SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
23–641 PDF
2006
METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC ELIMINATION ACT
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 3889
SEPTEMBER 27, 2005
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Serial No. 109–61
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR SMITH, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
RIC KELLER, Florida
DARRELL ISSA, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE KING, Iowa
TOM FEENEY, Florida
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
LINDA T. SÁNCHEZ, California
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff
PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
TOM FEENEY, Florida
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
RIC KELLER, Florida
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
MICHAEL VOLKOV, Acting Chief Counsel
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ELIZABETH SOKUL, Special Counsel for Intelligence
and Homeland Security
JASON CERVENAK, Full Committee Counsel
BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
SEPTEMBER 27, 2005
OPENING STATEMENT
The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
WITNESSES
The Honorable Mark Souder, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
The Honorable Mark Kennedy, a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Chief, Office of Enforcement Operations, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
Mr. Barry M. Lester, Ph.D., Professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior and Pediatrics, Brown University Medical School
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Prepared Statement of Freda S. Baker, Deputy Director, Family and Children's Services, Alabama State Department of Human Resources
Prepared Statement of Laura J. Birkmeyer, Chair, National Alliance for Drug Endangered Children, and Executive Assistant to U.S. Attorney, Southern District of California, United States Department of Justice
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Publication entitled ''The Meth Epidemic in America, Two Surveys of U.S. Counties: The Criminal Effect of Meth on Communities, The Impact of Meth on Children, submitted by the National Associatino of Counties (NACo)
Letter from A. Bradford Card, Legislative Liaison, National Troopers Coalition to the Honorable Mark Souder and the Honorable Elijah Cummings
Letter from Donald Baldwin, Washington Director, Federal Criminal Investigators Association to the Honorable Howard Coble
Letter from Chuck Canterbury, National President, Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) to the Honorable Mark Souder
Letter from William J. Johnson, Executive Director, National Association of Police Organizations, Inc.
Prepared Statement of the Therapeutic Communities of America (TCA)
Prepared Statement of the Food Marketing Institute (FMI)
Prepared Statement of the American Council on Regulatory Compliance
Article entitled ''The Mexican Connection,'' Steve Suo, June 5, 2005, The Oregonian, submitted by the Honorable Robert C. Scott
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Article entitled ''More potent supply of meth wipes out success against home labs,'' Steve Suo, September 25, 2005, The Oregonian, submitted by the Honorable Robert C. Scott
Letter from various medical and psychological researchers to the Subcommittee
Additional Prepared Statement of Dr. Barry M. Lester, Professor of Psychiatry & Human Behavior and Pediatrics, Brown University Medical School
METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC ELIMINATION ACT
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:02 p.m., in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Howard Coble (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. COBLE. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We welcome you all to this important hearing to examine the national epidemic of metham——
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Meth—I did it without stumbling yesterday—with meth abuse; and specifically, H.R. 3889, the ''Meth Epidemic Elimination Act,'' a bipartisan proposal which was introduced by Representative Souder, our friend from the heartland, and the Chairman of the full Judiciary Committee of the House.
In the last few years, the problem of meth abuse has grown dramatically from what was typically characterized as a local or a regional problem to a problem of national dimension. Some contend that meth is now the most significant drug abuse problem in the country, surpassing marijuana.
The impact of meth abuse is complicated by the dangerousness of the drug, the ease of production, the toxicity of the drug itself, the production byproducts, exposure of children to the drug when present in locations where meth is produced, the environmental cost of meth labs, and the significant strain of law enforcement resources resulting from enforcement and clean-up actions.
The National Association of Counties recently published a survey that revealed that 60 percent of responding counties stated meth was their largest drug problem. Sixty-seven percent reported increases in meth-related arrests.
Most of the meth found in the United States is produced by Mexico-based and California-based Mexican traffickers using superlabs. The rapid spread of meth, however, also can be attributed to the proliferation of small, toxic laboratories which have had a dramatic impact on communities across the nation.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
No longer are these labs limited to what are termed ''mom and pop labs,'' but now have become more sophisticated and organized production and distribution outlets; causing more and more law enforcement resources to be used to dismantle such operations and then to clean up the labs. As a result, local law enforcement agencies are strained by the sheer number of these labs and the accompanying clean-up costs.
Meth labs also have been linked to significant instances of child abuse. Children face specific dangers from inhalation, absorption, or ingestion of toxic chemicals or contaminated food that may result in respiratory difficulties, chemical burns, or ultimately, death. Between 2000 and 2003, more than 10,000 children were affected by meth manufacturing. Approximately one in ten children tested positive for meth. And of those, children less than 6 years of age were twice as likely to test positive, as were children between the ages of seven and 14.
In San Diego, for example, more than 400 children have been taken into protective custody in the past 12 months. More than 95 percent of these children come from homes where there was meth use and trafficking.
The meth problem has significant consequences for the environment as well. The production of one pound of meth releases poisonous gas into the atmosphere, and creates 5 to 7 pounds of toxic waste. Many laboratory operators dump the toxic waste down household drains, in fields and yards, and onto rural roads. In 2004, the DEA administered over 10,000 State and local clandestine laboratory clean-ups at a cost of approximately $17.8 million.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Given the spread of meth abuse, and the near-crisis impact on local communities and law enforcement, there is no question that something must be done to resolve the problem, and done now.
I want to commend my colleagues; the Chairman, Chairman Sensenbrenner; Representative Souder; Representative Kennedy, from the northern tier; and others who have worked so diligently on this issue and recently introduced H.R. 3889, a bipartisan proposal which represents a good first step to addressing the problem. We are looking forward to hearing from our distinguished panel of witnesses.
And I am now pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, the Honorable Bobby Scott.
Mr. SCOTT. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'm pleased to join you in convening the hearing on Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act. Unfortunately, I am not able to join you in supporting the bill in its present form.
In the last 15 to 20 years, meth abuse has grown to what some now refer to epidemic proportions in parts of this country. We've been making efforts in Congress for years to address the meth problem. The Subcommittee on Crime held six field hearings on production, trafficking, and use in 1999, in Arkansas, California, New Mexico, and Kansas. Testimony was received from numerous witnesses, including former addicts, family members of victims of meth-related violence, law enforcement professionals, prevention and addiction treatment professionals.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Despite what we heard about the need for treatment and family support to get people out of meth's grip and back on track, the basic approach of Congress has been to increase the number of severe mandatory minimum sentences. Yet, the fact is that this approach clearly has not worked to stem the tide of meth. In fact, there's no evidence to suggest that it ever will.
Evidence shows that treatment works to stem addiction and abuse. Recently, in an open letter to the news media and policymakers, 92 researchers and treatment professionals stated that, and I quote:
''Claims that meth users are virtually untreatable, with small recovery rates, lack foundation in medical research. Analysis of drop-out, retention and treatment, and reincarceration rates, and other measures of outcome in recent studies indicate that meth users respond in an equivalent manner as individuals admitted for other drug abuse problems. Research also suggests that the need to improve and expand treatment offered—Research also suggests the need to improve and expand treatment offered to meth users.''
Drug courts have proven especially successful in the case of meth treatment as an alternative to the ''get tough'' approach. An Orange County, California, Superior Court drug court program is an example of a program that has effectively addressed the meth problem. The court requires a minimum of an 18-month treatment program in which a graduate must be drug-free for at least 6 months, have stable living arrangements, and be employed or enrolled in school.
This has shown to have a significant retention rate, with a much lower recidivism rate than you would expect for drug users. Nonetheless, time and time again, Congress has responded to this serious problem primarily with more and harsher mandatory minimums.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Congress established a 5-year mandatory minimum for 10 grams of pure meth or 100 grams of meth mixture, and a 10-year minimum for 100 grams. In 1999, Congress heightened the sentencing for ''ice.'' Then again, in 1996, Congress responded to the still growing problem with even tougher mandatory minimums, by cutting in half the quantities of the substance that would trigger the 5- and 10-year mandatory minimums.
In the meanwhile, the epidemic has grown exponentially, despite these ever increasing punitive measures passed by Congress. And States, unfortunately, have taken a similar approach: enacting harsher and harsher penalties, putting more and more emphasis on law enforcement. Yet they have had no more success than Congress with this approach.
