[Pages S11569-S11576]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself and Mr. DeWine):
S. 1619. A bill to amend the individuals with disabilities Education
Act to ensure that children with disabilities who are homeless or are
wards of the State have access to special education services, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague
Senator DeWine in introducing legislation to provide a high-quality
education to homeless and foster children with disabilities. The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is based on the
bedrock American principle of equal opportunity. IDEA recognizes that
students have a civil right to a free, appropriate public education,
even if their special needs require additional resources. Because most
foster and homeless children face distinct challenges, they require
even more attention and consideration to make sure their educational
needs are met. The Improving Education for Homeless and Foster Children
with Disabilities Act would make small but critical changes to ensure
these children have a real opportunity to fulfill their potential.
Students with disabilities face additional challenges in school as do
foster and homeless children. But to live in a foster home or in no
home at all and to have a disability is truly to have the deck stacked
against you. Congress has a long and proud tradition of supporting and
protecting educational opportunity for our most vulnerable young
people. It's what we did when we passed the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act in 1965. It's what we did when we created Head Start, and
it's what we did when we started giving out Pell Grants. It's time for
us to step up once again and make the changes to make IDEA work for
homeless and foster children with disabilities.
The bill that Senator DeWine and I are introducing today addresses
the unique educational needs of children with disabilities who are in
foster care or who experience homelessness. Foster children and
homeless children face a unique set of challenging circumstances. There
are over 500,000 children in foster care. Thirty percent of them are in
special education. We know that foster children often do not function
well in school. Foster children have usually been separated from their
biological families as a result of child abuse or neglect, which can
leave both emotional and physical marks for life. Given the shortage of
foster parents in this country, children in foster care are often
shuttled between many different homes and schools. One young man has
shared with me his story of living in more than 100 homes throughout
his childhood. Every time these children move to a new home, they may
have to attend a new school. And every time these children enroll in a
new school, they must start over in securing the supports and services
they need to receive the free and appropriate public education that is
their civil right.
In addition to frequent absences and transfers, foster children often
don't

[[Page S11570]]

have parents to advocate for their educational needs. Almost every
parent whose child has a disability will tell you that their role as
advocate for their child correlates directly to the quality of the
education their child receives. Without a parent to advocate for them,
foster children can languish for years with unrecognized disabilities
or insufficient services to help them succeed in school. These
experiences can leave children in foster care without the education and
support to lead functional, productive lives.
Homeless children in our country also face significant hurdles to
succeed in school, which are exacerbated for children with
disabilities. The Urban Institute estimates that 1.35 million children
experience homelessness each year. A high proportion of homeless
children with disabilities also need special education services, yet
many homeless children have great difficulty accessing these services.
Children who experience homelessness desperately need stability in
their lives, but they often lack the continuity of staying in one
school or even in one school district long enough for an Individualized
Education Plan--or IEP--to be developed and implemented. In addition,
like foster children, some homeless youth have no legal guardian to
watch out for their educational needs and to advocate for their best
interests.
Despite this difficult situation, we can help these children with a
high-quality education. The Improving Education for Homeless and Foster
Children with Disabilities Act amends IDEA to help States and districts
meet these challenges. It facilitates greater continuity for students
who change schools or school districts, by ensuring that students' IEPs
follow them from school to school. It increases opportunities for early
evaluation and intervention for homeless and foster infants and
toddlers with disabilities. It also provides for representation of
foster and homeless children on key committees that make critical
decisions affecting special education. This bill expands the definition
of ``parent'' to include relatives or other caregivers who are equipped
to make sound decisions in a child's best interest when there is no
biological parent available to do so. Finally, it improves coordination
of services and information so educational and social services agencies
can function more efficiently to benefit these children.
As we reauthorize IDEA, we have an obligation to pay extra attention
to these children and to provide the resources and support they need.
The real test of how we treat children in America is measured in how we
treat the most vulnerable among us, and this bill gives us a chance to
do the right thing. I urge the Senate to truly ensure that no child is
left behind by passing the Improving Education for Homeless and Foster
Children with Disabilities Act.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 1620. A bill to condition the implementation of assessment
procedures in connection with the Head Start National Reporting System
on Child Outcomes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Head Start
Assessment Act of 2003. The purpose of this Act is to ensure that the
full-scale implementation of the Head Start National Reporting System
takes place after there has been ample opportunity for expert and
public commentary on the assessment, Congressional oversight hearings
have been held, and the National Academies have completed a study of
this issue to ensure that the assessment is reliable and appropriate.
Currently, children in Head Start are assessed 3 times a year on all
of the domains of early learning and development, including literacy
and math. The National Reporting System (NRS) is an assessment
developed by HHS, which would create an additional test for all 4-year
olds in Head Start, roughly \1/2\ million children, on literacy and
math skills only. Children would be assessed twice a year and according
to Administration documents, changes over time in children's scores
would be used to judge the success of individual Head Start programs.
The new testing program is expected to cost about $20 million each
year. Some pilot testing was begun in April and May of 2003 and HHS
expects to begin full implementation of the NRS this fall.
The purpose of the bill that I am introducing today is not to
undermine this assessment, or to oppose assessment, but to make sure
that it is done correctly. As you know, I have a long history of
supporting accountability for educational programs. Assessments are
important tools for accountability. They can be used to benefit
teachers and students and to raise the bar for all educational
programs. That being said, a good assessment takes time to develop and
the measures and procedures that are used must be thoroughly debated
and discussed. I have grave concerns about the speed with which the NRS
was developed as well as with the opacity of the process by which HHS
has proceeded to date.
Assessing young children is notoriously difficult. They are not used
to taking tests and often do not have the emotional maturity to sit
still and focus on the task at hand. Their test scores tend to
fluctuate across time and can reflect many factors unrelated to their
skills. The National Academy of Sciences report, ``Eager to Learn:
Educating Our Preschoolers'' made it clear that more research on
assessing young children is needed before such assessments should be
used for accountability purposes. Because of this, it is crucial that
the assessment instruments to be used in the NRS are properly validated
and deemed to be appropriate for 4-year old children. At this point, we
have little information about exactly what those instruments are and
HHS has not made available the results of pilot tests or the comments
made by experts on the content of the assessment.
To my mind, the speed with which this assessment was rolled out makes
it unlikely that the measures have been properly developed and tested.
It has also become clear that the assessment targets only a few of the
skills that Head Start seeks to instill in children. For example,
social skills are not being assessed and it is clear that without them,
children are simply not ready to learn.
It is also very important that sufficient time be taken to insure
that English language learners are not put at a disadvantage by being
given a test that is not appropriate for them. The test is in English
and Spanish, and yet many Head Start children speak Asian or other
languages. In my home State of New Mexico, for example, I have heard
from Native American Head Start Directors who are concerned that the
NRS, in its current form, is not appropriate for their students, who
often do not speak English in the home. We should take the time to
insure that the assessment tool that is ultimately used is valid and
reliable, assesses the gamut of skills that children acquire in Head
Start, and is appropriate for children from a wide variety of cultural
backgrounds.
It is also crucial that throughout the process of developing these
instruments, there is ample consultation both with the public and with
experts in early childhood development and research methodology. The
results of these consultations and decisions regarding the NRS should
be made public. Although HHS claims that they have had many meetings
with ``experts'', there is little or no information publicly available
that clarifies what went on at these meetings, what decisions were
reached, and whether the advice of the experts was or was not heeded in
developing the NRS. To date, there has been no Congressional oversight
or public task force convened. Development of an assessment tool as
important as this one should not occur behind closed doors. Congress
and the public have a right to participate in and comment on this
process.
My bill would help to insure that the NRS is developed in the proper
fashion. The Secretary of HHS would be required to halt the full-scale
implementation of the NRS until such time as Congressional oversight
hearings have been held, the Secretary has concluded public forums on
this issue, and the National Academy of Sciences has conducted a study
using a panel of nationally recognized experts in early childhood
assessment, child development, and education. The NAS study would
provide specific information regarding: a. the skills and competencies
that are predictive of school readiness and academic success in young
children, b. the

