[Pages S1407-S1412]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 505. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide
immunity for reports of suspected terrorist activity or suspicious
behavior and response; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague,
Senator Lieberman, in introducing the See Something, Say Something Act
of 2011.
The number of thwarted and failed attacks in the past few years and
the Fort Hood attack, which left 13 people dead and wounded dozens, are
sobering reminders that terrorists continue to threaten our nation. We
have seen, however, that an alert citizenry can be our first line of
defense against terrorist attacks as evidenced by events only a few
weeks ago in Texas.
Tips from alert citizens led to an investigation and the eventual
arrest of Khalid Aldawsari on a federal charge of attempted use of a
weapon of mass destruction. Specifically, an alert chemical supplier
reported Aldawsari's suspicious attempt to purchase a toxic chemical
called phenol to the FBI. Shipping company personnel also notified
local police officers about related suspicious behavior. Without these
calls to law enforcement, it is possible that a person who wrote in his
diary ``it is time for Jihad'' would have carried out an attack or
attacks on his numerous intended targets, including dams, nuclear power
plants, and former President George W. Bush.
Individuals must be protected from frivolous lawsuits when they
report, in good faith, suspicious behavior that may indicate terrorist
activity. That is why I am again introducing legislation, along with
Senator Lieberman, that will provide these important protections.
In the 2007 homeland security law, Senator Lieberman and I authored a
provision to encourage people to report potential terrorist threats
directed against transportation systems. This legislation would expand
those protections to reports of suspicious behavior in sectors other
than transportation. For example, reports of suspicious activity could
be equally important in detecting terrorist plans to attack ``soft
targets'' like hotels, shopping malls, restaurants, and religious
institutions.
In December 2008, a Federal jury convicted five men from New Jersey
of conspiring to murder American soldiers at Fort Dix. According to law
enforcement officials, the report of an alert store clerk, who stated
that a customer had brought in a video showing men firing weapons and
shouting in Arabic, triggered their investigation. If not for the
report of this vigilant store clerk, law enforcement may not have
disrupted this plot against military personnel at Fort Dix. Real life
examples like these highlight the need for this bill.
That store clerk's action likely saved hundreds of lives. It reveals
a core truth of the dangerous times in which we live. Our safety
depends on more than just police officers, intelligence analysts, and
soldiers. It also depends on the alertness and civic responsibility of
all Americans. So we must encourage citizens to be watchful and to
report suspicious activity whenever it occurs.
As a result of the devastating 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, Senator
Lieberman and I convened hearings held by the Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee to examine lessons learned from those
attacks. These hearings helped bring to light the reality that
terrorists might shift their attention from high-value, high-security
targets to less secure commercial facilities, where there remains the
potential for mass casualties and widespread panic.
Many of the Committee's witnesses during these hearings endorsed the
idea of expanding the 2007 law beyond the transportation sector.
Indeed, NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly said that the 2007 law ``made
eminently good sense'' and recommended ``that it be expanded [to other
sectors] if at all possible.''
The threat is real, and we must encourage citizens to be watchful and
to report suspicious activity whenever it occurs. Our legal system,
however, can be misused to chill the willingness of citizens to come
forward and report possible dangers. As widely reported by the media in
2006, US Airways removed 6 Islamic clerics from a flight after other
passengers expressed concerns that some of the clerics had moved out of
the their assigned seats and had requested, but were not using, seat
belt extenders that could possibly double as weapons. In response to
these concerns, US Airways officials removed these individuals from the
plane so that they could further investigate.