And a recent series of articles in the Oregonian newspaper reflected the frustrating results of this approach in Oklahoma. And Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to place this article in the record.
Mr. COBLE. Without objection.
Mr. SCOTT. The article pointed out that while Oklahoma had great success in slashing the number of home meth labs through vigorous law enforcement, it failed to curb meth use. They found that in place of local labs, a massive influx of meth made by Mexican superlabs—where tons of the predicate, the precursor chemicals, can be obtained—had come into their locality. And this they found was cheaper and better quality than the locally made stuff.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Despite the clear evidence that increasing penalties do not stem the spread or impact of meth, and despite the evidence that treatment does significantly decrease the problem, the response in this bill, yet again, is to increase mandatory minimum sentences even more.
This bill would further lower the threshold amount of meth that triggers harsh mandatory minimums. The main problem with this approach is that it will actually make meth more available. This is because lowering the quantity threshold of triggering mandatory minimums will cause Federal prosecutors to concentrate even more on low-level offenders that are now being left to the States to prosecute. This will simply mean that we will be sentencing the same low-level offenders with longer sentences, including those who are tied up in conspiracy and attempt laws which punish bit players the same as kingpins.
This is what we have seen with the so-called crack epidemic, where we are seeing that over two-thirds of those sentenced for crack are low-level offenders—generally, addicts dealing to supply their habit. And now, here we go in what Yogi Berra would say is ''deja vu all over again.''
So Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. And I hope that they will enlighten us on proven ways to stem this problem; rather that simply doing what we always do: put low-level addicts in prison longer, while the problem continues on. I yield back.
Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. And we have been joined by the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Bill Delahunt. Bill, good to have you with us as well.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is the practice of the Subcommittee, gentlemen, to swear in the witnesses, if you all will stand and raise your hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. COBLE. Let the record show that each of the witnesses answered in the affirmative. You may be seated.
Today we have four distinguished witnesses before us, and we appreciate your attendance. And we appreciate, those in the audience, your attendance as well.
Our first witness is the Honorable Mark Souder. Representative Souder serves the Third Congressional District in the State of Indiana. He was first elected to the Congress in 1994. He currently serves as Chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources.
Prior to serving in Congress, Representative Souder worked for former U.S. Senator Dan Coates for 10 years. Last week, Representative Souder introduced H.R.3889, after conducting extensive hearings on the meth abuse issue.
Our second witness is the Honorable Mark Kennedy. Representative Kennedy serves the Sixth Congressional District of the State of Minnesota, and was first elected to the Congress in 2000. He is currently a Member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Financial Services Committee.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prior to serving in Congress, Representative Kennedy had a successful 20-year business career. And he also dedicated himself to meth abuse issues, and played a critical role in the formulation of the bill before us, H.R.3889.
Our third witness is Joseph Rannazzisi, the Deputy Chief of the Office of Enforcement Operations at the Drug Enforcement Administration. Mr. Rannazzisi is also assigned the position of Acting-Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Office of Diversion Control. In this capacity, he oversees the office's effort to protect—detect and investigate the diversion of pharmaceutical controlled substances.
Previously, he served as assistant special agent in charge at the DEA Detroit field office, and as section chief of the dangerous drugs and chemicals section, where he coordinated clandestine laboratory enforcement operations worldwide. He received a B.S. in pharmacy from Butler University, and a J.D. from the Michigan State University.
Our final witness today is Dr. Barry Lester, professor of psychiatry and human behavior at Brown University School of Medicine. Dr. Lester is also director of the Brown Center for the Study of Children at Risk, and the Infant Development Center. He is currently a member of the National Institutes of Health's National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse, and the Family Treatment Drug Court Steering Committee.
Previously, Dr. Lester worked as an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Harvard School of Medicine. He earned his undergraduate degree at Boston University, and his Ph.D. from the Michigan State University.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And as I said earlier, gentlemen, good to have you all with us. And I want to apologize in advance. I must attend a Coast Guard homeland security briefing at five o'clock at the Transportation Committee, so I will be departing then. But do not mistake my departure for lack of interest in this very important subject. And I will follow up what I missed in the interim subsequently.
Gentlemen, we adhere to the 5-minute rule here. And your first 4 minutes, you will see a green light in the panel before you. An amber light will then appear, advising you that you have 1 minute to go. At the end of that 5 minutes, then Mr. Scott and I will call the U.S. marshal to haul you into—I'm kidding you. [Laughter.]
But if you could, adhere to that red light. When the red light appears, that is your indication that the 5 minutes have elapsed. We have read your written testimony, and will reexamine it.
Again, we're delighted to have you all with us to address problems surrounding this very, very serious encounter that we face every day. And Mr. Souder, we will start with you.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARK SOUDER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA
Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first, greetings from Indiana, where we buy your wonderful North Carolina furniture—that is, whatever isn't made in China—and also, supply you with basketball players, so you can look respectable in North Carolina. [Laughter.]
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. COBLE. Well, now, if the gentleman will suspend—and I won't penalize your time—the furniture, I hope, came from my district, the furniture capital of the world—or at least, it was last month.
Mr. SOUDER. I thank the Chairman, and I thank you and Ranking Member Scott and Members of the Subcommittee for inviting me to testify on behalf of the Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act. I believe this is a vital first step, a bipartisan step, and I hope the Subcommittee and the full Committee will support its passage.
I could fill my whole time thanking different Members, but first I'd like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner of the full Committee, and you, Chairman Coble, for co-sponsoring this bill and the assistance of your staff in putting this together. I'd also like to thank Majority Whip Roy Blunt for his co-sponsorship, and Representative Mark Kennedy and Representative Darlene Hooley for providing much of the content of this bill and for their consistently strong leadership on the House floor on meth issues; as well as the four co-chairs of the Congressional Meth Caucus, Representative Rick Larsen, Representative Ken Calvert, Representative Leonard Boswell, and Representative Chris Cannon, for their and their staffs' assistance and support. And to every other Member who has co-sponsored this bill, I express my deep appreciation.
I don't have to tell you, and I'm not going to get into the details of the meth threat, but as Chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, we've held ten hearings since 2001, not only in Washington, D.C., but rural Arkansas, Ohio, Indiana, suburban and urban Minnesota, California, Hawaii, and urban Detroit. There are regional and local variations of the problem, but one thing remains constant: it's almost unique in its combination of cheapness, ease of manufacture, and devastating impact on the user and the community.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are three aspects we need to make sure that we look at when we're looking at these types of things. First, meth presents a unique challenge to Federal, State, and local law enforcement. It's toxic. It ties up local law enforcement, and causes lots of money to be spent in clean-up.
Secondly, the damage this drug causes is not confined to the addict. It's terrible effects on everyone around the user, particularly children. California did the first child abuse law related to this; and child welfare agencies said 40 percent of child welfare in Saint Paul, Minnesota. We heard that it, from a standing start, in 12 months, went from zero to 80 percent of the kids in child protection were from meth parents.
And I'd also like, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, to introduce the county survey that showed that it was the number one problem—their association survey—into the record, along with statements from two experts on the impact of meth on children that were provided to my Subcommittee in July.
Mr. COBLE. Without objection.
Mr. SOUDER. The third major point is the meth threat is not confined to small local labs, but extends well beyond our borders to the superlabs controlled by large, sophisticated Mexican drug trafficking organizations and the international trade in pseudoephedrine and other precursor chemicals fueling those superlabs.
As Mr. Scott mentioned, you can't just push one, or you'll go over to the other. You have to have a combination strategy. Any legislation that tries to deal with the meth threat must address all these critical aspects.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
After meeting with Chairman Wolf, who after reading a couple of amendments on the House floor said, ''Let's see if we can do something in combination, tie it to the appropriations bills, because we know they have to pass the Senate, and we need to take some meth action this year.'' After meeting with him and a bipartisan group of nearly 20 other Members in my office who are deeply concerned about this, we worked with my Subcommittee, with the meth caucus, as well as your Committee and other authorizing Committees to come up with this package.
It includes the following four basic categories: First, close a number of loopholes in Federal regulation of meth precursor chemicals, such as pseudoephedrine, including a per-transaction sales limit; import and manufacturing quotas, to ensure no oversupply leads to diversion. Mexico is pouring in huge amounts over what they need; regulation of the wholesale spot market.
