Performance Rights Act

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Enhancing Teaching Standards and License Portability Act of 2007. This bill would encourage the development and implementation of rigorous 21st century teaching standards throughout the U.S.

Since the release of the 1983 report, A Nation at Risk, educators and policymakers have sought to strengthen our Nation's weakening grip on global competitiveness. Despite these efforts, low achievement outcomes for too many students, particularly low income students, remain a threat to our current and future standing in the global economy, and to our children's future security. I am concerned about the continuing struggles of many of our schools.

In order to graduate from high school ready to succeed in postsecondary education and the workforce, students need a world-class 21st century education. Their success depends on access to high quality teachers who have both state-of-the-art content knowledge and excellent teaching skills. Teachers deserve access to the most up-to-date teaching standards if they are to attain these professional criteria. Moreover, assessments of quality teaching must be based on the characteristics that are known to influence student achievement outcomes.

The Enhancing Teaching Standards and License Portability Act provides the commitment and resources needed to help teachers attain these 21st century teaching skills.

In the early 1990s, the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, INTASC, developed core teaching standards for beginning teachers, standards that have since been used--voluntarily--by individual States to develop teaching and certification requirements. Professional organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics also developed subject-area teaching standards. This bill would build upon these efforts to improve teacher quality by supporting the refinement, development, and testing of K-12 teaching standards aligned with demands of the 21st century. These demands reflect content area advances in subject areas such as science and technology; advances in understanding of how students learn; the principle of universal design for learning that advocates flexible teaching to accommodate different learning styles; educators' recognition of the need to foster critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills in addition to subject area knowledge; and demographic changes in student diversity such as the recent dramatic increase in English-language learners and the increased inclusion of students with disabilities in the classroom.

Specifically, this bill would provide a funding mechanism to develop or refine 21st century teaching standards, and to link those standards to performance-based teacher assessments. It would also provide subgrants to states to adopt, pilot, and implement these teaching standards and associated teacher assessments, and align their teacher licensing systems accordingly. In addition, the bill would promote and facilitate reciprocity and portability of teaching licenses across states. I am very pleased that this bill is supported by several education groups devoted to enhancing the quality and coherence of teaching standards, including the Council of Chief State School Officers, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the International Reading Association, the National Science Teachers Association, and the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.

I believe it is important to acknowledge that we have made some progress in improving teacher quality. As summarized in the Secretary of Education's Fifth Annual Report on Teacher Quality, the percentage of teachers who lack a full teaching certificate has declined, from 3.3 to 2.5 percent of all classroom teachers. Progress has also been reported in aligning States' K-12 student content standards with teacher certification standards; and the number of new teachers passing required State assessment exams remains high at 95 percent. The minimum examination scores required to pass these exams, however, are generally lower than the national median scores for these assessments. Such low criteria are in conflict with the NCLB definition of a highly qualified teacher as someone with demonstrated competence in content-area subject matter. Current teacher standards fail to demonstrate, much less ensure, this competency.

Researchers have demonstrated the importance of teacher competency for student outcomes, arguing that classroom practices and other aspects of teaching affect student achievement as much as, if not more than, student characteristics. A recent Education Week report revealed that teachers who score higher vs. lower on state licensing exams tend to have students who themselves achieve higher scores, particularly in mathematics, even when other factors linked to high achievement are taken into account. Other studies demonstrate that the more content- specific college coursework a math or science teacher pursues prior to teaching, the higher that teacher's students will score in math or science. Further, a study appearing in Science showed that higher student outcomes are also associated with more positive classroom experiences, and that these classroom experiences can be measured by standardized observations of the instructional and social support teachers provide. Together, these and other studies illustrate that teachers' knowledge and their observable skills in the classroom are significant influences on student achievement.

Although solid grounding in content knowledge is necessary for 21st century learners, it alone is not sufficient. Students today need to develop creativity, critical thinking skills, and problem solving abilities to compete in our global economy. This means that teachers must teach higher-order thinking skills in addition to content information, and create opportunities to learn. Research has shown that students of teachers who can convey higher-order thinking skills and subject knowledge actually outperform students whose teachers teach only subject knowledge.

