Cytology Proficiency Improvement Act of 2007

I thank my friend and colleague from Georgia, Congressman Deal, for his leadership on this issue and for the time today.

I also want to express my gratitude and thanks to Representative Gordon, who was extremely cooperative and helpful and productive throughout this entire process. I want to thank the American College of Pathology and all of the pathologists across the Nation who are working day in and day out to make certain that they provide quality care for the patients for whom they are charged.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a copy of an article by Dr. George Nagy that documents the dysfunctional federally mandated proficiency test in cytopathology.

The Dysfunctional Federally Mandated Proficiency Test in

Cytopathology--A Statistical Analysis

Proficiency testing in cytopathology and in other

disciplines should be based on firm statistical and

scientific foundations, because test theory in general is a

heavily statistical subject. Statistical considerations have

demonstrated that the design of ``short'' proficiency tests

in cytopathology, including the current federally mandated

test, fundamentally is unsound because of the lack of

sufficient validity and reliability. Examinees too frequently

are misclassified by such short-format tests: Competent

examinees fail the test in surprisingly high numbers, whereas

most of the examinees who have insufficient cytologic skills

eventually pass the test after the allowed retakes. Only

dichotomous tests are suitable for accurate computation of

the effects of test design on reliability, but the

statistical conclusions also are generalizable to

nondichotomous tests. In conclusion, the current federally

mandated proficiency test cannot reliably measure the level

of expertise of cytologists and, thus, cannot assure that

only adequately skilled individuals evaluate Papanicolaou

test samples. To render the test suitable for its intended

purpose, the authors believe that complete redesign of the

test, with the participation of experts in modern test

theory, would be advisable.

Proficiency testing in cytopathology (PTC), which was

established in the 1991 regulations to implement the Clinical

Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLlA'88), has only

recently been enforced on a national scale. For more than a

decade, during which logistical hurdles hampered the

development of a national program for PTC, there was not much

incentive to think about the value and potential of PTC or

its theoretical background or to worry that the test design

was so poor. In 2004, however, the Center for Medicare and

Medicaid Services announced that a national PTC program

developed by the Midwest Institute for Medical Education had

been approved and that the regulations finally would be

enforced on a national level. Suddenly, the shortcomings of

the test were everyone's problem. What followed was a flurry

of comments, articles, proposals, and Internet discussions

about the PTC and its future. Although the testing has

proceeded nationwide in conformity with the original

regulations, the dust has not yet settled on the subject. The

professional organizations agree that PTC, as prescribed in

CLIA'88, is inadequate and is in great need of improvement if

indeed it should remain in place at all. Regarding the

projected revisions, it is a real impediment that some

regulatory authorities that are in a position to make

decisions about the implementation of PTC apparently are

not familiar with most of the theoretical implications of

test theory, which is an exceedingly complicated subject.

So long as the test is mandatory for every practitioner of

gynecologic cytopathology in the United States, it is in

the best interest of all participants for PTC to become a

scientifically well-founded, valid, and reliable quality

assurance method. In the current article, we have

attempted to shed light on some gaps in the knowledge

about the theoretical underpinnings of PTC that seem to

endure in the cytopathology literature.

test theory is statistical

Test theory is a heavily statistical subject. Virtually all

aspects of test theory have been investigated in depth almost

exclusively by educators and psychologists, which is

understandable, because testing is a central issue in their

disciplines. Unfortunately, this valuable body of literature

apparently has been disregarded completely by the federal

authorities that are responsible for PTC regulations.

The statistical apparatus used in modern test theory is

formidable. Many books and

articles written about the subject use highly sophisticated

mathematical tools, including differential and integral

calculus and matrix algebra. One of the reasons for the high

degree of mathematization of test theory in psychology and

education science is that these disciplines deal largely with

intangibles, like motivation, intelligence, understanding,

and adaptability, which are not directly measurable. Such

entities must be studied indirectly, through measurements of

other quantities. That is why psychological test theory

introduced the concept of ``constructs'' that can substitute

for and represent the kinds of abstract attributes mentioned

above. Even so, the highly complicated mathematical and

statistical tools that have been promoted in educational and

psychological test theory fulfill mainly academic purposes.