A second is, require reporting of major meth precursor exporters and importers, and would hold them accountable for their efforts to prevent diversion to meth production.
Three, toughen Federal penalties against meth traffickers and smugglers—has nothing to do with possession; only possession with intent to traffic.
Four, apply environmental regulations to those who harm the environment and endanger human health through meth lab operation.
Each of these are vital. But we need to remember, we did not address two things. We do not address the issue of pseudoephedrine or similar chemical products that should be added to Schedule V. I have personal reservations with this, but this bill is silent on this, and it could be in combination with that or not.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secondly, we did not include any significant new grant programs for State and local agencies to deal with meth. I believe we need to do more in treatment. I believe we need to do more in multiple areas. This is the Judiciary Committee. You're not in the grant business. And we need to look at how to do more; as we do drug treatment, how to make some of that targeted toward meth. That I agree with, but this isn't the bill to do that.
I yield back the balance.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Souder follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARK E. SOUDER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA
Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify in support of H.R. 3889, the ''Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act.'' I believe this bipartisan bill is a vital first step in our renewed fight against the scourge of methamphetamine trafficking and abuse, and I hope the Subcommittee and full Committee will support its passage.
I would probably fill my entire five minutes if I tried to thank each of the Members and staff who helped with this legislation, so I will have to mention only a few. First, I'd very much like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner of the full Committee, and you, Chairman Coble, for cosponsoring the bill and for the assistance your staff provided in putting it together. Next, I'd like to thank Majority Whip Roy Blunt for his cosponsorship; Rep. Mark Kennedy and Rep. Darlene Hooley for providing much of the content of this bill, and for their consistently strong leadership on the House floor on meth issues; and the four co-chairs of the Congressional Meth Caucus, Rep. Rick Larsen, Rep. Ken Calvert, Rep. Leonard Boswell, and Rep. Chris Cannon, for their and their staff's assistance and support. And to every other Member who has cosponsored the bill, I express my deep appreciation.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I don't have to tell any of you how serious a threat meth is for our communities; pick up almost any newspaper or magazine these days and you can read about it firsthand. As chairman of the Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, I have held ten hearings on the meth epidemic since 2001, not only in Washington, D.C., but in places as diverse as rural Arkansas, Ohio, and Indiana, suburban Minnesota, island Hawaii, and urban Detroit. There are regional and local variations on the problem, of course, but one thing remains constant everywhere: this is a drug almost unique in its combination of cheapness, ease of manufacture, and devastating impact on the user and his or her community.
There are three aspects of the meth epidemic that I believe need to be emphasized as Congress considers this and related legislation. First, meth presents unique challenges to federal, state, and local law enforcement. The small, clandestine meth labs that have spread like wildfire across our nation produce toxic chemical byproducts that endanger officers' lives, tie up law enforcement resources for hours or even days, and cost tremendous amounts of money to clean up. That, combined with the rise in criminal behavior, child and citizen endangerment, and other effects, have made meth the number one drug problem for the nation's local law enforcement agencies, according to a study released over the summer by the National Association of Counties, which I'd like to enter into the record.(see footnote 1)
Second, the damage this drug causes is not confined to the addict alone; it has terrible effects on everyone around the user, particularly children. Another survey by the National Association of Counties found that 40 percent of child welfare agencies reported an increase in ''out of home placements because of meth in the past year.''(see footnote 2) This abuse unfortunately includes physical and mental trauma, and even sexual abuse. 69 percent of county social service agencies have indicated that they have had to provide additional, specialized training for their welfare system workers and have had to develop new and special protocols for workers to address the special needs of the children affected by methamphetamine.(see footnote 3) With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce the Association's survey into the record, together with the statements of two experts on the impact of meth on children, which were provided to my subcommittee in July. They illustrate how community health and human services, as well as child welfare services such as foster-care, are being overwhelmed as a result of meth.(see footnote 4)
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, the meth threat is not confined to the small, local labs, but extends well beyond our borders to the ''super labs'' controlled by large, sophisticated Mexican drug trafficking organizations, and the international trade in pseudoephedrine and other precursor chemicals fueling those super labs. Three-quarters or more of our nation's meth supply is controlled by those large organizations, and over half of our meth comes directly from Mexico. With your permission, I'd also like to introduce an excellent group of articles from the Oregonian newspaper that detail the international aspects of the meth trade.(see footnote 5)
Any legislation that tries to deal with the meth threat must address these critical aspects, and we have tried to do that in this legislation. We began the process of drafting the bill several months ago, when Chairman Frank Wolf of the Appropriations Committee's Science-State-Justice-Commerce Subcommittee approached me on the House floor and offered his assistance in passing anti-meth legislation. After meeting with him and nearly twenty other Members who are deeply concerned about the meth epidemic, I asked my subcommittee staff, after consultation with staff for the Meth Caucus Members, as well as the relevant authorizing committees, to assemble a package of proposals that would enjoy strong, bipartisan support. That package ultimately became this bill.
I've attached a detailed section-by-section analysis to my written statement for your review, so I will briefly mention the highlights of the bill. Among other things, the Act would:
close a number of loopholes in federal regulation of meth precursor chemicals such as pseudoephedrine, including a per-transaction sales limit; import and manufacturing quotas to ensure no oversupply leads to diversion; and regulation of the wholesale ''spot market'';
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
require reporting of major meth precursor exporters and importers, and would hold them accountable for their efforts to prevent diversion to meth production;
toughen federal penalties against meth traffickers and smugglers; and
apply environmental regulations to those who harm the environment and endanger human health through meth lab operation.
Each of these steps is vital to our success in the fight against meth, and I hope that the Subcommittee and the full Committee will support them.
Finally, I'd like to say a word or two about two key issues not addressed in the bill. First, we did not address the issue of whether pseudoephedrine and similar chemical products should be added to Schedule V of the federal Controlled Substances Act. The Schedule V issue is already dealt with by the Combat Meth Act (H.R. 314 / S. 103), and thus there was no need for us to include it in our legislation. I myself have some concerns about the Schedule V approach, which I believe may have unintended consequences for consumers, retailers, and the health care system. However, I look forward to working with Mr. Blunt and other supporters of that legislation to see if we can forge a workable solution.
Second, we did not include significant new grant programs for state and local agencies to deal with meth, nor did we attempt to amend or revise existing grant programs. I do believe that Congress must address the question of how best to help our beleaguered state and local law enforcement, child welfare, and treatment and prevention agencies deal with this incredibly destructive and expensive drug threat. That issue is very complex, however, and will require extensive review by the authorizing committees before it can be resolved.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, every one of us, regardless of where we come from, has a stake in the outcome of this fight. We have to stop the meth epidemic from spreading, and we need to start rolling it back. I believe that H.R. 3889 will be an important step in that process. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you and the other Members may have.
ATTACHMENT
MES0001.eps
MES0002.eps
MES0003.eps
MES0004.eps
MES0005.eps
MES0006.eps
Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Indiana.
The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Kennedy.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
THE HONORABLE MARK KENNEDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. KENNEDY. Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott——
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Kennedy, if you would suspend just a minute, we've been joined by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Feeney, and the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot.
Mr. KENNEDY. And the Members of the Committee, I'd like to thank you first of all for holding this hearing on a very important issue, the Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act. I'd also like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Souder for his interest in this.
This bipartisan legislation, sponsored by Representatives Souder, Sensenbrenner, Blunt, and myself and others, is one of the most significant pieces of legislation that has been offered to respond comprehensively to the scourge of methamphetamine.
Mr. Chairman, our communities face many challenges, from keeping our kids safe in our neighborhoods to the war on terrorism; but few have such immediate consequences as we face with meth. For years, meth's threat has been underestimated. It is now clear to almost everyone that meth threatens lives, safety, and health, at great cost to all of us.
A recent study by the University of Illinois conveyed shocking stories of 10-year-old children becoming surrogate parents to their younger siblings, as their parents cycled through day-long highs, often accompanied by psychotic symptoms, followed by crashes and days of sleep. According to the Illinois study, the children of alcoholics were said to have a thunderstorm of problems, but the children of meth addicts suffer a tornado of trauma. They are at an extraordinary level of risk of mental health and substance abuse disorders.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Parents making the drug in their homes have exposed their children to toxic fumes and the danger of explosions or fires. Some ask their children to steal items needed for making of meth, or to stand guard, armed with a gun, looking out for police and other authorities.
