Floor Statements

It is my understanding that we have 6 minutes 20 seconds remaining on our side.

I yield myself such time as I might consume of that amount.

There are three big problems with Senator Biden's amendment. One is substantive and two are procedural. Before I go into the problems with Senator Biden's amendment, I will say that I agree with everybody's concern, including his, about the size of the package and the concern that we should have about the Federal deficit. Hopefully, as the economy grows--and the last figures indicate it is growing now at 3.4 percent--Federal revenues will return then to their average levels of 18 to 19 percent of the gross domestic product, which is an average of over the last 60 years, and we will close the gap.

I also point to the fact that there are really two sides to the Federal ledger. One is the revenue side; that is, what comes in from the taxes paid by our factory workers, office workers, and farmers from across the America. The other side of the ledger is the spending side of the ledger, the appropriations bills by the Congress of the United States.

My friends on the other side of the aisle, as Senator Biden's amendment shows, are zeroing in exclusively on the tax side. They look only to the taxpayers to put our fiscal house in order. I agree with the goal of reducing the deficit. I disagree that it is appropriate to look at only one side as if what is wrong with America and what is the cause of the deficit is that American taxpayers are undertaxed and that in no way Congress overspends. Indeed, the Finance Committee approved a bill yesterday that included $55 billion in revenue offsets. So Republicans have been willing to exercise fiscal discipline, especially when it comes to closing corporate loopholes and curtailing tax shelters.

I ask the full Senate, who was the last Democrat to propose any savings on the spending side of the ledger? I do not recall a single spending cut being proposed by those on the other side of the aisle. Maybe back in the mid-1990s, but we would have to go back many years.

All I see, and Senator Santorum makes this clear with his spendometer chart, is spending increases. So if those on the other side want to claim to be fiscal disciplinarians, let us see entries on the spending side of the ledger in order for there to be credibility. We cannot just go to the American people and ask for more tax money.

Let me also say that I am concerned about the degree to which taxpayers are financing reconstruction in Iraq on a blank check basis. I first raised this concern almost a year ago. We ought to be very careful about the structure of this aid package. Maybe it should be a loan or have some equity interest for the taxpayers.

Now I would like to turn to Senator Biden's amendment. Let us go to the substantive problems first. Senator Biden is seeking to offset the President's $87 billion request with a tax increase. For 2001, the top rate was reduced to 38.6. For 2003, the top rate was reduced to 35 percent. Senator Biden's amendment would raise the top rate to 38.2 percent. The premise of Senator Biden's position seems to be that taxpayers in the top bracket are solely Park Avenue millionaires, clipping coupons and enjoying life. Well, the facts show quite differently.

According to the Treasury Department, about 80 percent of the benefits of the top rate go to small businessowners, people who create 80 percent of the new jobs in America. For the first time in many years, because of our tax bills, we have that top rate down to 35 percent, which is the very same as Fortune 500 companies. Senator Biden's amendment would restore a 10-percent penalty against small business, 38.2 percent, as opposed to 35 percent now for small business, the same as corporations.

I do not quarrel with the notion that taxpayers in the top bracket make incomes starting in the range of around $350,000 to $400,000. A lot of these successful small businessowners make those figures. But keep in mind that figure represents the total net income of those small businesses. Successful small businesses are those that purchase the equipment and hire those

new workers that I referred to as 80 percent of the new jobs.

I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle who are eager to raise taxes--they are reluctant to cut spending and eager to increase spending--to focus on the negative effects of their policy on small business. Small business creates many jobs. Why at this time, with high unemployment, would we want to raise taxes on the folks who create 80 percent of the new jobs?

Just yesterday, the Finance Committee, on a 19-2 vote, reported a bill designed to cut the top marginal rate for small business manufacturers to 32 percent. Senator Biden's amendment would go the other way and hammer our small business manufacturers.

Now, let's discuss the two procedural problems.

The first procedural problem is also constitutional. Under the Constitution, revenue measures must originate in the House. Senator Biden's amendment is a tax increase. It is a clear case of a revenue measure. The Ways and Means Committee has indicated the House will exercise its Constitutional prerogative and ``blue slip'' this bill if it contains Senator Biden's amendment. A blue slip kills this bill. We go back to square one. A vote for the Biden amendment is a vote to stop aid to our troops. It is a vote to stop aid to the Iraqi people at a critical time.

Let me repeat that point. A vote for the Biden amendment is a vote against aid to our troops. A vote for the Biden amendment is a vote against assistance to the Iraqi people.