Most actual problems in everyday testing can be solved on a

practical level that does not use highly complicated

mathematical methods but, at the same time, does not

disregard basic statistical principles.

testing in the physical and biologic sciences

Cytopathology, unlike educational science or psychology, is

an applied natural science, and this is one of the reasons

why PTC can be performed without the application of overly

sophisticated mathematical tools. Interpretation of

Papanicolaou smears, reproduction of cytologic diagnoses, and

measurement of false-negative proportions, among others, are

very complex tasks. By comparison, technically, it is a

comparatively straightforward matter to evaluate the

examinees' ability to assign diagnostic categories to

cytologic changes observed on a slide or computer screen.

Thus, abstract constructs hardly are needed in PTC.

Nevertheless, a certain level of mathematical and statistical

understanding by the designers of the test is crucial if a

fair and scientifically valid system of PTC is to be

established. Most pathologists, including ourselves, do not

have rigorous training in statistics; therefore, if PTC is to

continue, then the regulatory authorities ought to contract

with experts in statistics and test theory who, through

interaction with knowledgeable cytopathologists and

cytotechnologists, would design an equitable and

scientifically well-founded system for the nationwide PTC.

We do not mean to suggest that statisticians have not

participated in the design of cytology testing programs. In

fact, the College of American Pathologists' (CAP)

Interlaboratory Comparison Program for Cervicovaginal

Cytology was designed, implemented, and monitored with the

extensive help of statistical expertise. However, this

educational endeavor was not intended to be a PTC program as

envisioned in the federal regulations. In fact, its original,

scientifically and statistically supported structure

ironically prevented its use as a PTC program because of the

specific requirements of the federal regulations.

short tests and reliability

One of the central problems in the practice of PTC is

reliability, and the reliability of PTC is related closely to

the size of the test sets (the number of the test items or

challenges in 1 test set). ``Short'' tests, which require the

evaluation of relatively small numbers of slides, are

characterized by a high misclassification rate. (The

pervasive effect of sample size on the reliability of

statistical inference is the reason why pollsters use large

samples: The larger the sample, the narrower are the

confidence limits in relative terms. The statistical

estimates inferred from a single sizable sample that has been

chosen by randomization will approach the true parameters of

the population.) Short tests will not prevent the frequent

failure of competent examinees or the passing of examinees

who have less than desirable skill levels. Already in 1991

one of us (G.K.N.), in a report that was written with D.C.

Collins, emphasized that the expected misclassification

rate of such short tests can be surprisingly high and

that, in the case of dichotomous tests, this rate can be

calculated (or approximated) through the use of the

binomial theory of statistics. (A dichotomous test

evaluates the responses to test items as ``right'' or

``wrong,'' without using intermediate results or weighing

of answers. The PTC system used in New York State for 36

years was dichotomous and so was the original

Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal

Cytology. The CLIA'88-mandated PTC is not dichotomous.)

This so-called ``simple binomial error model'' was

described in test theory initially in the 1950s.

The results of the CLIA'88 mandated national PTC in 2005

dramatically demonstrated the effect of misclassification

during short tests, as described previously. According to the

data from the National Cytology Proficiency Testing Update,

9% of the examinees failed the test when they attempted it

for the first time. However, when this group that supposedly

had inferior skills retook the test, curiously, the failure

rate for this second attempt was similar to that for the

entire original group (10%). It appears that the cytologic

skills among those examinees who had failed originally

improved miraculously, allowing 90% of them to pass the

examination, although all of them initially failed. It is

hard to believe that a short remedial training between the

first and second attempt could result in such an impressive

real improvement. The only plausible scientific explanation

is the well-known statistical phenomenon, the Galtonian

``regression toward the mean.'' The majority of failures

during the first attempt were the consequence of

misclassification because of the poor validity and

reliability of the short test and were not caused by the

insufficient skills of those who failed. The failure rate in

all groups of examinees is about the same on the first

attempt and on the second attempt, and previous failures do

not seem to matter much. Essentially, the results of the

CLIA'88-mandated PTC mostly mirror the statistical chances

and not the examinees' skills.

