Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act of 2013

Mr. President, two decades ago, Congress passed the Cable Television and Consumer Protection Act of 1992 in part to stop cable companies from leveraging their market power to block competition from satellite television providers. Congress did so with the realization that market forces alone did not act to create true competition in video services, mainly because the entrenched interests held dominant control over the content necessary for new services to compete effectively. As a result, regulation in the name of competition was necessary to empower consumers and facilitate the development of new innovative video services. Twenty years later, DirecTV and Dish Network have become the second and third largest pay TV providers in the Nation, respectively.

The legislation that I am introducing today, the Consumer Choice in Online Video Act, builds upon the legacy, and the promise, of the 1992 Cable Act. More needs to be done.

Simply put, the video marketplace today, even with a variety of cable and satellite television providers, still is one of ever-escalating rates and of limited choice in terms of programming packages. Consumers find themselves paying more and more each year for their pay TV service, and those yearly rate increases often far exceed inflation. Even though consumers have at their fingertips hundreds of channels of programming, most homes watch very few of those channels and would prefer to have more choice in what they pay for each month.

We have all heard the familiar complaint that we have five hundred channels, but there is nothing to watch. My

legislation aims to enable the ultimate a la carte--to give consumers the ability to watch the programming they want to watch, when they want to watch it, how they want to watch it, and pay only for what they actually watch.

Key to that goal is online video. The Internet has revolutionized many aspects of American life, from the economy, to health care, to education. It has proven to be a disruptive and transformative technology. It has forever changed the way Americans live their lives. Consumers now use the Internet, for example, to purchase airline tickets, to reserve rental cars and hotel rooms, to do their holiday shopping. The Internet gives them the ability to identify prices and choices and offers an endless supply of competitive offerings that strive to meet individual consumer's needs.

But that type of choice, with full transparency and real competition, has not been fully realized in today's video marketplace. The core policy question is how to nurture new technologies and services, and make sure incumbents cannot simply perpetuate the status quo of ever- increasing bills and limited choice through exercise of their market power.

Broadband-based online video today stands at a crossroads. It promises to become the video delivery platform that can truly bring consumer-centric video services to the marketplace. Consumers clearly have an appetite for online video and the choice and flexibility it affords, and innovative companies have risen to tap into that demand. But their ability to fully compete and maximize the benefits of broadband-based online video have been compromised.

Consumers do not really care whether they access their favorite video programming through a traditional cable line, fiber, satellite, or broadband wireless technology. What they are most frustrated by today, though, is that some cable or broadcast programming is sometimes not accessible in an ``over the top'' online format, or that their experience with online video is somehow degraded. And disturbing reports suggest that one of the reasons that the consumers have these experiences is due to anticompetitive activity on the part of incumbent media companies and broadband providers.

As both the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, and the Department of Justice have noted, the nature of broadband-delivered video makes it uniquely susceptible to anticompetitive activity. Online video distributors do not own their distribution platform, and their viability depends on the ability to acquire sought-after programming from content companies on competitive terms. Yet, given their relationships with both content companies and Internet service providers, traditional cable and satellite providers have the incentive and ability to try to limit the growth of innovative, competitive online video distribution companies.

Press reports make clear that video marketplace incumbents are using their market positions to limit online video companies from entering the market and competing on a level playing field. Incumbent media companies, who control both the delivery platform and the content necessary for a robust online video service, are putting up barriers to protect their current services from new competition. Other reports indicate that some pay-TV operators are offering incentives to media companies that agree to withhold content from Web-based entertainment services.

My legislation would bar these and other anticompetitive practices in the online video marketplace, while offering regulatory parity to online video services that offer services similar to those presently provided by cable and satellite companies. It also would remedy lingering issues surrounding the regulatory treatment of online video services by the FCC. Finally, the bill would empower consumers with more information about their broadband Internet service, and give the FCC the authority to oversee the use of metered broadband Internet billing practices that could be used to stifle use of data-intensive online video services.