From my own perspective, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I have to warn members of our committee that the Biden amendment raises a fundamental tax issue on an unrelated bill. The Biden amendment treads on Finance Committee's jurisdiction. Every Finance Committee member should oppose Senator Biden's amendment on that basis alone. But, most importantly, this amendment is a reckless attack on our economic recovery and I strongly urge its defeat.

I ask Senators to defeat the Biden amendment and not increase taxes on small business.

I am saying it is unfair to tax small business that is not incorporated at a higher rate than the tax on Fortune 500s, No. 1.

Number 2, this may only be 2 percent of the employers, but they are the people who create the jobs.

I have worked at packing plants; I worked at the Waterloo Register Company. I never had one poor person provide the job for me. I always had somebody who makes a lot more money than I do provide the jobs for me. We don't want to choke that off in America.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce, along with Senator Baucus, an extension of a bipartisan policy to help reduce the number of people living without health insurance today.

In simplist terms, our bill extends the 65 percent credit offered to people eligible for trade adjustment assistance, and to certain PBGC beneficiaries, to those workers eligible for unemployment insurance.

Is it perfect policy? No. Does it ``solve'' the problem of the uninsured? it does not.

But it's an important step in the right direction. I do not subscribe to the view that ``incrementalism'' when it comes to covering the uninsured, is dead.

With census figures showing the number of Americans living without health insurance increasing, even small steps are steps in the right direction.

Incrementalism has made a difference. For example, the few million people we covered with this tax credit in last year's trade promotion authority bill made a difference. The S-CHIP program made a difference. I believe Medical Savings Accounts and the small group market reforms we made in HIPAA all have made a difference in controlling what would otherwise be a much larger number of people without health insurance.

This year, Congress, in a bipartisan way, put $50 billion into a reserve fund to address the rising number of uninsured. The year is more than almost over, and nothing has been done, or even discussed.

I will not let a bipartisan consensus to spend $50 billion on improving access to health insurance lay there on the table. Iowans expect us to do get things done.

And to get anything, even something small, done on a problem this big, it's got to be bipartisan. That's why I am glad to be building on my work with Senator Baucus and making this important, novel program available to more Americans.

I am looking forward to exploring still more options in the Finance Committee on reducing the uninsured in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce, along with Senator Baucus, an extension of a bipartisan policy to help reduce the number of people living without health insurance today.

In simplist terms, our bill extends the 65 percent credit offered to people eligible for trade adjustment assistance, and to certain PBGC beneficiaries, to those workers eligible for unemployment insurance.

Is it perfect policy? No. Does it ``solve'' the problem of the uninsured? it does not.

But it's an important step in the right direction. I do not subscribe to the view that ``incrementalism'' when it comes to covering the uninsured, is dead.

With census figures showing the number of Americans living without health insurance increasing, even small steps are steps in the right direction.

Incrementalism has made a difference. For example, the few million people we covered with this tax credit in last year's trade promotion authority bill made a difference. The S-CHIP program made a difference. I believe Medical Savings Accounts and the small group market reforms we made in HIPAA all have made a difference in controlling what would otherwise be a much larger number of people without health insurance.

This year, Congress, in a bipartisan way, put $50 billion into a reserve fund to address the rising number of uninsured. The year is more than almost over, and nothing has been done, or even discussed.

I will not let a bipartisan consensus to spend $50 billion on improving access to health insurance lay there on the table. Iowans expect us to do get things done.

And to get anything, even something small, done on a problem this big, it's got to be bipartisan. That's why I am glad to be building on my work with Senator Baucus and making this important, novel program available to more Americans.

I am looking forward to exploring still more options in the Finance Committee on reducing the uninsured in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. President, Senator Landrieu, Senator Bunning and I are happy to introduce the Adoption Promotion Act of 2003, a bill that would extend and improve the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. Across the country there are thousands of children of all ages and needs who are waiting to be adopted into stable families. This legislation provides a reward to States that place an emphasis on finding loving homes for children who are in foster care.

The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 rewarded States with cash incentives for increasing the number of adoptions of children in foster care, concentrating on children with special needs. Adoption levels were on the rise before the introduction of this legislation, but grew even faster after implementation of the program. Studies project that an additional 34,000 children were adopted during the first 3 years of the program. Currently each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have received incentive payments from the increased number of adoptions. My home State of Iowa just received a payment of $524,000 because of its success in finding children in foster care permanent homes. The results are clear, adoption incentives are working.