Of course, multiple other variables beyond regression

toward the mean, including experience gained in the technique

of the test, differences in the difficulty of particular test

sets, and even increased skills after remedial training, etc,

also may play a role in the improvement of test results at

the second attempt for individual examinees. However, to

date, we do not have any data or even a plausible explanation

concerning how any of these other factors, with the exception

of regression toward the mean, could produce such a

consistent result.

The Simple Binomial Error Model

Misclassification of examinees by any short test, including

the CLIA'88-mandated PTC, can be demonstrated by means of an

analogy. Strictly speaking, this analogy is applicable only

to dichotomous testing systems. However, in this sense,

dichotomous and non dichotomous systems are correspondent.

For statistical or evaluation purposes, non dichotomous

systems can be made dichotomous at any time, even after the

tests have been carried out. For example, an answer can be

evaluated as correct only if it falls into the appropriate

single category (``success'') and all other answers are rated

as wrong (``failure''). Another solution to this problem in

PTC would be to restrict the number of diagnostic categories

to 2, with 1 category, for instance, ``negative for

premalignant or malignant changes'' and the second category

``premalignant or malignant lesions are present.'' This is

the approach used in the original CAP PAP program with its

``100 series'' and ``200 series.''

The CLIA'88 regulations concerning PTC, with their 4

diagnostic categories and complicated scoring system, do not

fit into the dichotomous scheme. Despite this fact, the

conclusions drawn by using the binomial error model regarding

PTC are applicable to any short test to a large extent.

Example of Simple Binomial Error Model

For the purpose of illustration, let us suppose, that in a

large population (for instance, that of an entire country),

the results from a scrupulous statistical survey using many

thousands of questionnaires and proper randomization indicate

that the proportion of individuals who like to watch

television (TV) is 90%. Because the survey is conducted in a

scientific way and the sample size is very large, this result

is considered highly accurate. The basic question on which

the analogy with PTC will be based is, ``What can we expect

if we ask 10 randomly selected individuals in this population

about their attitude toward TV?'' The most probable result

will be that, in this population, 9 of 10 individuals will

like TV. However, it is reasonable to expect that, in many

samples that consist of 10 individuals, all 10 individuals

are TV fans; whereas, in other similar samples, there may be

only 8, 7, or 6 such individuals. However, it is hardly

conceivable that we will identify as few as only 1 or 2 fans

in a sample of 10 individuals if the principle of random

selection is followed.

Random selection is important. For example, a nonrandom

sample, like one that consists exclusively of nuns in

convents, would not yield a statistically valid reflection of

the entire population; indeed, we may identify only 1 or 2

individuals in such a sample who like to watch TV. Exclusive

selection of nuns or members of any other group with some

special interest would not be compatible with the

principle of randomness. However, to select a nun

occasionally in a sample, with a frequency roughly

corresponding to the proportion of nuns in the entire

population, would be appropriate.

There is a statistical method that uses the so-called

``binomial formula'' for calculating the probability of

encountering 10, 9, 8, 7, etc, TV fans in a sample of 10

individuals from our postulated population. (This method is

not detailed in the current article, but an explanation can

be found in any elementary statistical textbook). The

probabilities even can be looked up in tables that are found

at the end of statistical books. Under the circumstances

outlined above (with a 90% proportion of TV fans in a sample

size of 10 individuals). the probabilities of identifying 10,

9, 8, 7, and 6 TV fans in a random sample of 10 individuals

are 0.35, 0.39, 0.19, 0.06, and 0.01, respectively.