[[Page S1408]]

For voicing their reasonable fears that these passengers could be
rehearsing or preparing to execute a hijacking, these concerned
citizens found themselves as defendants in a civil rights lawsuit and
accused of bigotry.
The existence of this lawsuit illustrates how unfair it is to allow
private citizens to be intimidated into silence by the threat of
litigation. Would the passengers have spoken up if they had anticipated
that there would be a lawsuit filed against them? Even if such suits
fail, they can expose citizens to heavy costs in time and legal fees.
The bill we introduce today would provide civil immunity in American
courts for any person acting in good faith who reports any suspicious
transaction, activity, or occurrence related to an act of terrorism.
Specifically, the bill would encourage people to pass on information to
federal officials with responsibility for preventing, protecting
against, disrupting, or responding to a terrorist act, or to Federal,
State, and local law enforcement officials, without fear of being sued
for doing their civic duty. Only disclosures made to those responsible
officials would be protected by the legislation.
Once a report is received, those officials would be responsible for
assessing its reasonableness and determining whether further action is
required. If they take reasonable action to mitigate the reported
threat, they, too, would be protected from lawsuits. Just as we should
not discourage reporting suspicious incidents, we also should not
discourage reasonable responses to them.
Let me be very clear that this bill does not offer any protection
whatsoever if an individual makes a statement that he or she knows to
be false. No one will be able to use this protection as cover for
mischievous, vengeful, or biased falsehoods.
Our laws and legal system must not intimidate people into silence or
prevent our officials from responding to terrorist threats. Protecting
citizens who make good faith reports--and that's an important condition
in this bill--of potentially lethal activities is essential to
maintaining homeland security. Our bill offers protection in a measured
way that discourages abuses.
Each of us has an important responsibility in the fight against
terrorism. It is not a fight that can be left to law enforcement alone.
The police simply can't be everywhere all the time. Whether at a hotel,
a mall, or an arena, homeland security and law enforcement officials
need all citizens to alert them to unattended packages and behavior
that appears out of the ordinary.
Along these lines, I applaud DHS Secretary Napolitano for
establishing the Department's ``If you see something, say something''
campaign and the recent partnerships with various organizations
including the NFL. The Department is taking steps to expand this effort
with public education and materials for businesses, communities, and
citizens. As the Department's campaign continues to grow, there will be
a greater need for this legislation as our citizens become better
educated.
The National Sheriffs' Association, the National Association of Town
Watch, and other national organizations have endorsed this legislation.
If someone ``sees something'' suspicious, Congress should encourage
him or her to ``say something'' about it. This bill promotes and
protects that civic duty. I urge my colleagues to support it.
______