Mr. Chairman, I have often spoken about the tragic story of a young girl named Megan, from a beautiful town in my home State of Minnesota. Megan got started on meth when she was in seventh grade, at the age of 13. One of her friends offered her the drug and, in her words, she liked meth so much that she knew she would do it again and again.
Well, when she became—when she couldn't afford her addiction, she, like so many other female addicts, was exploited into becoming a prostitute to pay for the meth she craved every second of the day. After hitting bottom at age 18, Megan has managed to pull her life together now, after the 5 years that meth stole from her. But she has too much company in her treatment and addiction programs.
About one in five of those treated for methamphetamine use in the State of Minnesota are 17 years old or younger. As Members of Congress, in the face of so much suffering, we have an obligation to act. This bill brings together a number of proposals made by many of my colleagues to fight this devastating scourge.
I am pleased that H.R.3889 includes provisions I drafted to increase criminal penalties on meth pushers, to target the international superlabs that are the source of so much of this poison, and language from my Clean Up Meth Act to assist communities in dealing with the environmental destruction from meth production.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing here today. I'd like to thank again the witnesses who agreed to come to speak about the ravages of methamphetamine. I urge the swift passage of this important legislation. Doing so will send a strong signal that Congress is serious about fighting the scourge of meth.
We must send a signal to the pushers of this poison that they are not welcome in our communities. Most importantly, we must send a signal to the law enforcement officers who wake up every morning to protect our families that we stand with them in the fight against drugs, and will work to give them every tool they need to be successful.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for my full statement to be made part of the record, and yield back the remainder of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kennedy follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARK KENNEDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESTORA
Chairman Coble, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Scott, Members of the Subcommittee, I'd like to begin by thanking you for holding this hearing on H.R. 3889, the Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act.
This bipartisan legislation, sponsored by Reps. Souder, Sensenbrenner, Blunt and myself is one of the most significant pieces of legislation that has been offered to respond comprehensively to the scourge of methamphetamine.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, there are 128 members in the Congressional Caucus to Fight Methamphetamine; these members represent districts all across this country.
They know that methamphetamine is no longer a western problem or a rural problem; it is a problem that has infiltrated every corner of virtually every Member's district in this country.
Mr. Chairman, our communities face many challenges, from keeping our kids safe in our neighborhoods to the war on terrorism.
But few have such immediate consequences as we face from meth. For years, meth's threat was underestimated. It is now clear to almost everyone: meth threatens lives, safety and health, at great cost to all of us.
A recent study by the University of Illinois conveyed shocking stories of 10-year-old children becoming surrogate parents to their younger siblings as their parents cycled through days-long highs, often accompanied by psychotic symptoms, followed by crashes and days of sleep.
This study provided shocking evidence of the devastating effect of meth on our children. The children of alcoholics were said to have ''thunderstorm'' of problems, but the children of meth addicts suffer a ''tornado'' of trauma. They are at an extraordinary level of risk of mental health and substance abuse disorders.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Parents making the drug in their homes exposed their children to toxic fumes and the danger of explosions or fires. Some asked their children to steal items needed for making the drug or to stand guard, armed with a gun, looking out for police or other authorities.
Mr. Chairman, I've often spoken before about the tragic story of a young girl named Megan from a beautiful town in my home state of Minnesota.
Megan got started on meth when she was in the 7th grade at the age of 13.
One of her friends offered her the drug, and in her words, she liked meth so much that she knew she would do it again and again.
But when she couldn't afford her addiction, she, like too many other female addicts, was exploited into becoming a prostitute to pay for the meth she craved every second of the day.
After hitting rock bottom at the age of 18, Megan is managing to pull her life back together now after the 5 years meth stole from her.
But she has too much company in her treatment and addiction programs: about one in five of those treated for methamphetamine use in the state of Minnesota are 17 years old or younger.
As Members of Congress, in the face of so much suffering, we have an obligation to act.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act brings together a number of proposals made by many of our colleagues to fight this devastating scourge.
This legislation provides increased regulation of methamphetamine precursors, particularly pseudoephedrine; important tools to control the international superlabs; enhanced criminal penalties against methamphetamine kingpins and manufacturers; and greater attention to the environmental impact of domestic clandestine methamphetamine production labs.
I have worked with Representative Darlene Hooley of Oregon on many of the significant criminal penalties in this legislation in our bill, H.R. 3513, the Solutions to Limit the Abuse of Methamphetamine, or SLAM, Act.
We both believe that we must make sure that traffickers in meth are too scared by the prospect of long prison sentences to ever try to push this poison on our kids again.
Additionally, I can tell you from the experience of law enforcement in my home state of Minnesota, and in many other states dealing with the meth problem, local law enforcement spends roughly 80 percent of its time fighting small meth labs that produce only 20 percent of the meth on our streets. However, they lack the tools and resources to go after the source of the other 80 percent of the meth, international super labs.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3889 includes language I offered in an amendment to the FY06 State Department Authorization Act that was supported by the House International Relations Committee and 423 members of the House.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This language will bring some of the same weapons to bear on the international superlabs that produce methamphetamine that have proven successful and effective in controlling other natural drugs like heroin and cocaine.
This language serves to update, in an important way, our foreign policy to recognize the emergence of methamphetamine and other manufactured drugs.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing here today, and I'd like to again thank the witnesses who agreed to come to speak about the ravages of methamphetamine.
I urge the swift passage of this important legislation.
Doing so will send a strong signal that Congress is serious about fighting the scourge of meth.
We must send a signal to the pushers of this poison that they are not welcome in our communities.
Most importantly, we must send a signal to the law enforcement officers who wake up every morning to protect our families that we stand with them in the fight against drugs and will work to give them every tool they need to be successful.
Thank You.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Rannazzisi and Dr. Lester, you two have been placed in the bull's eye of the target, because both these guys beat the red light. So the pressure is on you. [Laughter.]
Mr. Rannazzisi, it's good to have you with us, sir.
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH T. RANNAZZISI, DEPUTY CHIEF, OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS, U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. RANNAZZISI. Thank you very much, sir. Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished Members of the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, on behalf of the Drug Enforcement Administration's Administrator, Karen P. Tandy, I appreciate your invitation to testify today regarding the DEA's efforts to combat the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine and its precursor chemicals, in H.R.3889, the ''Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act.''
Methamphetamine has swept across the country, and its devastating consequences are being felt throughout this nation by innocent children and adults, governmental agencies, businesses, and communities of all sizes. Methamphetamine found in the United States originates from two general sources, controlled by two distinct groups.
Mexico-based and California-based drug trafficking organizations control superlabs, and produce the majority of methamphetamine available in this country. The second source for methamphetamine comes from small toxic labs, which supplement the supply of this drug in the United States. Though these labs produce relatively small amounts of methamphetamine and are generally not affiliated with major drug trafficking organizations, they have an enormous impact on local communities, especially in rural areas.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A precise breakdown is not available, but current drug and lab seizure data suggests that roughly two-thirds of the methamphetamine used in the U.S. comes from larger labs, increasingly outside of the U.S., and that approximately one-third of the methamphetamine consumed in this country comes from the small toxic labs.
In an effort to combat methamphetamine, the DEA aggressively targets those who traffic in and manufacture this dangerous drug, as well as those who traffic in the chemicals utilized to produce it. We have initiated and led successful enforcement efforts focusing on meth and its precursor chemicals, that have dismantled and disrupted high-level methamphetamine traffic organizations, as well as dramatically reduced the amount of pseudoephedrine illegally entering our country.
We are also working with our global partners to target international methamphetamine traffickers, and have forged agreements to pre-screen pseudoephedrine shipments to ensure that they are being shipped to legitimate companies for legitimate purposes.
As a result of our efforts and those of our law enforcement partners in the U.S. and Canada, we have seen a dramatic decline in methamphetamine superlabs in the U.S. This decrease is largely a result of DEA's enforcement successes against suppliers of bulk shipments of precursor chemicals; notably, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. Law enforcement has also seen a huge reduction in the amount of pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and other precursor chemicals seized at the Canadian border.