The probability of identifying 5 TV fans under the above-

described circumstances in a truly random sample of 10

individuals is exceedingly small. The succession of numbers

described above represents a ``probability distribution,''

which can be observed in a histogram. This distribution is

interpreted as follows: If, from this very large population,

we take numerous random samples, each consisting of 10

individuals, and ask about their preferences for TV; then we

will find that 35% of the samples would include 10 fans, 39%

of the samples would include 9 fans, 19% of the samples would

include 8 fans, and so on.

If we change the size of the sample, then the magnitudes of

the single probabilities

and their distribution also will change and, along with them,

the probability distribution. If we choose sample sizes of

100 individuals instead of 10, then the probabilities will be

clustered much more tightly around the value of 90% than was

the case in the smaller samples. The larger the size of the

sample, the more reliable is the estimation; in other words,

the observed value in every sample approaches the real

population parameter. It is virtually unimaginable that there

will be only 50 or 60 TV fans among 100 randomly selected

individuals from this population. (Distribution data for such

large samples are not provided even in the tables of larger

statistical reference books: They are not needed, because the

probability distribution for large samples can be found by

the so-called ``normal approximation of the binomial

distribution.'' To perform this method is mathematically

simple, but the results may be slightly inaccurate. There are

complex Web-based Internet tools, however, that calculate

these probabilities very accurately.) Of course this holds

true only if the randomness principle is strictly observed.

How can we apply the reasoning described above to the issue

of sample sizes in PTC? Fortunately, the results of these

binomial calculations can be generalized. The reason why we

can do this is that, if the ``experiment'' qualifies as

binomial, then the specifics of the experiment, whether they

are related to liking TV or to success in PTC, have no

bearing on the values of the probabilities or on the

probability distribution.

True Scores

At this point, we need to review the term ``true score,'' a

concept that is used widely in modern test theory. The true

score of a hypothetical examinee is defined as the average of

the observed or measured scores that would be obtained over

an infinite number of repeated testing by the same test,

provided that the examinee's skills remain indefinitely

stable. For actual examinees, the true score can be estimated

with a small error margin, but its exact value is essentially

unknowable. For instance, if a cytologist screens 100,000

cervical smears, and if his or her diagnoses are correct

98,000 times, then the approximation of his or her true score

is 0.98. Because the accurate determination of the true score

would require an infinite number of repeat testing, which is

not feasible, this true score of 0.98 remains an

approximation. Obviously, we can be rather sure that, when

the same individual screens the next 100,000 preparations,

the approximation of his or her true score will not remain

the same: The chances of this are infinitesimally small. The

estimate of the true score will almost certainly change

slightly, for instance to 0.97 or to 0.99, and so on, for

each successive trial.

It has to be emphasized that assignment of an exact ``true

score'' to a cytologist is somewhat arbitrary for further

reasons. It cannot be expected that anybody's cytologic

skills will remain invariant for a prolonged time. We can

hope, of course, that the professional prowess of cytologists

improves over time. Furthermore, everybody who has ever

screened cytology specimens knows that screening performance

depends on many factors, some of which are extraneous to the

level of cytology skills. On a ``good'' day, a cytologist may

function on a 0.98 score level; whereas, on a different,

``bad'' day, he or she might be less ``proficient.'' Even his

or her experience with particular kinds of cytologic

presentations on the previous day, for example, having seen

an unusual presentation of high-grade squamous

intraepithelial lesion on a quality-assurance review, could

affect decision-making on the current day. Of course, these

and other psychological variables (eg, the effects of anxiety

or tiredness during tests or routine work) cannot be factored

into the statistical considerations. Nagy and Collins,

describing this concept, used the term ``competence level''

instead of ``true score'' in their 1991 article.

Direct measurement of the true score is not possible. What

we have after an evaluation of test results is the ``observed

score,'' which is related to the true score but is not

identical to it. It can be considered an estimate of the true

score.