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 507. A bill to provide for increased Federal oversight of
prescription opioid treatment and assistance to States in reducing
opioid abuse, diversion, and deaths; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an
important piece of legislation, the Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act of 2011--an important bill that is needed to address
the rapid increase in deaths and overdoses from methadone and other
opioid prescription drugs in the United States. These deaths have hit
my home state of West Virginia particularly hard, but I know that every
State is struggling with this serious problem.
In the 111th Congress, Senator Corker and I, along with our
colleague, the late Senator Kennedy, introduced the Methadone Treatment
and Protection Act of 2009 a similar piece of legislation that stemmed
from a disturbing rise in deaths due to methadone, a synthetic opioid
prescription drug that had been increasingly used for pain management.
Before 1990, it was used primarily to treat opioid addiction. Because
of its high efficacy and low cost, methadone is frequently used for
pain management. However, if not used correctly, methadone can be a
powerful and deadly drug because it works differently than other
painkillers. Methadone stays in a person's body for a longer period of
time than the pain relief lasts so a person who does not know better
might take far too much of the drug, possibly leading to respiratory
distress, cardiac arrhythmia and even death.
Methadone prescriptions for pain management grew from about 531,000
in 1998 to about 4.1 million in 2006--nearly eightfold. During that
time, poisoning deaths involving methadone increased nearly sevenfold,
from almost 790 in 1999 to 5,420 in 2006. Deaths from other opioids
have also skyrocketed in the last decade. And, these deaths may
actually be underreported, because there is no comprehensive reporting
system for opioid-related deaths in the United States.
Overdoses from methadone are part of a larger disturbing trend of
overdoses and deaths from prescription painkillers, or opioid drugs--a
trend driven by a knowledge gap about how to treat serious pain in a
safe and effective manner, by misperceptions about the safety of
prescription drugs, and by the diversion of prescription drugs for
illicit uses. In 2009, there were nearly 4.6 million drug-related
emergency department, ED, visits of which nearly \1/2\, 45.1 percent,
or 2.1 million, were attributed to prescription drug misuse or abuse,
according to data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network, DAWN. And,
emergency department visits involving misuse or abuse of
pharmaceuticals nearly doubled between 2004 and 2009, to over 1.2
million visits.
This bill begins to address these problems. First, with respect to
the knowledge gap about safe pain management, the bill for the first
time includes a training requirement for health care professionals to
be licensed to prescribe these powerful drugs. Currently, the
Controlled Substances Act requires that every person who dispenses or
who proposes to dispense controlled narcotics, including methadone,
whether for pain management or opioid treatment, obtain a registration
from the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA. Unfortunately there is
no requirement as a condition of receiving the registration that these
practitioners receive any education on the use of these controlled
narcotics, including methadone. Physicians struggle every day with
determining who has a real need for pain treatment, and who is addicted
or at risk. And yes, they struggle with our failure to provide adequate
treatment facilities for those who are addicted. This bill will help
physicians get the information they need to prescribe safely and better
recognize the signs of addiction in their patients.
Second, this bill addresses the knowledge gap among consumers--with a
competitive grant program to states to distribute culturally sensitive
educational materials about proper use of methadone and other opioids,
and how to prevent opioid abuse, such as through safe disposal of
prescription drugs. Preference will be given to states with a high
incidence of overdoses and deaths.
Third, this bill creates a Controlled Substances Clinical Standards
Commission to establish patient education guidelines, appropriate and
safe dosing standards for all forms of methadone and other opioids,
benchmark guidelines for the reduction of methadone abuse, appropriate
conversion factors for transition patients from one opioid to another,
and guidelines for the initiation of methadone and other opioids for
pain management. A standards commission will provide much-needed
evidence-based information to improve guidance for the safe and
effective use of these powerful and dangerous controlled substances.
Fourth, this bill provides crucial support to state prescription drug
monitoring programs. As of 2008, 38 states had enacted legislation
requiring prescription drug monitoring programs

[[Page S1409]]

and many states were able to fund these initiatives in part from grants
available through the Harold Rogers Prescription Drug Monitoring
Program. A second program created in 2005 through the National All
Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act, NASPER, would provide
even more assistance, and requires interoperability between states to
reduce doctor shopping across state lines and diversion. Unfortunately,
NASPER has only recently been funded with $2 million in the fiscal year
2009 Omnibus legislation and $2 million in fiscal year 2010.
Here is just one example of why NASPER funding matters: recently, the
governor of Florida announced a budget that would not fund a planned
prescription monitoring program in his state, due to state budget
difficulties. This directly affects states in Appalachia because of the
rampant drug trafficking between the two regions. In fact, the road
from West Virginia to Florida is so well-travelled by drug traffickers
and people seeking pain medication that it has been renamed the
``OxyContin Highway,'' and flights from Huntington to Florida have been
nicknamed ``the Oxy Express.'' It is crucial to finally give NASPER the
funding it needs, and this legislation would do so, with $25 million a
year to establish interoperable prescription drug monitoring programs
within each state.
Finally, this bill would help solve the data gap when it comes to
opioid-related deaths. Right now there is no comprehensive national
database of drug-related deaths in the United States, nor is there a
standard form for medical examiners to fill out with regard to opioid-
related deaths. Since there is no comprehensive database of methadone-
related deaths, the number of deaths may actually be underreported. In
order to truly reduce the number of methadone-related deaths, quality
data must be collected and made available. This bill would create a
National Opioid Death Registry to track all opioid-related deaths and
related information, and establish a standard form for medical
examiners to fill out which would include information for the National
Opioid Death Registry.
Today we have an opportunity to change the harrowing statistics and
stem the rising tide of deaths from methadone and other opioids by
supporting the Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of
2011. This legislation provides a multifaceted approach to preventing
tragic overdoses and deaths from methadone and other opioids. This is
exactly what we need to improve the coordination of efforts and
resources at the local, state, and federal level.
I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important piece of
legislation. In doing so, we will be on our way to saving lives and
reducing the needless deaths that otherwise will continue to cause so
much suffering among the people of this country.
______

By Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. Corker, Mr. Brown of
Ohio, Mr. Begich, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Franken,
Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 510. A bill to prevent drunk driving injuries and fatalities, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ROADS
SAFE Act of 2011. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this
legislation by my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Corker and
7 other colleagues.
This legislation will encourage the development of new tools to fight
drunk driving. It has the potential to save 8,000 lives every year by
ensuring that no one celebrating Fat Tuesday or St. Patrick's Day--or
at any other time of the year--drives home drunk.
Tragic drunk driving crashes often prompt communities to more to
prevent drunk driving. This was the case in my home State of New Mexico
back in December of 1992. That is when a drunk driver killed a mother
and her three girls on Christmas Eve. He was speeding down the highway
90 miles an hour, going the wrong way down an interstate highway.
This crash helped change attitudes in my State. I was the state
Attorney General back then and I went after drunk drivers. I worked to
impose stronger penalties for repeat drunk driver offenders, a lower
legal limit for intoxication, and shut down drive-through liquor
windows. I was successful in these efforts, in part, due to the new
focus, throughout the state on eliminating drunk driving.
We made progress in New Mexico on drunk driving, but we have a long
way to go and it should not take yet another tragedy for us to do even
more to prevent drunk driving.
In 2009, drunk driving killed nearly 11,000 Americans, including 114
people in New Mexico. That is an average of 30 people killed every day
by drunk driving. This death toll is unacceptable. And it is all the
more shocking when you consider that each one of those deaths was
preventable.
The United States has made significant progress in reducing drunk
driving over the years. Compared to 20 years ago, our roads are much
safer today. Yet even as the overall number of people killed on our
highways has declined, drunk driving still accounts for about one-third
of all traffic fatalities.
It is even more worrisome that a drunk driver has just a 2 percent
chance of being caught. In fact, one study found that a first-time
drunk driving offender has, on average, driven drunk 87 times before
being arrested. Imagine, 87 times. Something must be done to prevent
these drivers from getting on the road in the first place.
The good news is there are potential technologies out there that
could do just that, which is why Senator Corker and I are introducing
the ROADS SAFE Act today. New safety technology has already transformed
the automobile and saved countless lives. For example, airbags and
antilock brakes are now standard features in many vehicles. These
safety devices are built into the car and are unobtrusive to the
driver. Such technologies are an important reason we have fewer traffic
fatalities today.
Imagine a future where vehicles could detect whether a driver is
drunk when he gets behind the wheel--before he even starts his vehicle.
That would mean no drunk driving crashes if it were impossible for
drunk drivers to drive. If such technology were widely deployed in
cars, approximately 8,000 lives could be saved every year.
I realize many may think this is a farfetched idea. But consider
this: vehicles today can already give driving directions, thanks to GPS
satellite navigation devices. Some cars can even parallel park
themselves. New Mexico and other states require convicted drunk drivers
to use an ignition interlock, a breathalyzer device they blow into
before their vehicle's engine will start. The success of ignition
interlocks for preventing repeat drunk driving offenses suggests a
better technology could be used to prevent all drunk driving.
In 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration partnered
with leading automakers to explore the feasibility of in-vehicle
technologies to prevent drunk driving. The Driver Alcohol Detection
System for Safety Program--or DADSS--is a great example of how we can
leverage federal funds with private investment to improve the safety of
our transportation system. The goal of DADSS is to explore the
feasibility, potential benefits, and public policy challenges
associated with using in-vehicle technology to prevent drunk driving.
The recent progress of this cooperative effort fuels optimism that such
technology could be deployed within 5 to 10 years.
Clearly, such advanced technologies must win widespread public
acceptance in order to be effective. They must be moderately priced,
absolutely reliable, and unobtrusive to sober drivers.
Some of the industry groups will claim that this initiative is meant
to stop all social alcohol consumption. They claim that you will no
longer be able to enjoy a glass of wine with dinner. They are wrong.
The aim is to stop drunk driving, not discourage responsible social
drinking. If deployed the technology will be set to detect drunk
drivers, those with a BAC of 0.08 or higher.
Development of this technology is also widely supported by the
public, many of whom have a glass of wine with dinner. A recent
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety poll found that 64 percent of
Americans believe advanced alcohol detection technology is a good idea
and that it is reliable.