[[Page S11571]]

development, selection, and use of instruments to assess literacy,
mathematical, emotional and social skills as well as health and
physical well-being young children, c. the proper use of early
childhood assessments to improve Head Start programs and d. the steps
needed to ensure that assessments take into account the racial,
cultural, and linguistic diversity of Head Start students, among other
things.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Head Start is the flagship
educational program for low-income children. Studies clearly show that
children who attend Head Start programs show gains in their cognitive
and social skills, but we also know that more can and should be done
for this vulnerable population. Assessments can be an important means
to insure that quality is maintained in each Head Start program, but
poorly developed or implemented assessments can do more harm than good.
Let's take our time, consult with the experts and the public, and come
up with a National Reporting System that we can all be proud of.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1620

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Head Start Assessment Act of
2003''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) When used appropriately, valid and reliable assessments
can be of positive value for improving instruction and
supporting development of young children.
(2) According to the National Academy of Sciences report,
Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers, assessment of
children below school age is in ``flux'' and ``all
assessments, and particularly assessments for accountability,
must be used carefully and appropriately if they are to
resolve, and not create, educational problems.''
(3) The Eager to Learn report emphasized that the intended
purpose and use of the data to be derived from assessments
should be considered in determining which assessment
instruments and procedures are most appropriate.
(4) The National Academy of Sciences reports that few early
childhood educators and administrators are well-trained in
the selection and appropriate use of assessments for young
children.
(5) According to the National Academy of Sciences report,
From Neurons to Neighborhoods, the emotional and social
development of young children is as critical to school
readiness as language and cognitive development.
(6) The Head Start Act currently requires programs to
assess children in Head Start a minimum of three times a year
against certain performance standards, which include all
domains of the development and learning of children.
(7) The proposed Head Start National Reporting System on
Child Outcomes assessment is not reflective of the full range
of skills and competencies that the National Academy of
Sciences reports state children require to succeed, and it
has not been thoroughly debated by those groups associated
with Head Start, including early childhood development and
assessment experts, early childhood educators and
administrators, family members of children participating in
Head Start, or Congress.

SEC. 3. DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES IN
CONNECTION WITH THE HEAD START NATIONAL
REPORTING SYSTEM ON CHILD OUTCOMES.

(a) Satisfaction of Conditions.--The Secretary of Health
and Human Services shall not proceed with the full-scale
implementation of the Head Start National Reporting System on
Child Outcomes, as described in the project proposal (68 Fed.
Reg. 17815; relating to Implementation of the Head Start
National Reporting System on Child Outcomes), until the
Secretary certifies to Congress that the following conditions
have been satisfied:
(1) Oversight hearings.--Congressional oversight hearings
have been concluded concerning the development and
implementation of the Head Start National Reporting System on
Child Outcomes.
(2) Public forums.--The Secretary has concluded, consistent
with the requirements of subsection (b), public forums in
different regions of the United States, and provided an
opportunity for written public comments, concerning early
childhood assessment proposals.
(3) Study on early childhood assessments.--The Secretary
has submitted, consistent with subsection (c), to Congress a
study of early childhood assessments focusing on improving
accountability, instruction, and the delivery of services.
The Secretary shall request the National Academy of Sciences
to prepare the study using a panel of nationally recognized
experts in early childhood assessment, child development, and
education.
(4) Availability of funds.--Without reducing the number of
students served by Head Start, sufficient funds are available
to--
(A) develop and implement any new Head Start assessments;
and
(B) deliver necessary additional technical assistance and
professional development required to successfully implement
the new assessments.
(b) Public Forum Participation.--To satisfy the condition
specified in subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall ensure
that participation in the required forums includes--
(1) early childhood development and assessment experts;
(2) early childhood educators and administrators; and
(3) family members of children participating in Head Start.
(c) Information Required by Study on Early Childhood
Assessments.--To satisfy the condition specified in
subsection (a)(3), the Secretary shall ensure that the
required study contains, at a minimum, specific information
regarding the following:
(1) Which skills and competencies are predictive of school
readiness and future academic success.
(2) The development, selection, and use of instruments,
determined to be reliable and validated for preschoolers,
including preschoolers in the Head Start population, to
assess the development in young children of--
(A) literacy, language, and mathematical skills;
(B) emotional and social skills; and
(C) health and physical well-being.
(3) The development of appropriate benchmarks and the
proper use of early childhood assessments to improve Head
Start program effectiveness and instruction.
(4) The resources required for successful implementation of
additional assessments within Head Start and how such
additional assessments might be coordinated with current
processes.
(5) Whether a new assessment would provide information to
improve program accountability or instruction that is not
already available from existing assessments and reporting
procedures within Head Start.
(6) The professional development and personnel needs for
successful implementation of early childhood assessments.
(7) The practicality of employing sampling techniques as
part of any early childhood assessment.
(8) The practicality of employing observational and work-
sampling assessment techniques as part of an early childhood
assessment.
(9) Steps needed to ensure that assessments accommodate the
racial, cultural, and linguistic diversity of young children,
including young children with disabilities.
______