We are also working closely with our State and local law enforcement partners to assist in the elimination of the small toxic labs that have spread across the country. The DEA administers the clean-up of the majority of meth labs seized in this country, with approximately 10,000 last year alone.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In an effort to further streamline the clean-up process and reduce costs, with the assistance of the Community Oriented Policing program, ''COPS,'' in fiscal year 2004 we joined the Kentucky state police in initiating a container program. This container program has further reduced clean-up costs, and we plan to expand the program to other States during fiscal year 2006.
More than any other controlled substance, methamphetamine trafficking endangers children through the exposure of drug abuse, neglect, physical and sexual abuse, toxic chemicals, hazardous waste, fire, and explosions. We are providing assistance to methamphetamine's victims through our Victim Witness Assistance Program. Through this program, the DEA's goal is to ensure that all endangered children are identified, and that the child's immediate safety is addressed at the scene by appropriate child welfare and health care providers.
In an effort to provide further information to America's youth about the dangers of methamphetamine, last month DEA launched a new website entitled ''justthinktwice.com.'' This website is devoted to and designed by teenagers to give them the hard facts about methamphetamine and other illicit drugs.
The DEA also monitors State legislation aimed at combatting methamphetamine. It has noted the success experienced by some States in reducing the number of small toxic labs within their borders. The Administration strongly supports the development of Federal legislation to fight methamphetamine production, trafficking, and abuse.
Effective Federal legislation would include an individual purchase limit of 3.6 grams for transactions for retail sales of products containing pseudoephedrine; elimination of the blister pack exemption for pseudoephedrine products, thus requiring all products containing this substance to be subject to Federal law regardless of the packaging; and to prevent diversion of pseudoephedrine shipments for illegal use, a requirement that importers of pseudoephedrine request and receive approval from the DEA if there is a change to the shipment's original purchaser.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you for your recognition of this important issue and the opportunity to testify today. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rannazzisi follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH T. RANNAZZISI
Chairman Coble, Representative Scott, and distinguished members of the House Judiciary Committee—Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, on behalf of the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) Administrator, Karen Tandy, I appreciate your invitation to testify today regarding the ''Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act.'' I am pleased to testify here today.
OVERVIEW
Methamphetamine's devastating consequences are felt across the country by innocent children and adults, governmental agencies, businesses and communities of all sizes. More commonly known as ''meth,'' this highly addictive stimulant can be easily manufactured using ''recipes'' available over the Internet and ingredients available at most major retail outlets. While meth used to be associated only with a few outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMG), the use and manufacturing of this deadly substance is now a national problem. Today, few communities in the United States have not been impacted by methamphetamine.
In an effort to combat methamphetamine, the DEA aggressively targets those who traffic in and manufacture this dangerous drug, as well as those who traffic in the chemicals utilized to produce it. We have initiated and led successful enforcement efforts focusing on meth and its precursor chemicals. Every day the DEA works side by side with our federal, state and local law enforcement partners to combat the scourge of meth. Last spring, DEA Administrator Tandy directed DEA's Mobile Enforcement Teams (MET) to prioritize methamphetamine trafficking organizations during their deployments. These and other initiatives have resulted in tremendously successful investigations, that have dismantled and disrupted high-level methamphetamine trafficking organizations, as well as dramatically reduced the amount of pseudoephedrine illegally entering our country.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to our enforcement efforts, the DEA is combating this drug by administering the cleanup of labs across the country, providing assistance to the victims of methamphetamine and educating communities on the dangers of this drug. The DEA also monitors state legislation aimed at combating methamphetamine and has noted the success experienced by some states in reducing the number of small toxic labs within their borders. Additionally, the Administration supports the development of Federal legislation to fight methamphetamine production, trafficking and abuse. Any such legislation should of course balance law enforcement needs with the need for legitimate consumer access to widely used cold medicines.
METHAMPHETAMINE IN THE U.S.
Methamphetamine is a synthetic central nervous system stimulant that is classified as a Schedule II controlled substance. It is widely abused throughout the United States and is distributed under the names ''crank,'' ''meth,'' ''crystal,'' and ''speed.'' Methamphetamine is commonly sold in powder form, but has been distributed in tablets or as crystals (''glass'' or ''ice''). Methamphetamine can be smoked, snorted, injected or taken orally. The clandestine manufacture of methamphetamine has been a concern of law enforcement officials since the 1960's, when OMGs produced their own methamphetamine in labs and dominated distribution in the United States. While clandestine labs can produce other types of illicit drugs such as PCP, MDMA, and LSD, methamphetamine has always been the primary drug manufactured in the vast majority of drug labs seized by law enforcement officers.
STATE APPROACHES TO CONTROL METHAMPHETAMINE
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As was discussed in the Interim Report from the National Synthetic Drugs Action Plan, the only two states that had enacted legislation from which we had reliable data at the time, were Oklahoma and Oregon. During April 2004, Oklahoma enacted the first and at that time, the most far-reaching state law restricting the sale of pseudoephedrine products. To date, over forty States have enacted or proposed various laws to restrict the sale of pseudophedrine products. This law made pseudoephedrine a Schedule V Controlled Substance in Oklahoma. Provisions of this law included: limiting sales of both single-entity and combination pseudoephedrine products to pharmacies; requiring pseudoephedrine products to be kept behind the pharmacy counter; and requiring the purchaser to show identification and sign a log sheet.
Oklahoma's law was noted in the National Synthetic Drugs Action Plan and was the first of many similar proposals introduced in State legislatures this past year. The Interim Report of May 2005 again noted Oklahoma's law, as well as Oregon's approach. In October 2004, Oregon adopted a similar approach to Oklahoma's model through a temporary administrative rule. Oregon, unlike Oklahoma, allowed combination pseudoephedrine products—those containing pseudoephedrine plus other active medical ingredients—to be sold at stores other than pharmacies, provided that the products were kept in a secure location. At the time of the Interim Report's release, only four months of data from Oregon were available for review. This review showed an approximate 42 percent reduction in the number of labs seized from the same months in the prior year. A review of 12 months worth of data from Oklahoma showed a 51 percent reduction in lab seizures (April 2004 through March 2005).(see footnote 6)
The Interim Report noted that, even with the stabilization in methamphetamine laboratory numbers observed nationally, no states with consistently significant numbers of methamphetamine labs have seen the reductions in lab numbers that Oklahoma and, to a lesser but still significant extent, Oregon had seen. The Interim Report stated that, with the available data—a year's worth of data from Oklahoma, four months of data from Oregon, and several years worth of national data—strongly suggested that Oklahoma's and Oregon's state-level approaches were probably primary reasons for the dramatic reduction in the number of small toxic labs (STL) in Oklahoma, as well as smaller reductions in Oregon. It should also be noted that since the release of the Interim Report, Oregon has enacted legislation that made pseudoephedrine a Schedule III Controlled Substance.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since the release of the Interim Report, the seizure of meth labs in Oklahoma has continued to remain at low levels, with a total of 115 meth labs being seized from April through July 2005.(see footnote 7) The seizure of these 115 labs is significantly less than the seizures reported in Oklahoma during this same time period in 2004 (261) and 2003 (423).
Furthermore, the State of Oregon has recently enacted legislation that classifies pseudoephedrine as a Schedule III Controlled Substance. This law is not scheduled to fully go into effect until July of 2006, so data does not yet exist to draw any conclusions as to its effectiveness.
METHAMPHETAMINE THREAT ASSESSMENT AND TRENDS
Methamphetamine found in the United States originates from two general sources, controlled by two distinct groups. Most of the methamphetamine in the United States is produced by Mexico-based and California-based Mexican drug trafficking organizations. These drug trafficking organizations control ''super labs'' and produce the majority of methamphetamine available throughout the United States. Mexican criminal organizations control most mid-level and retail methamphetamine distribution in the Pacific, Southwest, and West Central regions of the United States, as well as much of the distribution in the Great Lakes and Southeast regions. Mexican midlevel distributors sometimes supply methamphetamine to OMGs and Hispanic gangs for retail distribution throughout the country.