[[Page S1410]]

So, what would the ROADS SAFE Act do? This legislation would
authorize $12 million annually for the DADSS program. This is not new
spending. Funding for this program would come from the existing, and
often unspent, Seat Belt Incentive grants program.
This is a smart investment in public safety. In addition to the human
costs, drunk driving also has direct and indirect economic costs. Those
include damaged property, medical bills, and lost productivity. In
economic terms, drunk driving costs $129 billion dollars per year. Of
course, such monetary costs cannot be compared to the value of saving
8,000 lives every year.
Several organizations dedicated to fighting drunk driving already
support this bipartisan proposal. Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the
Century Council, and the Distilled Spirits Council all have signed on
in support of the ROADS SAFE Act.
I urge my Senate colleagues to join me, Senator Corker, and these
important organizations in the fight against drunk driving. We urge you
to support the ROADS SAFE Act. We have made much progress in our
efforts to prevent drunk driving, but there is so much more to be done.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 510

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Research of Alcohol
Detection Systems for Stopping Alcohol-related Fatalities
Everywhere Act of 2011'' or the ``ROADS SAFE Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Alcohol-impaired driving fatalities represent
approximately \1/3\ of all highway fatalities in the United
States in a given year.
(2) In 2009, there were 10,839 alcohol-impaired driving
fatalities.
(3) An estimated 9,000 road traffic deaths could be
prevented every year if alcohol detection technologies were
more widely used to prevent alcohol-impaired drivers from
operating their vehicles.
(4) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has
partnered with automobile manufacturers to develop alcohol
detection technologies that could be installed in vehicles to
prevent drunk driving.
(5) Alcohol detection technologies will not be widely
accepted by the public unless they are moderately priced,
absolutely reliable, and set at a level that would not
prevent a driver whose blood alcohol content is less than the
legal limit from operating a vehicle.

SEC. 3. DRIVER ALCOHOL DETECTION SYSTEM FOR SAFETY RESEARCH.