By Mr. BROWNBACK:
S. 1621. A bill to provide for consumer, educational institution, and
library awareness about digital rights management technologies included
in the digital media products they purchase, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Consumers,
Schools, and Libraries Digital Rights Management Act of 2003,
legislation I view as vital for American consumers and our Nation's
educational community as they venture forth into the 21st century
digital media marketplace.
This legislation responds directly to ongoing litigation between the
Recording Industry Association of America and Internet service
providers Verizon and SBC Communications. This litigation has opened
wide all identifying information an ISP maintains on its subscribers,
effectively requiring ISPs to make that information available to any
party simply requesting the information. The legislation also creates
certain minimal protections for consumers legally interacting with
digital media products protected by new digital rights management
technologies.
I had intended to introduce individual pieces of legislation on these
issues--privacy and digital rights management. However, given that both
issues are so relevant to consumers in the digital age, I ultimately
decided to present them to my colleagues in one comprehensive bill.
It has been determined by a Federal court that a provision of the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act permits the RIAA to obtain this ISP
subscriber's identifying information without any judicial supervision,
or any due process for the subscriber. Today, right now, solely due to
this court decision, all that is required for a person to obtain the
name and address of an individual who can only be identified by their
Intent Protocol address--their Internet phone number--is to claim to be
a copyright owner, file a one page subpoena request with a clerk of the
court,

[[Page S11572]]

a declaration swearing that you truly believe an ISP's subscriber is
pirating your copyright, the clerk will then send the request to the
ISP, and the ISP has no choice but to divulge the identifying
information of the subscriber--name, address, phone number--to the
complaining party. There are no checks, no balances, and the alleged
pirate has no opportunity to defend themselves. My colleagues, this
issue is about privacy not piracy.
The real harm here is that nothing in this quasi-subpoena process
prevents someone other than a digital media owner--say a stalker, a
pedophile, a telemarketer or even a spammer from using this quasi-
subpoena process to gain the identity of Internet subscribers,
including our children. In fact, we cannot even limit this subpoena
process to mainstream copyright owners.
This past July, SBC Communications received a subpoena request for
the personal information of approximately 60 of its Internet
subscribers. The copyright owner that made the request is a hard core
pornographer named Titan Media. We cannot permit the continued
existence of a private subpoena that can be used by pornographers to
easily identify Americans. If you have any doubt, all you need to do is
look into the generous amnesty program offered by Titan Media to those
it accuses of piracy: buy their porn, and they won't use the subpoena
to identify you. The threat of abuse is simply too great, as Titan
Media has already demonstrated.
The Consumers, Schools, and Libraries Digital Rights Management
Awareness Act of 2003 requires the owners of digital media products to
file an actual case in a court of law in order to obtain the
identifying information of an ISP subscriber. This will provide
immediate privacy protections to Internet subscribers by forcing their
accusers to appear publicly in a court of law, where those with illicit
intentions will not tread, and provides the accused with due process
required to properly defend themselves.
In addition, the bill requires the Federal Trade Commission to study
alternative means to this subpoena process, so that we may empower our
Nation's intellectual property owners to defend their rights by
pursuing those who are stealing from them, but to do so in a safe,
private, confidential manner where consumers are concerned, and without
burdening the courts. Transitioning to an FTC process will ensure that
there can be speedy verification, due process, safety, and maximum
protection for the innocent, while preserving maximum civil enforcement
against pirates.
I do not offer this legislation to debate the history and merits of
the DMCA. I offer this legislation for my colleagues consideration,
because I find it untenable that any Internet subscribers' identifying
information can be obtained, under government auspices no less, without
any oversight or due process.
I want to be celar on an important point. This subpoena is mostly
being sought by mainstream digital media owners who are seeking to
prevent piracy performed using peer to peer file sharing software.
While I am as disappointed as anyone that the mighty RIAA would choose
to force a little 12-year-old girl--one of the Internet subscribers
identified through an RIAA subpoena--and her mother to pay them $2000
for the girl's piracy, I am still opposed to piracy as much as any
Member of Congress. I have a strong record on property rights to back
that up. I have no interest in seeking to shield those who have
committed piracy from the law or hamper the ability of property owners
to defend their rights. My concern with this quasi-subpoena process is
with the problems it creates. I have made it very clear to all
stakeholders that I stand ready to work on alternative legislation if
they perefer something else to this provision, but unfortunately that
offer has been flatly rejected.
This week the Senate voted to reverse the Federal Communications
Commission's new media ownership regulations. I opposed that
resolution, because I do not believe the FCC's amendments to its media
outlet ownership rules are a threat to competition and diversity.
However, I do stand with my colleagues in supporting a media
marketplace where information flows from numerous sources and our
constituents are empowered by a full range of robust digital outlets
and new digital technologies available to them in the 21st century
media marketplace. While well intentioned, I believe my colleagues are
simply focusing on the wrong issues in the current debate over media
ownership.
Digital rights management, otherwise known simply as DRM, refers to
the growing body of technology--software and hardware--that controls
access to and use of information, including the ability of individuals
to distribute that information over the Internet. Over the past few
years the large media companies have persistently sought out new laws
and regulations that would mandate DRM in the marketplace, denying
consumers and the educational community the use of media products as
has been customarily and legally permitted.
As a result, the Consumers, Schools, and Libraries Digital Rights
Management Awareness Act of 2003 will preclude the FCC from mandating
that consumer electronics, computer hardware, telecommunications
networks, and any other technology that facilitates the use of digital
media products, such as movies, music, or software, be built to respond
to particular digital rights management technologies.
Consumers and the educational community are legally permitted to use
media products in a host of ways. Some of these uses are specifically
identified in the Copyright Act as limitations on the rights of
copyright owners. Many of these uses are the result of court decisions
interpreting one of those limitations, the limitation known as Fair
Use, and customs based on those court decisions. As a result, consumers
can record cable and broadcast programming for non-commercial, private
home use. They can lend DVDs and CDs to friends and family. They can
make copies of movies and music in different formats so that they can
use them with different types of playback devices. Media products can
be used for criticism, research, and a range of other educational
purposes that include acts of redistribution. All of these uses of
content can be made by consumers and the educational community under
the Copyright Act, and none of them require the permission of the
copyright owner.
The same digital marketplace that has given rise to DRM is also
updating the ways consumers and the educational community may use media
products in powerful new ways. Broadband connectivity and new digital
networking technologies--used in homes, offices, schools, and
libraries--raise the prospect of never having to use physical media
again. Instead, consumers, employees, students, and library patrons
could access legally owned and legally possessed media products that
reside on such a network remotely, via the Internet. These developments
could revolutionize the information age at its onset.
Digital rights management can both help and hinder this evolutionary
process. DRM can be a powerful tool for combating digital piracy. It
can tether digital content to specific devices, preventing that content
from being used on other devices. DRM can also prohibit Internet
redistribution of digital media products.
DRM also has its downside, especially when it is incorporated into
digital media products, and purchased unwittingly by consumers. Some
consumers have already become acquainted with DRM in the marketplace
this way. Less than 2 years ago music labels began selling copy-
protected CDs. Consumers came to find their CDs--that look just like
the CDs they have been purchasing for years--would not play on many
personal computers, and in some instances became lodged inside them. In
addition, they could no longer make the legal practice of converting
them into digital MP3 files for use on portable MP3 players. More
recently, consumers purchasing the popular tax filing software, Turbo
Tax, came to realize they could only use the software on the first
computer they downloaded it onto, never mind situations where they
desperately needed to complete their tax filings on a different
computer. I have no doubt that came as a nice surprise to taxpayers
pressing to meet filing deadlines. It is my understanding that many
consumers are registering their view on this use of DRM by purchasing
competing software not so limited.