Comparison of TV Preference and PTC Results

TV preference and PTC results can be compared as follows:

The values derived by the binomial formula are determined

only by the number of trials and the probability of success.

If the ``experiment'' qualifies as binomial, then the

specifics of the experiment have no bearing on the numerical

results. (In statistical parlance, any methods or procedures

that yield raw data are called experiments.) In our TV

example, the number of trials (the sample size) is 10, and

the probability of success is 0.9. These 2 data are

sufficient to calculate the probability distribution for this

specific case. Let us consider now an example of PTC in which

these specifics are the same as described above. The PTC

design prescribes 10 slide test sets (number of trials). A

cytologist who performs routine screening and customarily

renders accurate diagnoses 9000 times among 10,000 screened

slides has an approximate true score of 0.9. (In other words,

the probability of success is 0.9.) When this cytologist

attempts to pass this particular PTC, then the probability

distribution of the possible correct answers will be

identical to the probability distribution observed in the TV

example, because the specifics of the TV experiments are the

same. If this hypothetical cytologist attempts the test many

times, then he or she will read 10 slides correctly in 35% of

the tests, 9 slides correctly in 39% of the tests, and so on.

The numerical values in the 2 experiments are identical.

We also should note that, if an examinee reads 10 slides or

9 slides correctly:which happens in 74% of events under the

circumstances described above, then he or she passes the

test. However, this individual, who essentially has an

adequate true score, will fail a dichotomous PTC 26% of the

time because of the low validity and reliability of the test.

The phenomenon of failure in this case can be called ``type 1

error.'' (The null hypothesis is that ``the cytoscreener is

competent.'') A valid and reliable test is expected to pass

virtually all cytoscreeners with true scores on the 0.9

level; however, any dichotomous test that consists of 10

slides or challenges will misclassify approximately 26% of

such individuals. It is obvious that this test does not

really meet the expectation to determine the competence of an

examinee who had a true score of 0.9.

It needs to be reiterated here that binomial calculations

can be performed only for dichotomous tests. The

probabilities for some well ordered, nondichotomous tests may

be calculated by the use of more complicated multinomial

assessments.

Limitations of the Simple Binomial Error Model

The binomial error model provides only a rough appraisal of

the statistical factors that need to be taken into account in

the design of PTC. One of the drawbacks of the model, as

mentioned above, is that it is applicable only to

dichotomous testing systems. However, the simplicity,

transparency, and mathematical calculability of

dichotomous setups counterbalance every other

consideration. The dichotomous test design makes it

possible to assess the impact of test set size on test

validity and reliability and to calculate confidence

intervals. Thus, the use of a dichotomous test would

confer greater predictability and practicability to PTC.

The effects on test validity and reliability of a

haphazard design, like the CLIA'88-mandated PTC, hardly

are calculable by scientific-statistical means. We do not

state that dichotomous designs would solve every problem

inherent in every type of test, including PTC. However,

given that all other conditions of the testing are equal,

dichotomous tests have insurmountable advantages over

nondichotomous tests.

Size of Test Sets and Rate of Misclassification

Figures (not shown) illustrate the probability

distributions of correct diagnoses for variable test set

sizes and for examinees with different theoretical ``true

scores.'' An ideal and flawless PTC would fail all examinees

with true scores of 0.85, but no test design can fulfill such

requirements. The reliability of the tests improves, however,

as the test sets get larger. For examinees with true scores

of 0.85 or 0.8, the accuracy of the test increases in

parallel with the increasing size of the test sets. (The

failure rates become larger for larger test sets.)