I offer this legislation to begin an overdue conversation about the best way that Congress can protect and promote a consumer-centric online video marketplace. I recognize that this bill is not perfect. That is why I invite discussion and comments from my colleagues and others on ways to improve it as we move forward. While I am sure that we can find ways to improve this legislation, we should not stand aside in the name of the free market while the innovation and choice that can come from online video for West Virginia and around the country is stifled.

It is time for Congress to act to maximize the promise of today's online world, and improve the consumer experience in the video marketplace. Consumers must be able to benefit from online video's promise of decreased costs for video services, more choice over the types of programming that their families consume, and higher-quality video content that educates and entertains. I strongly believe that the breathing room provided to online video distributors by my legislation is one of the keys to fostering a consumer-centric revolution in the video marketplace.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce, along with Senator Grassley, the Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act of 2013.

For years, law enforcement has seen drug dealers flavor and market 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, all with the intent to sell the drugs to minors.

Recent media reports demonstrate the need for this legislation. In January of this year, the Drug Enforcement Administration seized THC- laden soft drinks, cookies, brownies, and candy from two phony medical marijuana dispensaries in my home state of California that grossed an estimated $3.5 million annually. The names of the products seized show how the purveyors of these drugs marketed them under names that resembled popular soda and candy products: bottles were labeled ``7 High,'' ``Dr. Feelgood,'' and ``Laughing Lemonade''; cookies and brownies had such names as ``White Chip Hash Brownie'' and ``Reese's Crumbled Hash Brownie''; and candy was named ``Jolly Stones THC Medicated Hard Candies'' and ``Stone Candy.''

Less than two weeks ago, police seized more than 40 pounds of THC- laced candy from a campus apartment at West Chester University, outside of Philadelphia. This candy was vividly colored, in a virtual rainbow assortment--pink, yellow, orange, blue, and red. When college students are peddling these drugs, it is not hard to see how minors can become targets of the operation.

Many recent incidents involve methamphetamine, a drug whose users face a ``very high'' risk of ``developing psychotic symptoms-- hallucinations and delusions,'' according to a recent Harvard Medical School publication. A 2007 article in USA Today entitled ``DEA: Flavored meth use on the rise'' stated that ``[r]eports 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.'' In March of last year, police in Chicago warned parents about a drug that ``looks and smells like candy,'' called ``strawberry quick'' or ``strawberry meth.'' Because of the drug's similarity to candy, police urged parents to tell their children not to take candy from anyone, not even a classmate.

Regrettably, this is a problem that has persisted for many years, with drug dealers trying various methods to lure kids to try many dangerous drugs. The dealers' logic is simple: the best way to create a life-long customer is to hook that person when he or she is young. According to an Indiana sheriff quoted in a 2007 article entitled ``Fruity meth aimed at kids,'' flavoring a drug like methamphetamine makes it ``more attractive to teens, because it takes away meth's normally bitter taste, and some dealers will tell potential users this meth is safer, and has less side effects.''

That is why the practice of flavoring or coloring drugs to entice youth is so dangerous--it deceives the young customer into believing that he or she is not actually ingesting drugs, or at least not ingesting drugs that are as potent as non-flavored drugs. One in three teens already believes there is ``only a slight or no risk in trying [methamphetamine],'' according to the 2007 National Meth Use & Attitudes Survey. When you flavor methamphetamine or market it as candy or soda, the number of teens who believe that the drug is not harmful is surely higher.

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 hundreds 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.

Similarly, in March of 2008, Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, agents seized cocaine near Modesto, California, that was valued at $272,400; a significant quantity had been flavored like cinnamon, coconut, lemon, or strawberry. After that raid, one DEA agent stated that ``[a]ttempting to lure new, younger customers to a dangerous drug by adding candy `flavors' is an unconscionable marketing technique.''

I completely agree. That is why we need to act now to stop those who alter drugs to make them more appealing to youth.

Under current federal law, there is no enhanced penalty for a person who alters a controlled substance to make the drug more appealing to youth. Someone who alters a controlled substance in ways prohibited by the legislation we are introducing today would be subject to an additional penalty of up to ten years, in addition to the penalty for the underlying offense. If someone is convicted of a second offense that is prohibited by the act, that person would 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 111th Congress, but it was not considered in the House. This year, I am pleased to have the support of many of the leading national law enforcement organizations as we try to get this bill over the finish line: the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National HIDTA Directors Association,

and the National District Attorneys Association have endorsed the legislation. They are on the front lines working to keep these drugs out of our communities, and I am proud to have their support.