[[Page S11573]]

When combined with government mandates requiring that all consumer
appliances use or respond to specific DRM technologies and
capabilities, the potential for mass consumer confusion and disservice
is clear. I introduce this legislation today, because DRM mandates
sought by the major media companies are threatening to create just such
an experience for consumers and the educational community. I can think
of no greater threat to media and information diversity and competition
than large, vertically integrated media and Internet companies using
DRM technology mandates to not only control distribution of content,
but also the ways in which that content is used by consumers in the
privacy of their homes, by teachers in our Nation's classrooms and
educational institutions, and by all Americans in our libraries.
Last week, the Federal Communications Commission adopted regulations
approving a private sector agreement between the cable TV industry and
the consumer electronics industry, called the Cable-CE ``Plug and
Play'' agreement. The Plug and Play agreement governs how consumer
electronics devices, information technology, and cable TV networks work
together. Both the cable TV and CE industries should be commended for
working together to make digital TV sets ``cable ready,'' and speeding
the transition to digital television for consumers.
This private agreement includes digital rights management
provisions--called ``encoding rules--that are aimed at protecting cable
TV programming from piracy, but in a manner that seeks to preserve the
customary and legal uses of media by consumers and the educational
community to the greatest degree possible.
The agreement is technology neutral, in that new DRM content
protection technologies may be devised and deemed compliant with the
security protocols of the Plug and Play agreement. A proponent of a new
content protection technology has a right to appeal to the FCC if Cable
Labs rejects that technology, and the FCC will conduct a de novo review
based on objective criteria. Unfortunately, the Commission may take a
very different approach in protection broadcast digital television
programming from piracy in its ``Broadcast Flag'' proceeding, as first
proposed by the big media companies, and later joined by a very select
group of electronics companies that own the patent in the one DRM
technology, 5C approved for use in the proposal. The broadcast flag
proposal requires every device that receives digital television content
to recognize a ``flag'' that can be attached to DTV programming, and to
respond to the flag by encrypting the content using an ``authorized
technology'' that would be expressly required by FCC regulation.