Section 410 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (h) and (i) as subsections
(i) and (j), respectively;
(2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
``(h) Driver Alcohol Detection System.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration shall carry out a
collaborative research effort under chapter 301 of title 49
to continue to explore the feasibility and the potential
benefits of, and the public policy challenges associated
with, more widespread deployment of in-vehicle technology to
prevent alcohol-impaired driving.
``(2) Report.--The Administrator shall annually submit a
report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and
Commerce of the House of Representatives that--
``(A) describes progress in carrying out the collaborative
research effort; and
``(B) includes an accounting of the use of Federal funds
obligated or expended in carrying out that effort.
``(3) Application with other laws.--Nothing in this
subsection may be construed to modify or otherwise affect any
Federal, State, or local government law (civil or criminal),
with respect to the operation of a motor vehicle.
``(4) Funding.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, $12,000,000 of any amounts made available to the
Secretary under section 406 for each of the fiscal years 2012
through 2016 shall be made available to carry out this
subsection in place of any other amounts that are otherwise
available to carry out this section.
``(B) Limitation.--No amount of funding shall be made
available under this paragraph for any fiscal year in which
no funds are made available to carry out any program
authorized under section 406.''; and
(3) in subsection (j), as redesignated--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (7);
(B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
(C) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
(5) and (4), respectively;
(D) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Alcohol-impaired driving.--The term `alcohol-impaired
driving' means operation of a motor vehicle (as defined in
section 30102(a)(6) of title 49) by an individual whose blood
alcohol content is at or above the legal limit.''; and
(E) by inserting after paragraph (5), as redesignated, the
following:
``(6) Legal limit.--The term `legal limit' means a blood
alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or greater (as
specified by chapter 163 of this title) or such other
percentage limitation as may be established by applicable
Federal, State, or local law.''.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Grassley):
S. 513. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide
enhanced penalties for marketing controlled substances to minors; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with
Senator Grassley, the Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act of 2011.
For years, law enforcement has seen drug dealers flavoring and
marketing their illegal drugs to entice minors, using techniques like
combining drugs with chocolate and fruit flavors, and even packaging
them to look like actual candy and soda. This bill would address this
serious and dangerous problem by providing stronger penalties when drug
dealers alter controlled substances by combining them with beverages or
candy products, marketing or packaging them to resemble legitimate
products, or flavoring or coloring them with the intent to sell them to
minors.
Recent media reports demonstrate the need for this legislation. The
Santa Cruz Sentinel had an article earlier this month about someone who
is planning to market sodas laced with THC, the psychoactive component
in marijuana. Some of his planned sodas include orange-flavored
``Orange Krush'' and grape-flavored ``Grape Ape'' which actually was
the name of a children's cartoon character!
Regrettably, this is a problem that has persisted for many years,
with drug dealers trying various methods of luring kids to try many
dangerous drugs. For example, in March of 2008, Drug Enforcement
Administration, DEA, agents seized cocaine near Modesto, California,
that had been flavored like cinnamon, coconut, lemon and strawberry.
Similarly, there have been many incidents involving methamphetamine.
In a 2007 article entitled Flavored Meth Use on the Rise, USA Today
stated that ``reports of candy-flavored methamphetamine are emerging
around the nation, stirring concern among police and abuse prevention
experts that drug dealers are marketing the drug to younger people.''
The size and sophistication of some of these operations is
particularly alarming. In March of 2006, DEA discovered large-scale
marijuana cultivation and production facilities in Emeryville and
Oakland, California. Thousands of marijuana plants, and thousands of
marijuana-related soda, candy, and other products were seized from the
drug dealers' facilities. The products were designed and packaged to
look like legitimate products, including an item called ``Munchy Way''
candy bars.
Current law already provides an enhanced penalty if someone
distributes drugs to a minor. Under this provision, the maximum
sentence for the underlying distribution offense is doubled, and
tripled if it is a repeat offense.
Similarly, this bill would provide an enhanced penalty in those
situations where drug dealers are altering controlled substances in
ways that could make them more appealing to minors. Someone who is
altering a controlled substance in ways prohibited by the legislation
would be subject to a penalty of up to ten years, in addition to the
penalty for the underlying offense. If someone commits a second offense
prohibited by the act, they would be face an additional penalty of up
to 20 years.
This bill sends a strong and clear message to drug dealers--if you
flavor or candy up your drugs to try to entice our children, there will
be a very heavy price to pay. It will help stop drug dealers from
engaging in these activities, and punish them appropriately if they
don't.
The Senate passed a similar version of this legislation in the last
Congress, but it was not considered in the House.

[[Page S1411]]

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 513

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 ``Saving Kids From Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. OFFENSES INVOLVING CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES MARKETED TO
MINORS.

Section 401 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
841) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Offenses Involving Controlled Substances Marketed to
Minors.--
``(1) Unlawful acts.--Except as authorized under this
title, including paragraph (3), it shall be unlawful for any
person at least 18 years of age to knowingly or intentionally
manufacture or create, with intent to manufacture, create,
distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance listed in
schedule I or II that is--
``(A) combined with a beverage or candy product;
``(B) marketed or packaged to appear similar to a beverage
or candy product; or
``(C) modified by flavoring or coloring the controlled
substance with the intent to distribute, dispense, or sell
the controlled substance to a person under 18 years of age.
``(2) Penalties.--Except as provided in section 418, 419,
or 420, any person who violates paragraph (1) of this
subsection shall be subject to--
``(A) an additional term of imprisonment of not to exceed
10 years for a first offense involving the same controlled
substance and schedule; and
``(B) an additional term of imprisonment of not to exceed
20 years for a second or subsequent offense involving the
same controlled substance and schedule.
``(3) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any
controlled substance that--
``(A) has been approved by the Secretary under section 505
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355),
if the contents, marketing, and packaging of the controlled
substance have not been altered from the form approved by the
Secretary; or
``(B) has been altered at the direction of a practitioner
who is acting for a legitimate medical purpose in the usual
course of professional practice.''.