There are many people in this country who have opened their arms to children that do not fit the typical mold. The Lippert family of Council Bluffs, IA is just one example. Over the last 25 years, they have adopted 16 children, in addition to their two biological children. Their doors are still open to children in need. Within the next 6 months their nest will become even larger; they have three teenage girls who are in the process of being adopted. All but one of these children have special needs, ranging from emotional to physical disabilities. None of these challenges have stopped the Lippert family from helping their children become successful members of the community. The Lippert family has given these children a chance to be part of a loving and permanent family, an opportunity they would otherwise not have had.

But much remains to be done. While adoption incentives have helped states place a large number of children in families, there are still thousands of children without such luck. The incentive program helps to promote the needs of children for whom it is challenging to find an adoptive home. Take for example, children over the age of 9. The probability that these children will ever find a permanent home exceeds the probability they will be adopted into a loving family. This legislation adds an incentive for States to increase the number of older children adopted out of foster care.

Adoption is a positive life-changing experience. My bill builds upon the success of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. It recognizes these successes and continues to challenge States to remove children from foster care and place them with a permanent family. Adoptions give children a loving home and families an opportunity to share their love with a child in need. I encourage the Senate to consider this important piece of legislation and continue to reward States that are working to place children in permanent homes.

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

I appreciate that the Senator from Kentucky has worked so hard with me on the reauthorization of the Adoption Incentive Program. I also appreciate the lead the Senator took several months ago when he introduced the original legislation to reauthorize this program, which was based on the administration's proposal. This was an important step to help get the ball rolling on this program's reauthorization.

Our legislation builds upon the Adoption Incentive Program created in the Adoption and Safe Family Act of 1997. This bill sets the authorization level for this program at $43 million for each of fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008. Through this legislation, States would continue to be rewarded for all increased adoptions of children in foster care.

States that earn incentive payments for increased adoptions of foster children would also continue to be rewarded for increased adoptions of special needs children. However, the special needs payment would be limited only to adoptions of special needs children who are under age 9 at the time the adoption is finalized.

Senator Bunning, as you well know, our bill would create a third incentive payment, for each increased adoption of all children in foster care who are age 9 or older at the time of adoption. This is important because children over the age of nine are less likely to find a permanent adoptive home. In fact, the probability that these children never find a permanent home exceeds the probability they will be adopted into a loving family.

My home State of Iowa and its child welfare program has also benefited from this program. Last year, Iowa received a payment of $524,000 because of its success in finding children in foster care, permanent homes. Our States' successes underscore the results of this program; adoption incentives are working.

In the recent past, Congress has also taken some positive steps to promote adoption through tax credit. In 2001, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I extended and expanded two important provisions which provide tax relief for adoptive families.

The 2001 tax bill ensured that neither adoption tax credit, nor the exclusion from income for qualified employer-paid adoption expenses expired. In addition, the amount of each of these benefits was doubled--i.e., from $5,000 to $10,000 per qualifying child. Finally, in the case of special needs adoptions, Congress eliminated expense reporting requirements thus ensuring that the families who take special needs children into their homes receive the maximum relief possible under these provisions, while minimizing their administrative burdens.

I look forward to working with you on this issue in the near future.

It is also my hope that we can get this bipartisan bill through Congress and allow it to become law. I would like to thank you, Senator Bunning, and the other members of the Senate who have worked so hard on this legislation.

Mr. President, Senator Landrieu, Senator Bunning and I are happy to introduce the Adoption Promotion Act of 2003, a bill that would extend and improve the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. Across the country there are thousands of children of all ages and needs who are waiting to be adopted into stable families. This legislation provides a reward to States that place an emphasis on finding loving homes for children who are in foster care.

The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 rewarded States with cash incentives for increasing the number of adoptions of children in foster care, concentrating on children with special needs. Adoption levels were on the rise before the introduction of this legislation, but grew even faster after implementation of the program. Studies project that an additional 34,000 children were adopted during the first 3 years of the program. Currently each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have received incentive payments from the increased number of adoptions. My home State of Iowa just received a payment of $524,000 because of its success in finding children in foster care permanent homes. The results are clear, adoption incentives are working.

There are many people in this country who have opened their arms to children that do not fit the typical mold. The Lippert family of Council Bluffs, IA is just one example. Over the last 25 years, they have adopted 16 children, in addition to their two biological children. Their doors are still open to children in need. Within the next 6 months their nest will become even larger; they have three teenage girls who are in the process of being adopted. All but one of these children have special needs, ranging from emotional to physical disabilities. None of these challenges have stopped the Lippert family from helping their children become successful members of the community. The Lippert family has given these children a chance to be part of a loving and permanent family, an opportunity they would otherwise not have had.