As you know, Mr. President, students in the 21st century represent diversity. For example, the U.S. Department of Education reports that the rate of English-language learners has increased by 169 percent in the last 20 years, in contrast to an increase of only 12 percent in the overall student population. Nationwide, 10 percent of all students are English-language learners. In my state of New Mexico, the rate is 22 percent, second only to California, where over 25 percent of students are English-language learners. According to the National Academies Report, How People Learn, teachers need to develop an expertise grounded on the theories of learning, including theories that concern how cultural beliefs and personal characteristics of learners influence their learning process. This teaching knowledge promotes learning for all children. In fact, students whose teachers receive professional development in teaching diverse students outperform students of teachers who lack this training.

These are just a few examples of the research linking student outcomes to teacher characteristics. Linking these characteristics to rigorous teaching performance standards is an opportunity to provide world class education to our students in the 21st century. It is time to improve our teaching standards.

Towards this goal, the Enhancing Teaching Standards and License Portability Act has four main objectives.

First, to improve teacher quality by supporting the development of rigorous kindergarten through grade 12 teaching standards that incorporate 21st century teaching and learning skills, and to

promote alignment of these standards with performance-based teacher assessments;

Second, to create incentives for States to adopt, pilot, and implement such rigorous kindergarten through grade 12 teaching standards and performance-based teacher assessments through a competitive grants process;

Third, to promote efforts for States to align these teaching standards and performance-based teacher assessments to State licensing requirements; and

Finally, to create incentives for States to develop policies that would facilitate license reciprocity and portability.

Although this bill would not mandate that model teaching standards be adopted by the states, the trends demonstrate that widespread adoption is likely. For instance, after INTASC developed model teaching standards in 1992, 38 States adopted the standards in developing their own statewide standards. Over 20 States are reviewing the NCTM Curriculum Focal Points to develop mathematics curriculum standards. Over 22 States currently rely on the same standardized teaching credentialing test, and another 10 adopt a second widely available test. The availability of model 21st century teaching standards could have a profound influence on K-12 education nationwide, and this bill would provide incentives for States to adopt and test these standards.

An added benefit of available model teaching standards concerns reciprocal teacher certification across States, which could address teacher shortages and curriculum cohesion across states. Nationally, about 20 percent of teachers seek their initial license in a state other than where they completed their teacher training. This bill would improve the capacity of States to collaboratively address teacher shortages through increased teacher certification reciprocity, by promoting alignment of the teaching standards with State licensing systems.

Finally, the availability of widely used model standards would support a platform for horizontal coherence of teaching and curriculum standards. A State's voluntary use of updated rigorous standards would promote core similarities that offer additional benefits for mobile students who suffer setbacks when faced with inconsistent curriculum.

Student mobility, defined as the percentage of students who transfer in or out of a school during a given school year, occurs in both inner- city and suburban school districts. Rates in inner city schools range from 45 to as high as 80 percent. In suburban schools, mobility rates may be as high as 10 to 40 percent. Although overall mobility indices in the U.S. are not rising, the percentage of moves that occur across state lines has increased from approximately 16 to 19 percent since 2000. When children change schools, they often must adapt to a different curriculum; and lack of curriculum cohesion is believed to account for several negative consequences. Children who experience several school changes are more likely to receive below-grade level reading and math achievement scores than their peers who have never changed schools; they are also more prone to grade retention, and have an increased high school dropout rate.

I believe this legislation can go a long way in improving our Nation's educational achievement rates by improving teacher quality and licensing portability. I also believe that this legislation is critical to strengthening our global competitiveness because quality teaching is a route to helping students meet high standards. I hope that this legislation will be included in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to authorize the minting of a commemorative coin in recognition of the 400th anniversary of the Spanish arrival in Santa Fe, NM. This bill has the strong support of the entire New Mexico delegation and is co- sponsored by Senator Domenici and a companion bill will be introduced in the House by Representative Tom Udall.

In 2010, the City of Santa Fe will commemorate the arrival of Spanish settlers and the designation of the City of Santa Fe as the capital city of the Spanish territory now known as New Mexico. On their arrival the Spaniards found a thriving Native American culture. These native American and Spanish cultures served to enrich each other and led to a creation of a vibrant social, cultural, and financial center that made the settlement of the western U.S. possible. Although it was not always a smooth road it is the unique combination of the Spanish, native American, and Anglo cultures in Santa Fe that make it an American treasure. Santa Fe has long been heralded for its thriving arts community, as a world class travel destination, and for its natural beauty. These treasures and its proud history as a cultural meeting place make Santa Fe worthy of the national recognition of a commemorative coin. I urge all Senators to support this bill.