Asian methamphetamine distributors (Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Thai, and Vietnamese) are also active in the Pacific region, although Mexican criminal groups trafficking in ''ice methamphetamine'' have supplanted Asian criminal groups as the dominant distributors of this drug type in Hawaii. OMGs distribute methamphetamine throughout the country, and reporting indicates that they are particularly prevalent in many areas of the Great Lakes region, New England, and New York/New Jersey regions.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The second source for methamphetamine comes from STLs, which supplement the supply of methamphetamine in the United States Initially found only in the most Western States, there has been a steady increase and eastward spread of STLs in the United States. Many methamphetamine abusers quickly learn that the drug is easily produced and that it can be manufactured using common household products found at retail stores. For approximately $100 in ''materials,'' a methamphetamine ''cook'' can produce approximately $1,000 worth of this poison. Items such as rock salt, battery acid, red phosphorous road flares, pool acid, and iodine crystals can be used as a source of the necessary chemicals. Precursor chemicals such as pseudoephedrine can be extracted from common, over-the-counter cold medications, regardless of whether it is sold in liquid, gel, or pill form. Using relatively common items such as mason jars, coffee filters, hot plates, pressure cookers, pillowcases, plastic tubing and gas cans. A clandestine lab operator can manufacture meth almost anywhere without the need for sophisticated laboratory equipment.
Widespread use of the internet has facilitated the dissemination of technology used to manufacture methamphetamine in STLs. This form of information sharing allows wide dissemination of these techniques to anyone with computer access. Aside from marijuana, methamphetamine is the only widely abused illegal drug that is capable of being produced by the abuser. Given the relative ease with which manufacturers are able to acquire ''recipes'' and ingredients, and the unsophisticated nature of the production process, it is not difficult to see why this highly addictive drug has spread across America.
STLs produce relatively small amounts of methamphetamine and are generally not affiliated with major drug trafficking organizations. However, STLs have an enormous impact on local communities, especially in rural areas.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A precise breakdown is not available, but current drug and lab seizure data suggests that roughly two-thirds of the methamphetamine used in the United States comes from larger labs, located outside the United States, and that approximately one-third of the methamphetamine consumed in this country comes from the small, more toxic laboratories.
BATTLING METHAMPHETAMINE AND ITS PRECURSOR CHEMICALS
As a result of our efforts and those of our law enforcement partners in the U.S. and Canada, we have seen a dramatic decline in methamphetamine super labs in the U.S. In 2004, 55 super labs were seized in the United States, the majority of which were in California. This is a dramatic decrease from the 246 super labs seized in 2001. This decrease is largely a result of DEA's enforcement successes against suppliers of bulk shipments of precursor chemicals, notably ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. Law enforcement has also seen a huge reduction in the amount of pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and other precursor chemicals seized at the Canadian border.
More than any other controlled substance, methamphetamine trafficking endangers children through exposure to drug abuse, neglect, physical and sexual abuse, toxic chemicals, hazardous waste, fire, and explosions. An appalling example of methamphetamine-related abuse was discovered by the DEA in Missouri during November 2004. During an enforcement operation targeting a suspected methamphetamine laboratory located in a home, three children, all less than five years of age, were found sleeping on chemical-soaked rugs. The residence was filled with insects and rodents and had no electricity or running water. Ironically, two guard dogs kept by the ''cooks'' to fend off law enforcement were also found: clean, healthy, and well-fed. The dogs actually ate off a dinner plate.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since being implemented in 1992, the DEA has enhanced its Victim Witness Assistance Program, and each of our Field Divisions now has a Victim/Witness Coordinator to ensure that all endangered children are identified and that the child's immediate safety is addressed at the scene by appropriate child welfare and health care providers. Assistance has also been provided to vulnerable adults, victims of domestic violence, and to customers and employees of businesses such as hotels and motels where methamphetamine has been produced or seized.
We also provide training on drug endangered children to federal, state, and local law enforcement and to national, state and local victim organizations. The DEA serves as a resource for child protective service and school social workers, first responders, mail carriers, and utility company personnel, all of whom may come in contact with labs and victims. To provide the public with current information on methamphetamine and drug endangered children, the DEA participates in numerous local, state, and national conferences and exhibits. The issue of victim services is included as part of our Basic Agent Training, and also is presented to our management across the country.
We have continued to investigate, disrupt and dismantle major methamphetamine trafficking organizations through the Consolidated Priority Organization Target (CPOT) list and our Priority Target Organization (PTO) investigations. The DEA is also significantly involved in the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task program (OCDETF) and we continue to work with state and local law enforcement agencies across the country to combat methamphetamine. Additionally, in March 2005, Administrator Tandy directed the DEA's MET teams to prioritize methamphetamine trafficking organizations during their deployments.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In an effort to provide further information to America's youth about the dangers of methamphetamine, on August 30, 2005, the DEA launched a new website entitled ''justthinktwice.com.'' This website is devoted to and designed by teenagers to give them the hard facts about methamphetamine and other illicit drugs. Through this website, the DEA is telling teens to ''think twice'' about what they hear from friends, popular culture, and adults who advocate drug legalization. Information is also provided regarding the harm drugs cause to their health, their families, the environment, and to innocent bystanders.
The DEA also continues its work to ensure that only legitimate businesses with adequate chemical controls are licensed to handle bulk pseudoephedrine and ephedrine in the United States. In the past seven years, over 2,000 chemical registrants have been denied, surrendered, or withdrawn their registrations or applications as a result of DEA investigations. Between 2001 and 2004, DEA Diversion Investigators physically inspected more than half of the 3,000 chemical registrants at their places of business. We investigated the adequacy of their security safeguards to prevent the diversion of chemicals to the illicit market, and audited their recordkeeping to ensure compliance with federal regulations.
The DEA is also working with our global partners to target international methamphetamine traffickers and to increase chemical control efforts abroad. The DEA has worked hand in hand with our foreign law enforcement counterparts and have forged agreements to pre-screen pseudoephedrine shipments to ensure that they are being shipped to legitimate companies for legitimate purposes. An example of our efforts in this area is an operation worked with our counterparts from Hong Kong, Mexico and Panama, which prevented approximately 68 million pseudoephedrine tablets from reaching ''meth cartels.'' This pseudoephedrine could have produced more than two metric tons of methamphetamine.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
COMMENTS REGARDING THE ''METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC ELIMINATION ACT''
As you can see, the DEA has known and has been working on the meth crisis for many years. We appreciate Congress' interest in this issue, and, without endorsing the specific legislative language of the bill, would like to offer some general observations regarding the ''Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act.''
Title I—Domestic Regulation of Precursor Chemicals
This title repeals the federal ''blister pack'' exemption; reduces the federal per-transaction sales threshold for pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine products from 9 grams to 3.6 grams; and clarifies the law to include derivatives of each of these chemicals. The section also extends the Attorney General's existing authority to set import and production quotas, expands the existing penalties for illegal production and importation, and seeks to address a gap in our existing regulatory control system for imports and exports of pseudoephedrine.
As the Committee knows, the Administration strongly supports the development of Federal legislation to fight methamphetamine production, trafficking, and abuse. Effective Federal legislation would include an individual purchase limit of 3.6 grams per transaction for retail sales of over-the-counter products containing pseudophedrine; elimination of the blister pack exemption for pseudoephedrine products, thus requiring all products containing this substance to be subject to Federal law regardless of packaging; and, to prevent diversion of pseudoephedrine shipments for illegal use, a requirement that importers of pseudoephedrine request and receive approval from the DEA if there is a change in the shipment's original purchase. Additional controls on pseudoephedrine, however, must always be balanced against legitimate consumer access to affected products. A number of States have approached this challenge in different ways, taking into account their individual law enforcement and consumer access needs. As referenced above, early data indicate that several States which have done this through individual legislative and regulatory initiatives appear to have seen real and sustained reductions in the number of methamphetamine labs in their states. Denying methamphetamine cooks the ability to gather the ingredients they need, while balancing the need of law abiding citizens to be able to access these commonly used cold products, is an approach that works. We look forward to working with Congress.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Title II—International Regulation of Precursor Chemicals
This title would require additional reporting requirements for importers of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenolpropanolamine by requiring them to file additional information about the chain of distribution of imported chemicals. It also would place an additional reporting requirement on the State Department to identify the 5 largest exporters of major methamphetamine precursor chemicals, and the 5 largest importers that also have the highest rate of meth production or diversion of these chemicals to the production of meth. This title would incorporate these countries into the annual international counternarcotics ''certification'' process, and would make many forms of foreign assistance contingent on the President's certification that these countries are ''fully cooperating'' with the U.S. in enforcing chemical controls. (For chemical control efforts, the bill reverts to the stricter standard in effect before the 2002 certification cycle, after which the President designates only those countries that have ''failed demonstrably'' to cooperate.) Finally, the legislation would require the State Department's Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs to provide assistance to Mexico to prevent the production of methamphetamine in that country and to encourage Mexico to stop the illegal diversion of meth precursor chemicals.