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.

Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce, along with Senator Grassley, the Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act of 2013.

For years, law enforcement has seen drug dealers flavor and market 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, all with the intent to sell the drugs to minors.

Recent media reports demonstrate the need for this legislation. In January of this year, the Drug Enforcement Administration seized THC- laden soft drinks, cookies, brownies, and candy from two phony medical marijuana dispensaries in my home state of California that grossed an estimated $3.5 million annually. The names of the products seized show how the purveyors of these drugs marketed them under names that resembled popular soda and candy products: bottles were labeled ``7 High,'' ``Dr. Feelgood,'' and ``Laughing Lemonade''; cookies and brownies had such names as ``White Chip Hash Brownie'' and ``Reese's Crumbled Hash Brownie''; and candy was named ``Jolly Stones THC Medicated Hard Candies'' and ``Stone Candy.''

Less than two weeks ago, police seized more than 40 pounds of THC- laced candy from a campus apartment at West Chester University, outside of Philadelphia. This candy was vividly colored, in a virtual rainbow assortment--pink, yellow, orange, blue, and red. When college students are peddling these drugs, it is not hard to see how minors can become targets of the operation.

Many recent incidents involve methamphetamine, a drug whose users face a ``very high'' risk of ``developing psychotic symptoms-- hallucinations and delusions,'' according to a recent Harvard Medical School publication. A 2007 article in USA Today entitled ``DEA: Flavored meth use on the rise'' stated that ``[r]eports 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.'' In March of last year, police in Chicago warned parents about a drug that ``looks and smells like candy,'' called ``strawberry quick'' or ``strawberry meth.'' Because of the drug's similarity to candy, police urged parents to tell their children not to take candy from anyone, not even a classmate.

Regrettably, this is a problem that has persisted for many years, with drug dealers trying various methods to lure kids to try many dangerous drugs. The dealers' logic is simple: the best way to create a life-long customer is to hook that person when he or she is young. According to an Indiana sheriff quoted in a 2007 article entitled ``Fruity meth aimed at kids,'' flavoring a drug like methamphetamine makes it ``more attractive to teens, because it takes away meth's normally bitter taste, and some dealers will tell potential users this meth is safer, and has less side effects.''

That is why the practice of flavoring or coloring drugs to entice youth is so dangerous--it deceives the young customer into believing that he or she is not actually ingesting drugs, or at least not ingesting drugs that are as potent as non-flavored drugs. One in three teens already believes there is ``only a slight or no risk in trying [methamphetamine],'' according to the 2007 National Meth Use & Attitudes Survey. When you flavor methamphetamine or market it as candy or soda, the number of teens who believe that the drug is not harmful is surely higher.

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 hundreds 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.

Similarly, in March of 2008, Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, agents seized cocaine near Modesto, California, that was valued at $272,400; a significant quantity had been flavored like cinnamon, coconut, lemon, or strawberry. After that raid, one DEA agent stated that ``[a]ttempting to lure new, younger customers to a dangerous drug by adding candy `flavors' is an unconscionable marketing technique.''

I completely agree. That is why we need to act now to stop those who alter drugs to make them more appealing to youth.

Under current federal law, there is no enhanced penalty for a person who alters a controlled substance to make the drug more appealing to youth. Someone who alters a controlled substance in ways prohibited by the legislation we are introducing today would be subject to an additional penalty of up to ten years, in addition to the penalty for the underlying offense. If someone is convicted of a second offense that is prohibited by the act, that person would 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 111th Congress, but it was not considered in the House. This year, I am pleased to have the support of many of the leading national law enforcement organizations as we try to get this bill over the finish line: the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National HIDTA Directors Association,

and the National District Attorneys Association have endorsed the legislation. They are on the front lines working to keep these drugs out of our communities, and I am proud to have their support.

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.