But much remains to be done. While adoption incentives have helped states place a large number of children in families, there are still thousands of children without such luck. The incentive program helps to promote the needs of children for whom it is challenging to find an adoptive home. Take for example, children over the age of 9. The probability that these children will ever find a permanent home exceeds the probability they will be adopted into a loving family. This legislation adds an incentive for States to increase the number of older children adopted out of foster care.

Adoption is a positive life-changing experience. My bill builds upon the success of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. It recognizes these successes and continues to challenge States to remove children from foster care and place them with a permanent family. Adoptions give children a loving home and families an opportunity to share their love with a child in need. I encourage the Senate to consider this important piece of legislation and continue to reward States that are working to place children in permanent homes.

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

I appreciate that the Senator from Kentucky has worked so hard with me on the reauthorization of the Adoption Incentive Program. I also appreciate the lead the Senator took several months ago when he introduced the original legislation to reauthorize this program, which was based on the administration's proposal. This was an important step to help get the ball rolling on this program's reauthorization.

Our legislation builds upon the Adoption Incentive Program created in the Adoption and Safe Family Act of 1997. This bill sets the authorization level for this program at $43 million for each of fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008. Through this legislation, States would continue to be rewarded for all increased adoptions of children in foster care.

States that earn incentive payments for increased adoptions of foster children would also continue to be rewarded for increased adoptions of special needs children. However, the special needs payment would be limited only to adoptions of special needs children who are under age 9 at the time the adoption is finalized.

Senator Bunning, as you well know, our bill would create a third incentive payment, for each increased adoption of all children in foster care who are age 9 or older at the time of adoption. This is important because children over the age of nine are less likely to find a permanent adoptive home. In fact, the probability that these children never find a permanent home exceeds the probability they will be adopted into a loving family.

My home State of Iowa and its child welfare program has also benefited from this program. Last year, Iowa received a payment of $524,000 because of its success in finding children in foster care, permanent homes. Our States' successes underscore the results of this program; adoption incentives are working.

In the recent past, Congress has also taken some positive steps to promote adoption through tax credit. In 2001, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I extended and expanded two important provisions which provide tax relief for adoptive families.

The 2001 tax bill ensured that neither adoption tax credit, nor the exclusion from income for qualified employer-paid adoption expenses expired. In addition, the amount of each of these benefits was doubled--i.e., from $5,000 to $10,000 per qualifying child. Finally, in the case of special needs adoptions, Congress eliminated expense reporting requirements thus ensuring that the families who take special needs children into their homes receive the maximum relief possible under these provisions, while minimizing their administrative burdens.

I look forward to working with you on this issue in the near future.

It is also my hope that we can get this bipartisan bill through Congress and allow it to become law. I would like to thank you, Senator Bunning, and the other members of the Senate who have worked so hard on this legislation.

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his work on the extension for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Unfortunately, this program has had to be extended several times while the Senate finance Committee worked to complete a very ambitious agenda.

Happily, though, the Senate finance Committee was able to report a welfare reauthorization bill on September 10, 2003. I plan to file the committee bill shortly. It is critical that the Senate act swiftly to complete action on this legislation. This program has languished, unauthorized, for a year. States need to make plans to adjust to the new provisions. Recipients need some assurances that the program will continue.

It was my preference that Senate action on the welfare bill take place this fall, but I understand that the time frame for adjournment is fluid and this impacts what the Leader is able to bring to the floor. Additionally, I would have preferred a shorter extension, in order to keep the process moving forward. I do not want to send the signal that since we are passing a 6-month extension, this means that there will be no action on this legislation until March next year. If that should occur, we would find ourselves in the position of having to seek yet another extension. This is a situation which can only be avoided, in my view, by prompt action on this legislation.

I understand why the majority leader wants a 6-month extension because I recognize that it is nearly impossible to envision a scenario in which the Senate passes a bill, the House and Senate have a conference, a conference report is drafted and filed and the measure goes back to both houses for a final vote, prior to a possible adjournment date in late November. But if it becomes at all possible for the Senate to act on the legislation in what remains of this session, leaving conference committee consideration for early next year, we should certainly do that.

It is my intention, if a window of opportunity does open up before we adjourn for the year, to work with the Leadership to bring this legislation up for consideration. In the event that such a window of opportunity does not open up in what remains of this session, I am confident that this bill will be among the first pieces of legislation brought up for consideration as soon as we reconvene next year.

montana's welfare waiver

Mr. President, I understand the concerns of the Senator from Montana, and look forward to continuing to work with him to reauthorize the TANF program in the coming months. I appreciate his concern for the need for Montana to pursue welfare policies it believe make sense in that State. I agree that we will discuss these and other issues as we reauthorize the TANF program and am also optimistic we will be able to reach an understanding on these policies.