Visualization of the effect of sample size on

misclassification also is possible by tabulation. The more

slides the test set contains, the lower the misclassification

rate. There appear to be anomalies at the set sizes of 9 and

19, in which the misclassification rate decreases for

examinees with low true scores and increases for the more

competent examinees. A test set that consists of 9 or 19

slides would be a very impractical choice. If the passing

level is set at 90% (eg, 9 correct answers for 10 slides in

dichotomous tests), as it is the general practice for PTCs,

then 1 error is allowed for a 10-slide set. Under these

circumstances, to pass a test based on 9-slide sets with a

90% passing grade would be incomparably more difficult than

to pass a test based on a 10-slide set, because a single

mistake would mean an error >10% and, consequently, a

failure. The situation is similar for 19- or 29-slide sets.

The greater grade of difficulty with a 9-slide test set is

reflected in the smaller passing rates for both competent and

less competent examinees. (This circumstance, paradoxically,

improves the accuracy of the test for the participants with

low true scores.) For these reasons, if the passing level is

set at 90%, then only decimal-based test set sizes (10, 20,

30, etc. slides or challenges) should be used.

Another observable phenomenon is the ``law of diminishing

returns,'' in which, as the number of slides in the test sets

is increases, the misclassification rates decrease. However,

the rate of decrease is not level but trails off with

increasingly larger set sizes. For instance,

misclassification of examinees with a true score of 0.8 is

almost halved, from 38% to 20%, when the number of slides in

the sets increases from 10 to 20. The next step, from a 20-

slide set to a 30-slide set, is accompanied by a smaller

relative improvement, and so on.

An important conclusion that can be drawn is that, when the

number of slides is increased in the test sets, the decrease

in the misclassification rate is more precipitous if the true

score is 0.8 or 0.85, ie, on the side of the table for less

competent examinees, than if the true score is 0.95. From our

viewpoint, this is an advantage. The basic purpose of PTC is

not the confirmation of the proficiency of the average

cytologist who performs well but the identification of

individuals who may have problems with expertise and need

remediation. The type 1 error, the failure of competent

examinees, is less consequential than the type 2 error, the

passing

of less competent examinees. The simple binomial model is

more suitable to investigate the latter than the former in

the set-size ranges that are prevalent in the practice of

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. 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, in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the air travel industry has suffered tremendous economic hardship. In particular, airline workers have been forced to take cuts in pay and benefits which have dramatically reduced their financial security now and in their retirement years.

Airline pilots and other union airline employees have lost in excess of $30 billion in pay and over $7 billion in defined benefit pension benefits. In addition, many airline workers have lost their jobs. For example, on September 11, 2001, there were 10,500 active Delta pilots. Today, there are 6,700.

Since the attacks, many of our Nation's airlines were forced to file for bankruptcy--and terminate or freeze their defined benefit pension plans. The largest of these airline bankruptcies involved United Airlines, U.S. Airways, Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines. In all of these bankruptcies, a huge share of the cost savings was borne by the airline employees, who suffered massive cuts in pay and benefits.

In 2001, Congressional relief focused on the airline carriers, offering loan packages and other economic relief. In 2004 and 2006, Congress provided additional assistance to those airline carriers that were able to avoid termination of their defined benefit plans. However, past Congressional actions will never restore the lost retirement benefits for those airline workers whose defined benefit plans were terminated or frozen.

This is an important point to emphasize. The actions already taken by the Congress to provide economic relief to the airlines and to reduce their future pension contributions for the continuing plans do not restore benefits to those airline workers who lost pension benefits in plans that were terminated or frozen.

Therefore, I rise to introduce the Lost Retirement Savings Act of 2007 to provide for a retirement savings option to those airline workers whose defined benefit plans were terminated or frozen in bankruptcy proceedings.

Under the bill, these airline workers would benefit to the extent that they would individually choose to rollover specified bankruptcy payments into a traditional or Roth individual retirement account. The intent is to provide this retirement savings opportunity only to those airline employees for whom the bankruptcies imposed an economic burden through the substantial loss of wages and retirement benefits.

In closing, I urge my Senate colleagues to take a close look at this bill and join me in passing this legislation.

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