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

Mr. Presdient, today, Senator Hatch and I are, once again, introducing important intellectual property legislation together. We are introducing the Performance Rights Act of 2007 for a very simple and clear reason: artists should be compensated fairly for the use of their work.

I am an avid music fan. Music entertains, enlightens, and inspires us. Much of the music enjoyed by most Americans, including myself, was first heard on traditional, over-the-air radio. There is no question that radio play promotes artists and their sound recordings; there is also no doubt that radio stations profit directly from playing the artists' recordings.

When radio stations broadcast music, listeners are enjoying the intellectual property of two creative artists the songwriter and the performer. The success, and the artistic quality, of any recorded song depends on both. Radio stations pay songwriters for a license to broadcast the music they have composed. That is proper, and that is fair. The songwriters' work is promoted by the air play, but no one seriously questions that the songwriter should be paid for the use of his or her work.

But the performing artist is not paid by the radio station. The time has come to end this inequity. Its historical justification has been overtaken by technological change; the economics of the radio industry of years past has been superseded by entirely new business models. Webcasters compensate performing artists, satellite radio compensates performing artists, and cable companies compensate performing artists; only terrestrial broadcasters still do not pay for the use of sound recordings. Artists should have the same rights regardless of whether it is a terrestrial broadcaster or a webcaster using and profiting from their work. Radio play may have promotional value to the artist, but there

is a property right in the sound recording, and those that create the content should be compensated for its use.

In ensuring artists are compensated, two other principles important to me are reflected in this legislation. First, noncommercial and small commercial radio stations should be nurtured, and not threatened by a change in the law. Second, songwriters, who now are, as they should be, paid for use of their work should not have their rights diminished in any way.

The legislation we introduce today on a bipartisan basis, along with companion bipartisan legislation being introduced today in the House of Representatives, provides that artists will be compensated by broadcasters for the use of their work. Noncommercial stations--from Vermont Public Radio which broadcasts ``Saturday Afternoon at the Opera,'' to the campus radio station at St. Michael's college that plays ``Those Monday Blues'' and ``The Odds and Evens Jazz Show''--have a different mission than commercial stations, and therefore need a different status, one that will subject the stations only to a nominal flat fee for use of sound recordings. Commercial radio stations that have a revenue under $1.25 million, which comprises roughly three- fourths of all music radio stations, will also have a flat fee option.

Traditional, over-the-air radio remains vital to the vibrancy of our music culture, and I want to continue to see it prosper as it transitions to digital. But I also want to ensure that the performing artist the one whose sound recordings drive the success of broadcast radio is fairly compensated.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill that will help will build upon our efforts to improve the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act, which has had so much success in protecting the lives of law enforcement officers across the country. The bill introduced today provides a need-based waiver of matching requirements that will aid State and local law enforcement agencies in financial hardship purchase body armor for their officers. I thank Senators Clinton, Mikulski, Shelby, and Landrieu for joining me to introduce this bill to give our law enforcement officers the protection they need.

I was proud to work with Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell to author the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998, which responded to the tragic Carl Drega shootout in 1997 on the Vermont-New Hampshire border when two state troopers who did not have bulletproof vests were killed. The Federal officers who responded to the scenes of the shooting spree were equipped with life-saving body armor, but the State and local law enforcement officers lacked protective vests because of the cost. Since its inception in 1999, I have worked to reauthorize this program three times, most recently in the 2005 Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization bill.

Since 1999, the BVP program has provided $173 million to purchase an estimated 500,000 vests in more than 11,500 jurisdictions nationwide. Vermont has received more than $600,000 in bulletproof vest funding under this program, which has been used to purchase 2700 vests statewide.

I want to thank Senators Mikulski and Shelby for continuing to recognize this program as a priority. As Chair and Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee that finalizes Justice Department spending priorities, they saw fit to include more than $25 million for the Bulletproof Vest Program in the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Omnibus Appropriations bill.

Bulletproof vests remain one of the foremost defenses for our uniformed officers, but law enforcement agencies nationwide are struggling over how to find the funds necessary to replace either aged vests, which have a life expectancy of roughly 5 years, or purchase new vests for newly hired officers. We want to ensure that our law enforcement officers are outfitted with vests that will actually stop bullets and save lives. Vests cost between $500 and $1,000 each, depending on the style. Officers are being forced to dip into their own pockets to pay for new vests due to local and State agency budget shortfalls, and will continue to do so unless the Federal Government offers more help.