Unlike the Plug and plan agreement, the broadcast flag proposal makes
it difficult for new DRM technologies to be deemed ``Broadcast Flag''
compliant. The principal approval role for alternate DRM content
protection technologies is vested in several big media companies and
some of the narrow group of electronics companies owning the patent in
5C. In the only circumstance under this proposal where the FCC would
have a role in approving a new technology, the baseline for FCC
consideration would be the preordained 5C technology and their
associated license terms. I hardly consider a proposal to be technology
neutral when such important competitive determinations are placed in
the hands of invested stakeholders as gatekeepers. Such a proposal
deprives the market place of the very qualities the media companies
need to fight piracy: competition and innovation. I commend Intel, one
of the 5C companies, for recognizing this grim reality and being bold
enough to support a different course, as I will outline in a moment.
The important of technological neutrality in the Plug and Play
agreement versus the tech mandate in the Broadcast Flag becomes very
clear when you review the particular provisions of each agreement.
In today's world, a DRM technology does not seem to exist that can
both permit consumers to use the Internet to legally access content
stored in their homes--on a home network for instance--while also
preventing the unfettered Internet redistribution of such content.
However, because the Cable-CE agreement envisions new DRM technologies,
and make it possible for them to be approved for use with cable
networks and CE devices, the potential for a new DRM technology that
can strike this important balance exists.
Since the Flag proposal is so closed off to new technologies, it is
unlikely that it will evolve to permit point-to-point redistribution of
digital broadcast content over the Internet, for example, from one's
home to one's office or from a son or daughter to any elderly parent.
Furthermore 5C is capable of completely locking down the ways consumers
and the educational community can record or otherwise use DTV content.
It is no wonder then that the technical specifications for the actual
Flag itself in major media's proposal provides for the possibility that
it can be used to send new, more restrictive encoding rules to consumer
electronics devices that operate DTV content.
The Consumers, Schools, and Libraries Digital Rights Management
Awareness Act of 2003 will ensure that anti-piracy policies for
broadcast DTV will provide maximum protections for industry, but in a
manner that relies on innovation, competition, and serving the
interests of consumers to achieve that goal.
First, the bill prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from
moving forward with any new proceedings that impact the ways in which
consumers may access or distribute digital media products, aside from
the two previously mentioned proceedings. This will negate any future
efforts by the big media companies to further expand the ways in which
they can control how content may be legally used.
Second, the bill sets ground rules for the FCC's broadcast flag
proceeding. It permits the FCC, if it has such authority, to require
consumer electronics companies to detect a Broadcast Flag and prohibit
illegal Internet retransmission of digital broadcast programming to the
public when it detects the flag. However, this proposal relies on a
self-certification requirement, so consumer electronics and information
technology companies can deploy competing and innovative DRMs that
prohibit DTV piracy immediately, not subject to the whims of industry
gatekeepers. Like the Plug and Play agreement this proposal provides a
meaningful role for the FCC, not industry stakeholders, to resolve any
controversies that may arise with new technologies.
In addition to addressing the threat of FCC tech mandates in the
broadcast DTV space, this legislation also addresses other important
concerns regarding the introduction of DRM into the marketplace, to
prevent some of the experiences of consumers with this important
technology to date.
First, the bill provides on year for all stakeholders in the digital
media marketplace to voluntarily devise a labeling regime for all DRM-
enabled digital media products, including those made available solely
online, so consumers will know what they are buying when they but it.
Second, the bill prohibits the use of DRM technologies to prevent
consumers from reselling the used digital media products they no longer
want, or from donating used digital media products to schools and
libraries.
Finally, the bill directs the Federal Trade Commission--our Nation's
premier consumer protection agency--to carefully monitor the
introduction of DRM into the marketplace, reporting to Congress in
incidents of consumer confusion and dissatisfaction, and suggesting
measures that can ease the impact DRM has on law abiding consumers.
The Senate has responded to what many view as the threat of
increasing consolidation in the media marketplace. If my colleagues are
concerned with consolidation in outlet ownership then I have no doubt
they will be equally concerned with Federally-mandated controls over
how consumers and the educational community may actually use
information flowing through those outlets. Piracy Prevention is a goal
we can all work together to pursue. DRM-mandated business models,
however, should not be the product of this Congress or any agency under
our jurisdiction. The Federal Communications Commission seems to be
missing this point. I encourage all of my colleagues to work with me to
put the

[[Page S11574]]

brakes on the FCC. Support the Consumers, Schools, and Libraries
Digital Rights Management Awareness of 2003.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Consumers, Schools, and
Libraries Digital Rights Management Awareness Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) It is not in the interest of our nation's economy,
marketplace innovation, nor consumer or educational community
welfare for an agency of the Federal government to mandate
the inclusion of access or redistribution control
technologies used with digital media products into consumer
electronics products, computer products, or
telecommunications and advanced services network facilities
and services, except pursuant to a grant of specific and
clear authority from Congress to assure a result in its
regulations, and when the mandate is derived from voluntary
private-sector efforts that protect the legal, reasonable,
and customary practices of end-users.
(2) The limited introduction into commerce of access
controlled compact discs has caused some consumer,
educational institution, and library confusion and
inconvenience, and has placed increased burdens on retailers,
consumer electronics manufacturers, and personal computer
manufacturers responding to consumer, educational
institution, and library complaints.
(3) The private and public sectors should work together to
prevent future consumer, educational institution, library,
and industry confusion and inconvenience as legitimate access
and redistribution control technologies become increasingly
prevalent in the marketplace.
(4) The private sector should make every effort, in a
voluntary process, to provide for consumer, educational
institution, and library awareness and satisfaction as access
and redistribution control technology are increasingly
deployed in the marketplace.
(5) The Federal Trade Commission, in the absence of
successful private sector efforts, should ensure that
consumers, educational institutions, and libraries are
provided with adequate information with respect to the
existence of access and redistribution control technologies
in the digital media products they purchase, and how such
technologies may implicate their ability to use such
products.
(6) It is not in the interests of consumer welfare,
privacy, and safety, or for the continued development of the
Internet as a communications and economic resource, for the
manufacturers of digital media products or their
representatives to be permitted to require Internet access
service providers merely providing subscribers with transport
for electronic communications to disclose a subscriber's
personal information, absent due process and independent of
the judicial scrutiny required to ensure that such requests
are legitimate.
(7) The Federal Trade Commission should ensure that
consumers' welfare, privacy, and safety are protected in
regards to requests by manufacturers of digital media
products or their representatives for Internet service
provider disclosure of subscribers' personally identifiable
information outside of the judicial process.
(8) It is not in the interests of our nation's economy,
marketplace innovation, nor consumer, educational
institution, and library welfare to permit the advent of
access or redistribution control technologies to limit the
existence of legitimate secondary markets for digital media
products, a traditional form of commerce that is founded in
our nation's economic traditions, provides critical resources
for our nation's educational institutions and libraries, and
is otherwise consistent with applicable law.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON FCC TECHNOLOGY MANDATES.

