[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22089-22096]
[From the U.S. 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 circum-
stances. 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 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

[[Page 22090]]

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 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

[[Page 22091]]

     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, 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

[[Page 22092]]

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 clear 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 prefer 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.
  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

[[Page 22093]]

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 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:

                                S. 1621

       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,

[[Page 22094]]

     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
       (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

[[Page 22095]]

     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 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.)

 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.

[[Page 22096]]

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.

                          ____________________