We have serious concerns about these provisions. As you know, the Administration already reports on some of the information this language would require in the annual International Narcotics Control Strategy Report. Although we agree that diversion of precursor chemicals is a serious problem and that the annual counternarcotics ''certification'' process should do more to account for the actions of our foreign counterparts with respect to chemical control, we believe that there are more appropriate and plausible ways to achieve this overall goal. An inter-agency group coordinated by the Department of State, with the Department of Justice taking the lead in drafting, has also been addressing the problem of how to take better account of synthetic drugs and precursor chemicals in the certification process. We would like the opportunity to consult with the Committee as we address some of the same difficult issues you face in attempting to evaluate chemical commerce and countries' chemical control efforts.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In October 2004, the Administration released the National Synthetic Drugs Action Plan. In doing so, we proclaimed the seriousness of the challenges posed by methamphetamine—along with other synthetic drugs and diverted pharmaceuticals—and our resolve to confront those challenges. Part of the Action Plan specifically recognized the move of large labs outside the United States requires that we offer assistance to strengthen anti-methamphetamine activities. This, in turn, requires working with other countries known to suppling methamphetamine producers with illicit pseudoephedrine. A Synthetic Drugs Interagency Working Group (SD-IWG), co-chaired by the ONDCP and the Department of Justice, was directed to oversee implementation of the Action Plan and to report to the ONDCP Director, Attorney General, and Secretary for Health and Human Services six months after the document's release. In the Interim Report, dated May 2, 2005, the SD-IWG responded to this portion of the Action Plan:
China (particularly Hong Kong) has been a significant source of pseudoephedrine tablets that have been diverted to methamphetamine labs in Mexico. The United States and Mexico have obtained a commitment by Hong Kong not to ship chemicals to the United States, Mexico, or Panama until receiving an import permit or equivalent documentation and to pre-notify the receiving country before shipment.
The United States has made significant progress in assisting Mexican authorities to improve their ability to respond to methamphetamine laboratories. The DEA has played a role by providing diversion and clandestine lab cleanup training courses for Mexican officials (both Federal and State).
In conjunction with our joint efforts, Mexico this year began to impose stricter import quotas for pseudoephedrine, tied to estimates of national needs and based on extrapolations from a large population sample. Additionally, distributors have agreed to limit sales of pseudoephedrine to pharmacies, which in turn will sell no more than approximately nine grams per transaction to customers.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These developments stand as a model for the next steps to be taken with the limited number of manufacturers who produce bulk ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. Our efforts are, and will continue to be, focused on the primary producing and exporting countries for bulk ephedrine and pseudoephedrine: China, the Czech Republic, Germany, and India. Some of these efforts are not new, but involve a long-term commitment, using the tools at the Administration's disposal, to engage with foreign law enforcement and regulatory counterparts in these countries and to replicate the steps taken with Hong Kong and Panama. These steps include improving the sharing of information on pseudoephedrine shipments with other countries, thus preventing their diversion—especially to Mexico.
Under existing Federal law, the DEA must be notified if an ephedrine or pseudoephedrine product is destined for, or will transit through, the United States. But the legal and regulatory tools to limit imports and after-import distribution are relatively crude. Moreover, the prevailing interpretation of the 1988 United Nation's Convention that controls chemicals allows most finished pharmaceutical products containing pseudoephedrine in combination with other ingredients to be shipped in international commerce without pre-notification—a wide-open loophole that continues to be exploited by drug traffickers. The U.S., along with our Mexican and Canadian counterparts, has been working to gain international support for voluntary international cooperation to pre-notify shipments of these products; our efforts are being channeled through the drug control commission of the OAS (''CICAD'').
Title IV—Enhanced Environmental Regulation of Methamphetamine By-Products
This title would give additional authority to the Transportation Department and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce environmental regulations against meth cooks who cause toxic pollution with meth by-products. In addition, this title would clarify existing law in light of the recent Eighth District Court of Appeals decision in United States v. Lachowski to allow the Federal government to seek restitution for environmental cleanup costs on persons involved in meth production and trafficking.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While the Administration cannot comment on the specific proposals in this title, the environmental costs associated with meth production have long been a concern of the DEA. In FY 1988, the DEA's Hazardous Waste Disposal Program was established to assist our Special Agents in the management of the chemicals, waste and contaminated equipment seized at clandestine drug laboratories. Funding for this program was initially provided through the Asset Forfeiture Fund. In 1998, the DEA began receiving funding from the Community Oriented Policing (COPS) program, and DEA Appropriated Funds in FY 1999, to support the cleanup of clandestine drug laboratories seized by state and local law enforcement. Together with the Asset Forfeiture Fund, these funding sources continue today.
Today, when a federal, state or local agency seizes a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory, EPA regulations require the agency to ensure that all hazardous waste materials are safely removed from the site. To facilitate the removal of these materials, the DEA awarded the first private sector contracts in 1991for hazardous waste cleanup and disposal. This program promotes the safety of law enforcement personnel and the public by using qualified companies with specialized training and equipment to remove hazardous waste seized at clandestine drug laboratories. These contractors provide response services to DEA, as well as state and local law enforcement officials nationwide. These contracts serve communities by removing the source-chemicals that may pose threats to the public, which also helps to protect the environment.
Since the DEA first began using contractor services in the early 1990s, the number of cleanups has skyrocketed, though the average cost per cleanup has greatly decreased. The average cost per cleanup during the initial contract was approximately $17,000. During FY 2002, the average cleanup cost dropped to approximately $3,300, and currently, the average cost per cleanup is approximately $2,000.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To further reduce the cost of lab cleanups, in FY 2004, the DEA, with assistance provided by COPS, joined the Kentucky State Police to establish a pilot, clandestine lab ''container program'' in Kentucky. The program allows trained Kentucky law enforcement officers to safely package and transport hazardous waste from the clandestine laboratory sites to a centralized secure container that meets all hazardous waste storage requirements. The waste is subsequently kept in the container until it can be removed by a DEA contractor. The container program has streamlined the laboratory cleanup process by enabling law enforcement officials to manage small quantities of seized chemicals more quickly and efficiently. As of the third quarter of FY 2005, the average cost of cleanup in this project was approximately $350. The DEA is currently working to expand this program to several other states.
CONCLUSION
Methamphetamine continues to take a terrible toll on this country. To combat this poison, the DEA is attacking methamphetamine on all fronts. Our enforcement efforts are focused not only on the large-scale methamphetamine trafficking organizations distributing this drug in the U.S., but also on those involved in providing the precursor chemicals necessary to manufacture this poison. The DEA is well aware of the importance of controlling the precursor chemicals necessary to produce methamphetamine and is working with our international counterparts to forge agreements to control the flow of these chemicals
We are also working closely with our state and local law partners to assist in the elimination of the small toxic labs that have spread across the country. The DEA's Hazardous Waste Program, with the assistance of grants to state and local law enforcement, supports and funds the cleanup of a majority of the laboratories seized in the United States. The DEA has also taken an active role in the Victim Witness Assistance Program to assist methamphetamine's victims educating communities about the dangers of meth and other illicit drugs.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you for your recognition of this important issue and the opportunity to testify today. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. We've been joined by the distinguished gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters. Ms. Waters, good to have you with us.
Ms. WATERS. Thank you.
Mr. COBLE. Dr. Lester.
TESTIMONY OF BARRY M. LESTER, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRY AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND PEDIATRICS, BROWN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL SCHOOL
Mr. LESTER. Chairman Coble, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Scott, Members of this Subcommittee, we're in a similar situation today with methamphetamine as we were in the mid-1980's with what became known as the cocaine epidemic. During that time, there was legitimate concern for the welfare of children born cocaine-exposed. Based on poor information, there was a rush to judgment that led to an overreaction by society that had negative consequences for women and children.