(a) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that--
(1) a successful transition to digital television will
occur based on the mutual cooperation of all stakeholders,
and no one stakeholder's property interests outweigh
another's interests;
(2) the transition to digital television will be successful
to the degree it meets consumers' expectations based on the
ways they have come to expect to be able to receive and use
over-the-air television in the privacy of their own homes and
otherwise;
(3) digital convergence provides new tools for industry to
offer innovative and varied products compared to the
traditional analog marketplace, and it also provides.
consumers with innovative and varied means of using digital
content. In this respect, interoperability between digital
television products and digital cable systems remains an
important objective;
(4) a successful transition to digital television will
maintain this important balance of interests; and
(5) suggestions that consumers do not have certain
expectations in the digital marketplace simply because they
have never had access to a particular digital capability, or
the expectation of using or relying on such a capability, are
not dispositive of reasonable and customary consumer access
and use practices.
(b) Prohibition on Technology Mandates.--Except as
specifically authorized by Congress the Federal
Communications Commission may not require a person
manufacturing, importing into, offering for sale, license or
distribution in, or affecting, interstate commerce in the
United States a device, machine, or process that is designed,
manufactured, marketed for the purpose of, or that is capable
of rendering, processing, transmitting, receiving or
reproducing a digital media product--
(1) to incorporate access control technology, or the
ability to respond to such technology, into the design of
such a device, machine, or process; or
(2) to incorporate redistribution control technology, or
the ability to respond to such technology, into the design of
such a device, machine, or process.
(c) Effect on Pending FCC Rulemaking Proceedings.--
(1) Nothing herein shall prohibit or limit the Commission
from issuing the regulations proposed for adoption in the
``cable plug and play'' proceeding in CS Docket No. 97-80 and
PP Docket No. 00-67.
(2) If the Commission determines that it has the authority
to issue regulations in MB Docket No. 02-230, it shall not be
barred by subsection (b) of this section from issuing such
regulations, provided, however, that such regulations shall--
(A) preserve reasonable and customary consumer, educational
institution, and library access and use practices;
(B) not include, directly or indirectly, any requirement
that a device, machine, or process designed, manufactured,
marketed for the purpose of, or that is capable of rendering,
processing, transmitting, receiving or reproducing a digital
media product, be manufactured using any particular
redistribution control technology or technologies, but only
may provide for establishment of objective standards to
achieve a functional requirement of preventing illegal
redistribution of digital terrestrial television broadcast
programming to the public over the Internet; and
(C) provide for manufacturer self-certification, to be
enforced exclusively by the Commission pursuant to its
existing enforcement authority, that a redistribution control
technology meets the requirements in subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of this subsection and does not interfere with unrelated
distribution of content over the Internet.

SEC. 4. CONSUMER, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, AND LIBRARY
AWARENESS.

(a) Consumer, Educational Institution, and Library Digital
Rights Management Awareness Advisory Committee.--The Federal
Trade Commission shall, as soon as practicable after the date
of enactment of this Act, establish an advisory committee for
the purpose of informing the Commission about the ways in
which access control technology and redistribution control
technology may affect consumer, educational institution, and
library use of digital media products based on their legal
and customary uses of such products, and how consumer,
educational institution, and library awareness about the
existence of such technologies in the digital media products
they purchase or otherwise come to legally own may be
achieved.
(b) Advisory Committee Requirements.--In establishing an
advisory committee for purposes of subsection (a) of this
section, the Commission shall--
(1) ensure that it includes representatives of radio and
television broadcasters, television programming producers,
producers of motion pictures, producers of sound recordings,
publishers of literary works, producers of video games, cable
operators, satellite operators, consumer electronics
manufacturers, computer manufacturers, any other appropriate
manufacturers of electronic devices capable of utilizing
digital media products, telecommunications service providers,
advanced service providers, Internet service providers,
consumer interest groups, representatives of educational
institutions, representatives of libraries, and other
interested individuals from the private sector, and is fairly
balanced in terms of political affiliation, the points of
view represented, and the functions to be performed by the
committee; and
(2) provide to the committee such staff and resources as
may be necessary to permit it to perform its functions
efficiently and promptly; and
(3) require the committee to submit a final report,
approved by a majority of members, of its recommendations
within one year after the date of the appointment of the
initial members.
(c) FTC Notice and Labeling.--Except as provided in
subsection (d)--
(1) no person shall offer for sale, license, or use by a
consumer, educational institution, or a library an access
controlled digital media product or a redistribution
controlled digital media product, unless that person has
provided clear and conspicuous notice or a label on the
product, at the point of sale or distribution to such
consumer, educational institution or library as prescribed by
the Federal Trade Commission, such that the notice or label
identifies any restrictions the access control technology or
redistribution control technology used in or with that
digital media product is intended or reasonably could be
foreseen to have on the consumers', educational
institutions', or libraries' use of the product; and

[[Page S11575]]

(2) this subsection shall not apply to a distributor or
vendor of a digital media product unless such distributor or
vendor has actual knowledge that the product contains or is
restricted by access control technology or redistribution
control technology and that the notice or label described in
this subsection is not visible to the consumer, educational
institution, or library at the point of distribution or
transmission.
(d) Applicability and Effective Date.--Subsection (c) shall
take effect 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act
unless the Commission determines, in consultation with the
advisory committee created in subsection (b) of this section,
that manufacturers of digital media products have, by such
date--
(1) established voluntary rules for notice and labeling of
access controlled or redistribution controlled digital media
products, including when both access control technology and
redistribution control technology are used in or with digital
media products, designed to create consumer, educational
institution, and library awareness about the ways in which
access control technology or redistribution control
technology will affect their legal, expected, and customary
uses of digital media products; and
(2) agreed voluntarily to implement the rules for notice
and labeling of access controlled digital media products or
redistribution controlled digital media products, including
when both access control technology and redistribution
control technology are used in or with digital media
products.