SEC. 3. SENTENCING GUIDELINES.

Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28,
United States Code, and in accordance with this section, the
United States Sentencing Commission shall review its
guidelines and policy statements to ensure that the
guidelines provide an appropriate additional penalty increase
to the sentence otherwise applicable in Part D of the
Guidelines Manual if the defendant was convicted of a
violation of section 401(h) of the Controlled Substances act,
as added by section 2 of this Act.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague,
Senator Feinstein, in cosponsoring the Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2011. I believe we have an ongoing moral obligation to ensure
our young people have every opportunity to grow up without being
accosted by drug pushers at every turn, whether on TV, in the movies,
or on the way to school.
This bipartisan legislation--which has previously passed the Senate
with unanimous consent--comes in response to ongoing warnings issued by
the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, and the White House's Office
of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, about highly addictive and
dangerous drugs being colored, packaged, and flavored in ways that
appear to be designed to attract use by children. As ranking member of
the Committee on the Judiciary and cochairman of the Senate Drug
Caucus, I can tell you that the most at-risk population for drug abuse
is our young people. Sadly, recent youth surveys are indicating youth
drug use is increasing. Research has shown time and again that if you
can keep a child drug free until they turn 20, chances are very slim
that they will ever try or become addicted to drugs. Unfortunately,
unscrupulous drug dealers are all too aware of statistics like these
and have developed new techniques and marketing gimmicks to lure in
younger users. As a parent and grandparent, this is extremely
troubling.
Drug dealers are now flavoring and disguising drugs to make them
appear and taste like candy. For instance, some drugs that have been
recovered by the DEA and local law enforcement have been flavored to
taste like strawberry and are known on the street as ``Strawberry
Quick.'' Other flavors, such as lemon, coconut, cinnamon and chocolate
are clearly being used to make highly addictive drugs like meth and
cocaine seem less harmful and more appealing. Soft drinks are also
being laced with THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, and marketed
with names like ``Canna Cola'' and ``Doc Weed.'' Law enforcement has
also recovered drugs that have unique designs which could be appealing
to children. For example, Ecstasy pills imprinted with President
Obama's likeness or with images of popular cartoon characters have been
seized in raids. These flavored and disguised drugs are also being
marketed in smaller amounts, making it cheaper and more accessible to
children. According to an article in USA Today, at least 8 States have
reported instances involving candy flavored drugs, and many law
enforcement officials are expecting these deadly substances to
infiltrate their States in the near future.
The DEA has made an effort to stop these practices. For example, the
DEA arrested three men in an undercover operation in California where
candy flavored cocaine was being distributed. The DEA seized at least
four different flavors of cocaine along with other dangerous
substances. The estimated street value of the flavored cocaine seized
in this operation was $272,400. The DEA also arrested 12 people in
connection to a marijuana-laced candy and soft drink operation in 2006.
The marijuana-laced candy that was seized in this operation was
packaged to look like well known brand name candy bars. These drug
busts further illustrate the fact that drug dealers will stop at
nothing to hook a new generation on these deadly substances.
Currently, Federal law enhances the criminal penalties that apply
when a person sells drugs to anyone under the age of 21. When this
occurs, the Federal penalties are doubled--or tripled for a repeat
offense--and a mandatory minimum of at least 1 year must also apply.
However, this penalty applies only to someone who actually sells drugs
to someone under 21.
The Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act would increase the prison
sentence to anyone who knowingly or intentionally manufactures or
creates with the intent to distribute a controlled substance that has
been flavored, colored, packaged or otherwise altered in a way that is
designed to make it more appealing to a person under 18 years of age.
The DEA busts are prime examples of why we need this bipartisan bill to
keep drug dealers from peddling their poison to our children.
The fight against deadly drugs is an ongoing struggle. In light of
the fact that youth drug use is increasing we must do all we can to
protect the most vulnerable among us. We must send a clear message to
those wishing to prey on our youth that you risk serious prison time
when you target our future.
Although this bill was passed out of the Senate unanimously in 2010,
the House never passed the bill in the 111th Congress. I ask that my
colleagues join us again in support of this important legislation and
pass the Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act, and I encourage the
House of Representatives to take up this important bill and help remove
these dangerous candy flavored drugs from our communities.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Collins, and Mr.
Akaka)
S. 514. A bill to amend chapter 21 of title 5, United States Code, to
provide that fathers of permanently disabled or deceased veterans shall
be included with mothers of such veterans as preference eligibles for
treatment in the civil service; to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the sacrifices of military families all too
often go unrecognized. For every one of the 186,000 troops currently
deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a family that patiently
waits for their servicemember's safe return. There are countless wives
and husbands, separated by a deployment, who celebrate anniversaries
over email and deployed parents who see their children age in
photographs. None of these military families ask for recognition, but
their sacrifices deserve our respect.
I am pleased by the President and First Lady's recent efforts to
recognize the challenges facing military families. Their leadership on
this issue will help