Mr. President, current law penalizes rural and small urban facilities by paying them 1.6 percent less on every inpatient discharge than their counterparts in urban areas of a million or more people. This is one reason for MedPAC's finding that Medicare inpatient profit margins are substantially worse for rural and small urban facilities than for those located in large urban areas.

The provision raises the inpatient base rate for hospitals in rural and small urban areas to the same rate as that in large urban areas from October 1, 2003 through March 31, 2004. Every State except Rhode Island has rural or small urban hospitals, so 49 States will benefit from this provision.

The fiscal year 2003 omnibus Appropriations bill included a 6-month version of this policy. The policy ends on September 30, 2003. A permanent version of this policy was included in the Senate- and House- passed prescription drug bills this summer. MedPAC has endorsed a permanent version of this policy in its 2003 recommendations.

The cost of the provision is $300 million, for the 6-month period beginning October 1, 2003 and ending March 31, 2004, according to preliminary scores from CBO.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the preliminary CBO estimates.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which will set a ceiling on vertical integration in the pork industry. Specifically, this bill will make it unlawful for any packer with an annual slaughter capacity of more than 20 million swine to slaughter more than 10 million packer-owned swine in any calendar year.

I am offering this because I believe the pork industry is at a critical juncture due to the impending sale of Farmland's pork division.

Either we stop the trend toward vertical integration, or we prepare for the inevitable ``chicken-ization'' of the pork industry.

It is vital that we sustain a place in the market for the independent pork producer. This legislation will at least limit the cancerous growth of vertical integration until we can pass a cure.

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

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which will set a ceiling on vertical integration in the pork industry. Specifically, this bill will make it unlawful for any packer with an annual slaughter capacity of more than 20 million swine to slaughter more than 10 million packer-owned swine in any calendar year.

I am offering this because I believe the pork industry is at a critical juncture due to the impending sale of Farmland's pork division.

Either we stop the trend toward vertical integration, or we prepare for the inevitable ``chicken-ization'' of the pork industry.

It is vital that we sustain a place in the market for the independent pork producer. This legislation will at least limit the cancerous growth of vertical integration until we can pass a cure.

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

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, 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.

Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support an excellent judicial nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Steven Colloton is an outstanding individual with an extensive record of public service and impressive legal career. I am glad that the Senate is finally voting on this nomination.

Steve Colloton is an Iowan, born in Iowa City. He graduated from Princeton University and Yale Law School. He served as a law clerk to Judge Laurence Silberman on U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and then as a law clerk to the Honorable William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Subsequently, Steve Colloton worked as an attorney with the Office of legal Counsel at the Justice Department and than as an assistance U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Iowa for 8 years, with a brief detail as an associate independent counsel in the Office of Independent Counsel. From 1991 to 2001, he was partner at a law firm in Des Moines, IA.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Steve Colloton returned to government service and was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to the position of U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa. There he has focused his efforts on combating crime and enforcing drug laws, as well as fighting terrorism. He has done a great job serving our country as an Iowa U.S. Attorney.

In addition, Steve Colloton has many strong supporters. Twenty-seven past presidents of the Iowa State Bar wrote that ``the exceptional quality of Mr. Colloton's experience, together with its relevance to this position, uniquely qualifies him to represent Iowa on the United States Court of Appeals.''

Members of the Polk County Chiefs of Police and Sheriff's Association wrote, ``Steve Colloton is the right choice for the Eighth Circuit Court Judge position, and we fully endorse President Bush's nomination.'' Even people who have worked on the other side of Steve Colloton think very highly of him. George Collins, the attorney for Jim Guy Tucker, wrote, ``I am convinced Steve Colloton is an honorable man, and that, when cases come before him, he will call them as he sees them. . . . I believe that his case will be decided on the law, and, to the extent applicable, the facts. . . .'' These quotes show just how much confidence people have that Steve Colloton will make a good Eighth Circuit judge.

Steve Colloton has all the right qualifications to be a Federal judge. He is a bright lawyer with tremendous legal experience and who is well respected by his peers. He is a man who will follow the law and have a healthy respect for case precedent. He understands that the role of a judge is to interpret the law, rather than create it. Steve Colloton will make an excellent judge on the Eighth Circuit, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination.