A bill to amend the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act to extend certain protections to franchised refiners or distributors of lubricating oil.

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. 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 names 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 ant 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 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.

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.

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.

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 provide 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.

Yes, I will work with the Senator on his concerns if we have to do a longer term extension.

Mr. President, I wish to make some brief remarks about the extension of the Transportation Equity Act, often referred to as