[[Page S1412]]

ensure that all agencies and departments of the Federal Government will
lend a hand to servicemembers, veterans, and their families.
Our Nation asks a lot of military families. Military families must
provide support in innumerable ways during a deployment. From child
care, to paying bills, dealing with legal issues and household repairs,
military families work together to deal with the absence of the
servicemember. Should a servicemember return home wounded or weakened
by the tolls of war, we ask military families to help take care of
their son or daughter, husband or wife.
We hope and pray that all those who are sent to war will return
safely to the arms of their loved ones. However, we know that this is
not always the case. Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began,
there have been far too many funerals of talented and patriotic
Oregonians who have died in service to their country.
Although nothing the Government can do will ever make up for the loss
of a loved one, we do extend certain benefits to the parents of those
who are killed in war. Today, along with Senators Lieberman, Collins,
Akaka, I am introducing the Gold Star Fathers Act to update one of
those benefits; the preferences for Federal hiring to ensure that the
parents of fallen servicemembers have no barriers to Federal service.
The Office of Personnel Management currently allows unmarried mothers
of fallen soldiers to claim a 10-point veterans' preference when
applying for Federal jobs. The Gold Star Fathers Act would simply
extend this preference to unmarried fathers of fallen soldiers. This
legislation will expand opportunities for Gold Star families to bring
their dedication, compassion, and patriotism to the Federal Government.
It is my hope that this legislation can be passed quickly.
These Gold Star Mothers and Gold Star Fathers have sacrificed more
than we as a country can ever hope to repay. All we can ever hope to do
is to ensure that these sacrifices are never made in vain.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 514

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 ``Gold Star Fathers Act of
2011''.

SEC. 2. PREFERENCE ELIGIBLE TREATMENT FOR FATHERS OF CERTAIN
PERMANENTLY DISABLED OR DECEASED VETERANS.

Section 2108(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by striking subparagraphs (F) and (G) and inserting the
following:
``(F) the parent of an individual who lost his or her life
under honorable conditions while serving in the armed forces
during a period named by paragraph (1)(A) of this section,
if--
``(i) the spouse of that parent is totally and permanently
disabled; or
``(ii) that parent, when preference is claimed, is
unmarried or, if married, legally separated from his or her
spouse;
``(G) the parent of a service-connected permanently and
totally disabled veteran, if--
``(i) the spouse of that parent is totally and permanently
disabled; or
``(ii) that parent, when preference is claimed, is
unmarried or, if married, legally separated from his or her
spouse; and''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendment made by this Act shall take effect 90 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.

____________________