The bill we introduce today will give discretion to the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance within the Justice Department to grant waivers or reductions in the match requirements for bulletproof vests awards to State and local law enforcement agencies that can demonstrate fiscal hardship. Our local law enforcement agencies are constantly responding to new challenges, from fighting a recent rise in violent crime to responding to threats of terrorism, and many localities lack the resources to effectively combat these challenges. Waiving the match requirement for life-saving body armor should be available for police agencies like those in New Orleans, on the Gulf Coast, or in other areas that experience disasters or other circumstances that create fiscal hardships.

A tragic event in Tennessee in 2005 highlights the need for this legislation. Wayne ``Cotton'' Morgan, a Tennessee correctional officer was gunned down on August 9, 2005, outside the Kingston Court House by the wife of an inmate being escorted by Officer Morgan. He was killed, and the prisoner and his wife escaped. Officer Morgan was not wearing a bulletproof vest, although he repeatedly requested one from the warden at Brushy Mountain Prison. The Tennessee Department of Corrections Administrative Policies and Procedures memorandum required that fitted vests be provided to individuals assigned to transportation duties. Despite this requirement and Officer Morgan's repeated requests, he was not issued a vest due to lack of funding. This legislation will help ensure that no officer is left without a bulletproof vest for lack of resources in his or her department.

Our law enforcement officers deserve the fundamental protection that bulletproof vests can provide. Few things mean more to me than when I meet Vermont police officers and they tell me that the protective vests they wear were made possible because of the Bulletproof Vests Partnership Program. This is the least we should do for the officers on the front lines who put themselves in danger for us every day. I want to make sure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest gets one.

I look forward to working with the Senate to pass this bipartisan bill to better to protect our law enforcement officers.

Mr. Presdient, today, Senator Hatch and I are, once again, introducing important intellectual property legislation together. We are introducing the Performance Rights Act of 2007 for a very simple and clear reason: artists should be compensated fairly for the use of their work.

I am an avid music fan. Music entertains, enlightens, and inspires us. Much of the music enjoyed by most Americans, including myself, was first heard on traditional, over-the-air radio. There is no question that radio play promotes artists and their sound recordings; there is also no doubt that radio stations profit directly from playing the artists' recordings.

When radio stations broadcast music, listeners are enjoying the intellectual property of two creative artists the songwriter and the performer. The success, and the artistic quality, of any recorded song depends on both. Radio stations pay songwriters for a license to broadcast the music they have composed. That is proper, and that is fair. The songwriters' work is promoted by the air play, but no one seriously questions that the songwriter should be paid for the use of his or her work.

But the performing artist is not paid by the radio station. The time has come to end this inequity. Its historical justification has been overtaken by technological change; the economics of the radio industry of years past has been superseded by entirely new business models. Webcasters compensate performing artists, satellite radio compensates performing artists, and cable companies compensate performing artists; only terrestrial broadcasters still do not pay for the use of sound recordings. Artists should have the same rights regardless of whether it is a terrestrial broadcaster or a webcaster using and profiting from their work. Radio play may have promotional value to the artist, but there

is a property right in the sound recording, and those that create the content should be compensated for its use.

In ensuring artists are compensated, two other principles important to me are reflected in this legislation. First, noncommercial and small commercial radio stations should be nurtured, and not threatened by a change in the law. Second, songwriters, who now are, as they should be, paid for use of their work should not have their rights diminished in any way.

The legislation we introduce today on a bipartisan basis, along with companion bipartisan legislation being introduced today in the House of Representatives, provides that artists will be compensated by broadcasters for the use of their work. Noncommercial stations--from Vermont Public Radio which broadcasts ``Saturday Afternoon at the Opera,'' to the campus radio station at St. Michael's college that plays ``Those Monday Blues'' and ``The Odds and Evens Jazz Show''--have a different mission than commercial stations, and therefore need a different status, one that will subject the stations only to a nominal flat fee for use of sound recordings. Commercial radio stations that have a revenue under $1.25 million, which comprises roughly three- fourths of all music radio stations, will also have a flat fee option.

Traditional, over-the-air radio remains vital to the vibrancy of our music culture, and I want to continue to see it prosper as it transitions to digital. But I also want to ensure that the performing artist the one whose sound recordings drive the success of broadcast radio is fairly compensated.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Performance Rights Act of 2007, S. 2500, introduced today by Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy and myself. There is no doubt the subject of performance rights is important and deserves the Senate's attention.