SEC. 5. CONSUMER PRIVACY.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, an Internet access service may not be compelled to make
available to a manufacturer of a digital media product or its
representative the identity or personal information of a
subscriber or user of its service for use in enforcing the
manufacturer's rights relating to use of such product on the
basis of a subpoena or order issued at the request of the
manufacturer or its representative except under a valid
subpoena or court order issued at the request of the
manufacturer or its representative in a pending civil lawsuit
or as otherwise expressly authorized under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure or the civil procedure rules of a State.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to requests for personal
information authorized by another provision of law relating
to allegedly unlawful use of a digital media product
residing, and not merely stored for a temporary or transient
period, on the system or network of the Internet access
service.

SEC. 6. SECONDARY MARKETS FOR USED DIGITAL MEDIA PRODUCTS.

(a) Consumer Secondary Markets.--The lawful owner of a
digital media product may transmit a copy of that product by
means of a transmission to a single recipient as long as the
technology used by that person to transmit the copy
automatically deletes the digital media product
contemporaneously with transmitting the copy.
(b) Secondary Markets for Charitable Donations to
Educational Institutions and Libraries.--A person
manufacturing, importing into, or offering for sale in, or
affecting, interstate commerce in the United States a digital
media product may not incorporate, impose, or attempt to
impose any access control technology or redistribution
control technology used in or with a digital media product
that prevents a consumer from donating digital media products
they own to educational institutions or libraries, subject to
subsection (a).
(c) No Disabling Technology.--A person manufacturing,
importing into, or offering for sale in, or affecting,
interstate commerce in the United States a digital media
product may not incorporate, impose, or attempt to impose any
access control technology or redistribution control
technology used in or with a digital media product that
limits consumer resale of a digital media product described
in subsection (a) or charitable donations described in
subsection (b) to specific venues or distribution channels.

SEC. 7. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall submit to Congress a
report containing the following information:
(1) The extent to which access controlled digital media
products and redistribution controlled digital media products
have entered the market over the preceding 2 years.
(2) The extent to which such digital media products allow
consumers, educational institutions, and libraries to engage
in all lawful uses of the product, and to which the
Commission has received complaints from consumers,
educational institutions, and libraries about the
implementation of return policies for consumers, schools, and
libraries who find that an access controlled digital media
product or a redistribution controlled digital media product
does not operate properly in a device capable of utilizing
the product, or cannot be transmitted lawfully over the
Internet.
(3) The extent to which manufacturers and retailers have
been burdened by consumer, educational institutions, and
library returns of devices unable to play or otherwise
utilize access controlled digital media products or
redistribution controlled digital media products.
(4) The number of enforcement actions taken by the
Commission under this Act.
(5) The number of convictions or settlements achieved as a
result of those enforcement actions.
(6) The number of requests Internet service providers have
received from manufacturers of digital media products or
their representatives seeking disclosure of subscribers'
personal information, and the number of electronic requests
Internet Service Providers have received from manufacturers
of digital media products or their representatives requesting
that a subscriber be disconnected from their service outside
of any judicial process.
(7) Legislative or other requirements the Commission
recommends in creating an office within the Commission to
receive, verify, and process requests from manufacturers of
digital media companies or their representatives to obtain
the personal information of a subscriber to an Internet
access service they legitimately suspect of misusing their
property.
(8) An analysis of the ways consumers, educational
institutions, and libraries commonly expect to be able to use
digital media products, whether including access control
technology or redistribution control technology or otherwise,
when they purchase, legally own, or pay to use such products.
(9) Any proposed changes to this Act the Commission
believes would enhance enforcement, eliminate consumer,
educational institution, and library confusion, or otherwise
address concerns raised by end-users with the Commission
under this Act.

SEC. 8. ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Enforcement by Federal Trade Commission.--Except with
regard to section 3, this Act shall be enforced by the
Federal Trade Commission.
(b) Violation Is Unfair or Deceptive Act or Practice.--The
violation of any provision is an unfair or deceptive act or
practice proscribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal
Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
(c) Actions by the Commission.--The Commission shall
prevent any person from violating sections 4, 5 or 6 of this
Act in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same
jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable
terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of
this Act. Any entity that violates any provision of sections
4, 5 or 6 is subject to the penalties and entitled to the
privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade
Commission Act in the same manner as if all applicable terms
and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were in
incorporated into and made a part of those sections.
(d) 1 Year Window for Compliance.--The Commission may not,
less than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section,
initiate an enforcement action under this section for a
violation of section 4.

SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.

For the purposes of this Act:
(1) Access Controlled Digital Media Product.--The term
``access controlled digital media product'' means a digital
media product, as defined in this section, to which an access
control technology has been applied.
(2) Access Control Technology.--The term ``access control
technology'' means a technology or process that controls or
inhibits the use, reproduction, display, transmission or
resale, or transfer of control of a license to use, of a
digital media product.
(3) Digital Media Product.--The term ``digital media
product'' means--
(a) a literary work;
(b) a pictorial and graphic work;
(c) a motion picture or other audiovisual work;
(d) a sound recording; or
(e) a musical work, including accompanying words that is
distributed, broadcast, transmitted, performed, intended for
sale, or licensed on nonnegotiable terms, to the general
public, in digital form, either electronically or fixed in a
physical medium.
(4) Functional requirement.--The term ``functional
requirement'' means any rule or regulation enacted by the
Federal Communications Commission that requires a device,
machine, or process designed, manufactured, marketed for the
purpose of, or that is capable of rendering, processing,
transmitting, receiving or reproducing a digital media
product to be able to perform certain functions or include
certain generic capabilities, independent of any requirement
that specific technologies be incorporated to meet the
functional requirement.
(5) Internet.--The term ``Internet'' has the meaning given
that term in the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 nt).
(6) Internet access service.--The term ``Internet access
service'' has the same meaning given that term in section
231(e)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
231(e)(4)).
(7) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer of a digital
media product'' means any person owning any right in the
digital media product.
(8) Personal information.--The term ``personal
information'' has the same meaning given that term in section
1301(8) of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of
1998 (15 U.S.C. 6501(8)), including any other information
about an individual, and including information that an
Internet access service collects and combines with an
identifier described in subparagraphs (A) through (F) of that
section.
(9) Redistribution controlled digital media product.--The
term ``redistribution

[[Page S11576]]

controlled digital media product'' means a digital media
product, as defined in this section, to which a
redistribution control technology has been applied.
(10) Redistribution control technology.--The term
``redistribution control technology'' means a technology or
process that controls or inhibits the transmission of a
digital media product over the Internet following its initial
receipt by a member of the public, without regard to whether
such transmission is for the purpose of use, reproduction,
performance, resale, or transfer of a license to use, the
digital media product.
______

By Mr. DASCHLE (for Mr. Graham of Florida (for himself, Mr.
Hagel, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Ms. Murkowski, Mr.
Dayton, Mr. Akaka, and Mrs. Murray)):
S. 1622. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to exempt
certain members of the Armed Forces from the requirement to pay
subsistence charges while hospitalized; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered
to be printed in the Record.)

