additional 5 months. Senators, 
Jeffords, Bond, Warner, Voinovich, Crapo, Chafee, Cornyn, Murkowski, 
Thomas, and Allard join me as original cosponsors on this short-term 
extension.
  As my colleagues may be aware, we are now 7 days from the expiration 
of TEA-21. Despite the best efforts of Senator Bond and myself, we have 
been unable to secure the necessary floor time for consideration of a 
comprehensive 6-year bill.
  This bill provides 5 months worth of the $35.5 billion allowed under 
the Budget Resolution and a corresponding amount of obligation 
limitation. This is a significant, 7-percent increase in highway 
funding over 2003, which will translate into over 100,000 new jobs.
  Of course, the best thing we can do to create economic opportunity is 
enact a comprehensive, 6-year reauthorization. As we all know, highway 
bills are jobs bills. A highway bill drafted at $255 billion over 6 
years as proposed by the Environment and Public Works Committee will 
create about two million new American jobs. This combined with the tax 
cuts signed by President Bush is the best stimulus the economy can 
receive.
  Let me be very clear that my preference is that we would be 
completing a 6-year comprehensive bill, not working on a five-month 
extension, but reality is that the funding needed to do a comprehensive 
6-year bill at $255 billion has not yet been identified. Because of 
that, I believe the best outcome for the long term program is to do a 
5-month extension and continue to work on a comprehensive 6-year bill.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I wish to make some brief remarks about 
the extension of the Transportation Equity Act, often referred to as 
TEA-21.
  Chairman Inhofe and I, along with subcommittee Chairman Bond and 
ranking member Harry Reid, have been working together on drafting a 
comprehensive, bipartisan 6-year transportation reauthorization bill. 
Unfortunately, that reauthorization effort will not be completed before 
TEA-21 expires on September 30.
  Thus, as with the previous reauthorization of ISTEA by TEA-21, we 
will need to do a short extension of TEA-21. In the interest of time, 
and to avoid any concerns about potential disruptions, we have used 
major portions of the same short-extension language used for ISTEA in 
1997 for this extension.
  It is important that I clarify some aspects of this short extension 
with the chairman of the committee, Senator Inhofe.
  The purpose of this short extension is to continue the Federal 
surface transportation programs and transportation investment patterns. 
For that reason, we have provided considerable short-term spending 
flexibility to the States.
  However, in a longer term extension, if any were needed, we should be 
consistent with Congressional goals set forth in TEA-21. Thus, I want 
to ensure that if there is a need for another extension we more closely 
adhere to the flexibility provisions set forth in TEA-21. This would 
require, for example, changes to the text used in this short-term 
extension regarding section 133(d).
  In a short-term extension there is little risk that investment 
patterns would be altered in a manner inconsistent with TEA-21 and thus 
the proposed language is acceptable for the short term.
  Senator Inhofe do you agree with my understanding that the bipartisan 
extension we have proposed works well in the short term but would 
require some modification to its flexibility provisions if it were to 
apply for a longer period of time? In addition, will you agree to work 
with me to make changes to the language if we have to do another 
extension to address the concerns I have raised?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I will work with the Senator on his concerns if we 
have to do a longer term extension.

                          ____________________