I recognize that there is no easy solution to the performance rights issue because it is a complex area of the law. However, I believe the time has come for Congress to begin the process of balancing the interests of all involved and forging a fair and reasonable compromise.

I have had the opportunity to get to know some of the finest and talented individuals this country has to offer. Some are under the wrong impression that artists in the music industry are making a fortune, but they are not aware that all too often it is a struggle to survive for the overwhelming majority of them in the cut-throat music industry.

By amending sections 106 and 114 of the Copyright Act, the Performance Rights Act of 2007 would apply the performance right in a sound recording to all audio transmissions thereby removing the exemption on paying performance royalties currently in place for over- the-air broadcasters.

The legislation also provides for a blanket license of $5,000 for small commercial broadcasters whose gross revenues do not exceed $1.25 million a year. In addition, noncommercial broadcasters as defined by section 118 of the Copyright Act, such as public, educational and religious stations would have a blanket license of $1,000 per year. No payment would be due until the Copyright Royalty Board determines the rates for large commercial broadcasters. The proposed language provides that sound recordings used only incidentally by a broadcaster and sound recordings used in the transmission of a religious service are exempt.

S. 2500 further includes a per program license option for terrestrial broadcast stations that make limited feature uses of sound recordings. Finally, the legislation strengthens the provision in section 114 that preserves the rights of songwriters and clarifies that nothing in the Performance Rights Act of 2007 shall adversely affect the public performance rights of songwriters or copyright owners of musical works.

I believe in the legislative process and hope that concerns raised by interested parties can be resolved in a fair and equitable manner. I do not have an ax to grind, nor do I want to hurt any industry. To my friends in the broadcasting community, let me say that I am acutely aware of your circumstances and concerns, and I cannot stress enough that my primary goal is to make sure that Congress handles this in the most even-handed way. Let me also stress that I look upon creating a performance right in a sound recording to all audio transmissions as the first step in addressing some of the major issues affecting the music industry. And I look forward to working closely with Chairman Leahy and my

colleagues in carefully considering what additional measures are needed.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Performance Rights Act of 2007, S. 2500, introduced today by Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy and myself. There is no doubt the subject of performance rights is important and deserves the Senate's attention.

I recognize that there is no easy solution to the performance rights issue because it is a complex area of the law. However, I believe the time has come for Congress to begin the process of balancing the interests of all involved and forging a fair and reasonable compromise.

I have had the opportunity to get to know some of the finest and talented individuals this country has to offer. Some are under the wrong impression that artists in the music industry are making a fortune, but they are not aware that all too often it is a struggle to survive for the overwhelming majority of them in the cut-throat music industry.

By amending sections 106 and 114 of the Copyright Act, the Performance Rights Act of 2007 would apply the performance right in a sound recording to all audio transmissions thereby removing the exemption on paying performance royalties currently in place for over- the-air broadcasters.

The legislation also provides for a blanket license of $5,000 for small commercial broadcasters whose gross revenues do not exceed $1.25 million a year. In addition, noncommercial broadcasters as defined by section 118 of the Copyright Act, such as public, educational and religious stations would have a blanket license of $1,000 per year. No payment would be due until the Copyright Royalty Board determines the rates for large commercial broadcasters. The proposed language provides that sound recordings used only incidentally by a broadcaster and sound recordings used in the transmission of a religious service are exempt.

S. 2500 further includes a per program license option for terrestrial broadcast stations that make limited feature uses of sound recordings. Finally, the legislation strengthens the provision in section 114 that preserves the rights of songwriters and clarifies that nothing in the Performance Rights Act of 2007 shall adversely affect the public performance rights of songwriters or copyright owners of musical works.

I believe in the legislative process and hope that concerns raised by interested parties can be resolved in a fair and equitable manner. I do not have an ax to grind, nor do I want to hurt any industry. To my friends in the broadcasting community, let me say that I am acutely aware of your circumstances and concerns, and I cannot stress enough that my primary goal is to make sure that Congress handles this in the most even-handed way. Let me also stress that I look upon creating a performance right in a sound recording to all audio transmissions as the first step in addressing some of the major issues affecting the music industry. And I look forward to working closely with Chairman Leahy and my

colleagues in carefully considering what additional measures are needed.