<bullet> Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, Senators Hagel, Clinton, Ben
Nelson, Murkowski, Dayton, Murray, Akaka, and I are introducing
legislation to help service members who are injured or become ill while
serving in combat. Today, if one of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, or
marines fighting in Iraq or in Afghanistan are wounded or suffer an
illness, they are evacuated to a military hospital. The problem is when
they are discharged from the hospital they are given a bill for the
meals they were served while being treated.
Under current law, service members are required to pay for their
meals at a rate of $8.10 per day while they are in a military hospital.
For example, a Marine Staff Sergeant recently spent 26 days in the
hospital recovering from injuries endured when an Iraqi child dropped a
hand grenade in the HUMVEE he was driving. Upon his discharge from the
hospital, he was handed a bill for $243 for his meals. While eight
dollars a day may not seem like a lot of money to you or me, it is to a
private who makes less than $14,000 a year. If we are looking to save
money, we should not turn first to the pockets of our injured service
members.
The bill we introduce today is simple. It will prohibit the
Department of Defense from charging troops for meals when they are
hospitalized as a result of either injury or illness while in combat or
training for combat. This legislation shows strong support for our
service members currently in harm's way and helps to alleviate a
financial burden on our injured soldiers.
This bill is similar to one filed by Congressman Bill Young in the
House of Representatives, but also covers those who become ill while in
combat or training for combat. We already know that over 100 soldiers
deployed to the Persian Gulf region and Central Asia have contracted
pneumonia, 30 that become so ill that they had to be evacuated to
hospitals in Europe or the United States. This situation highlights why
we must include those who suffer from illness as well as injury. I am
grateful to Congressman Young for his leadership on this issue and am
hopeful we can work together to quickly pass legislation to end the
unfair practice of charging our injured service members for hospital
meals.
The cost to the government for correcting this serious injustice is
significant. This year, the Department of Defense has recouped only
$1.5 million for hospital meals from hospitalized service members
world-wide. This legislation is even more limited in scope, as it only
applies to those who become ill or injured during combat or situations
simulating combat. While I am cognizant of the budget constraints our
military is facing, this is a comparatively small expense that will
mean a great deal to those service members affected.
Service members and military families are facing many challenges
right now. They have to contend with long separations, potential
financial hardships from extended Reserve and Guard call-ups, not to
mention the very real fear of being wounded in combat. We should not
add to these burdens by charging them for their meals after a lengthy
hospital stay for a combat-related condition.
I urge my colleagues to join me and my colleagues in quickly moving
this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, the following
editorial in support of ending this injustice from the Omaha World
Herald, entitled ``Nickel and Diming the Troops'' be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1622

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES
FROM REQUIREMENT TO PAY SUBSISTENCE CHARGES
WHILE HOSPITALIZED.

(a) In General.--Section 1075 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``When''; and
(2) by striking the second sentence and inserting the
following:
``(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any of
the following:
``(1) An enlisted member, or former enlisted member, of a
uniformed service who is entitled to retired or retainer pay
or equivalent pay.
``(2) An officer or former officer of a uniformed service,
or an enlisted member or former enlisted member of a
uniformed service not described in paragraph (1), who is
hospitalized under section 1074 of this title because of an
injury or disease incurred (as determined under criteria
prescribed by the Secretary of Defense)--
``(A) as a direct result of armed conflict;
``(B) while engaged in hazardous service;
``(C) in the performance of duty under conditions
simulating war; or
``(D) through an instrumentality of war.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Section 1075(b) of title 10, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on
the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with
respect to injuries or diseases incurred on or after that
date.

[From the Omaha World Herald, Sept. 16, 2003]

Nickel-and-Diming the Troops

It seems just plain mean-spirited to bill injured soldiers
for their food.
The U.S. government does, indeed, put a price on the
sacrifices of the men and women injured in military combat:
$8.10 per day.
That's the daily food allowance soldiers receive, which in
1981 Congress decided enlisted soldiers must repay to the
government when they're ``lucky'' enough to be hospitalized
and get free food.
It sounds like good fiscal sense in theory--until you
confront the reality of a Marine Corps reservist who lost
part of his foot in Iraq, unaware he'd get a $210.60 bill
upon discharge from the National Navy Medical Center in
Bethesda, Md. Or the many other soldiers like him, sometimes
hospitalized for long periods, sometimes handicapped for
life.
And the government is busy nickel-and-diming these heroes
amid a bureaucracy where a million dollars is penny-ante
change. (Once upon a time, it might have bought a hammer and
a toilet seat or two.)
Florida Rep. C.W. Bill Young, chairman of the House
Appropriations Committee, personally paid the tab for the
reservist hospitalized in Bethesda. His bill to correct the
inequity, introduced Sept. 3, already has 114 co-sponsors. It
seems likely to sail through Congress in the next few weeks.
Technically, the 1981 law does prevent ``double-dipping''--
paying the hospitalized soldiers the $8.10 food allowance and
feeding them, too. But the government already bends the rules
for soldiers in combat. Young's bill would extend that
exception to soldiers battling to recover from combat
injuries.
What a small price to pay for the men and women who paid so
much to protect this country.

____________________