Many women were prosecuted; children were removed from their biological mothers; and families were broken up. As a result, the number of children in foster care reached an all-time high in the mid-1990's. Many children suffered emotional problems from multiple foster care placements. And this is what led to the 1997 passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, requiring permanent placement within 12 months of a child being removed from his or her biological mother.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
After 20 years of research, we learned that the effects of cocaine were not nearly as severe as initially feared. In fact, when factors like other drugs and poverty are controlled, the effects are subtle. We're talking about three or four IQ points, slight increases in behavior problems. In fact, these effects are not very different from those of cigarette smoking during pregnancy.
We also learned that while there are most definitely drug-using women that are inadequate parents, there are also drug-using women who are competent parents, and that with treatment, families can be kept together.
Our understanding of addiction has also changed in the past 20 years. We know more about addiction as a disease, as a medical mental health issue, and a disease that can be treated. It's a complex disease with multiple mental health co-morbidities, so that women who use drugs also tend to have other mental health problems.
So the bad news is that addiction is complex and requires serious treatment dollars. The good news is that it is treatable, and if we take a treatment-oriented rather than a punitive approach, we can reduce the problem of drug addiction in the country. I don't see the treatment approach in this legislation.
We learned some real hard lessons as the cocaine story unfolded. And I'm concerned that we're making the exact same mistakes with methamphetamine that we made with cocaine, as suggested by recent media coverage, by the punitive nature of this bill, and the absence of treatment dollars.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Methamphetamine is a stimulant like cocaine. Research on the effects of prenatal methamphetamine exposure on child outcome are just beginning. The only longitudinal study that's being done so far is our NIH study. And so far, what we're finding is very similar subtle effects to the effects we saw with cocaine. Again, to give you a context for this: not very different than women who smoke cigarettes during pregnancy.
Does this mean it's harmless, or that it's okay for women to use meth during pregnancy, or that we should not treat the women or the children? Of course not. Drug use of any kind should be discouraged during pregnancy, and treated. We know from previous research that even these smaller effects can turn to larger deficits, if the parenting environment is not adequate. And it is also possible that there are drug effects that don't show up until children get to school.
What we need here is a more balanced approach, and one that will get at the root causes of drug addiction. Sending more people to prison for longer periods of time is not the answer. Our knowledge base is still evolving, and will continue to do so. But we know enough now to fight addiction with treatment and keep families together if possible.
So here are some specific suggestions. We need a national consensus on how to deal with issues like maternal drug use that does justice to state-of-the-art knowledge in research and treatment and demonstrates a fair and unbiased attitude toward women with addiction and their children.
We need to improve access to treatment; develop and coordinate multidisciplinary treatment programs with interconnected services based on the needs of women, mothers, and children. Models of methamphetamine treatment are based on adult male models. There are no treatment models designed to meet the specific needs of women, pregnant women, or mothers. For example, we know from the cocaine experience that it doesn't do any good to tell a poor mother with four kids in tow that she has six different appointments in six different locations, without providing transportation and babysitting.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We need to develop systematic prevention efforts, both treatment and education. And this includes education to prevent the onset or continuation of drug use and treatment to prevent future problems due to drug use.
And we need to develop family treatment drug courts, with the goal of keeping custody or reunification whenever possible. Drug courts are a way of providing a ''treatment with teeth'' approach that includes rewards for compliance with treatment and sanctions for non-compliance with treatment.
In Rhode Island, we have a program called ''VIP''—it stands for ''Vulnerable Infants Program''—which includes a family treatment drug court. We say ''vulnerable'' to imply that these children are somewhat fragile, but not damaged. And of course, they are VIPs; they're very important people.
This is a voluntary ''treatment with teeth'' program that has already been successful. We have reduced the length of stay of drug-exposed babies in the hospital; increased the number of infants who are going home with their biological mothers, hence reducing the number in foster care; and increased the number of children being reunified with their biological mothers. We should consider waiving punishment for clients who agree to, and comply with, treatment.
In sum, we have made tremendous gains in our understanding of addiction and treatment in the past 20 years. We have the opportunity to keep families together today in ways that were not possible only a few years ago. I am very optimistic about our ability to reduce addiction and save future generations of children through treatment. It would be not only a missed opportunity, but also a step backward, to put all of our eggs in the punishment basket. Thank you.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lester follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. BARRY M. LESTER
Chairman Coble, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Scott, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3889, the Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act.
We are in a similar situation today with methamphetamine as we were in 20 years ago during the cocaine epidemic. During that time, there was legitimate concern for the welfare of children exposed to cocaine in the wbomb. But based on insufficient or inaccurate information, society rushed to judgment—an over-reaction that had negative consequences for women and children. Many drug-addicted women were prosecuted and children were removed from their care. Families split up. As a result, by the mid 1990s, the number of children in foster care reached an all-time high to over 500,000. Many of these children suffered emotional problems from multiple foster care placements. This lead to the 1997 passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, or ASFA, requiring permanent placement of a child within 12 months of being removed from his or her biological mother.
After 20 years of research, we learned that the effects of cocaine are not nearly as severe as initially feared. In fact, when factors like other drugs and poverty are controlled, the effects are subtle—IQ lowered by 3 to 4 points, a slight increase in behavior or attention problems. These effects are similar to those caused by cigarette smoking during pregnancy. Scientists also learned that while there are most definitely drug users who are inadequate mothers, there are also drug users who are competent mothers who, with treatment, can care for their children.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our understanding of addiction has also changed in two decades. We know more about addiction as a disease—a medical condition that can be treated. Addiction is a complex disease with multiple mental health co-morbidities; Women who use drugs also tend to be depressed and anxious and may have even more severe mental health problems. So the bad news: Addiction is complex. The good news: Addiction is treatable. We can reduce the problem of drug addiction in the country. I don't see treatment addressed in this legislation.
We learned some hard lessons since the cocaine story unfolded. I am concerned that we are on the verge of making the same mistakes with methamphetamine that we made with cocaine, as suggested by sensational media coverage, the absence of federal treatment dollars—and the punitive nature of this bill.
Methamphetamine is a stimulant like cocaine and produces similar effects on neurotransmitters in the brain. Research on the effects of prenatal methamphetamine exposure on child outcome is just beginning. To my knowledge, my current research into the prenatal effects of methamphetamine is the only such project funded the national Institutes of Health. Children in our study are still infants. So we can't measure all the affects of this drug. But, so far, we are seeing the same kind of subtle changes with methamphetamine that we saw with cocaine. Again—to put this in context—not very different than what you'd see with cigarette smoking.
Does this mean methamphetamine is harmless? Is it acceptable for women to use the drug during pregnancy? Of course not. And we know from previous research—including research with cocaine-using mothers—that even small neurobehavioral effects can turn to larger deficits if parenting is not adequate.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What we need is a balanced approach—one that will attack the root causes of drug addiction. Sending more people to prison for longer periods of time is not the answer. We know enough now to fight addiction with treatment and, if possible, keep families together.
Here are some specific suggestions:
Develop a national consensus on how to deal with maternal drug use that draws on current research and tested treatment strategies—and demonstrates a fair and unbiased attitude towards drug-addicted women and their children.
Improve access to treatment and develop coordinated treatment programs with interconnected services based on the needs of women, mothers and children. Models of methamphetamine treatment are based on adult male models. None are designed to meet the specific needs of women, pregnant women or mothers. For example, we know from the cocaine experience that it does no good to tell a poor mother with four kids in tow that she has six different appointments in six different locations without providing transportation or baby-sitting.
Develop systemic prevention efforts. This includes education to prevent onset or continuation of drug use as well as treatment to prevent future problems due to drug use.
Develop Family Treatment Drug Courts with the goal of keeping custody or reunification whenever possible. Drug Courts are a way providing a ''treatment with teeth'' approach that includes rewards for compliance with treatment and sanctions for noncompliance with treatment. In Rhode Island, we have a program called VIP (Vulnerable Infants Program) which includes a Family Treatment Drug Court (FTDC). Vulnerable is meant to imply that these children are somewhat fragile but not damaged and of course they are Very Important People. This is a voluntary ''treatment with teeth'' program that has been successful. We have reduced the length of stay of drug-exposed babies in the hospital, increased the number of infants who are going home with their biological mothers (hence reducing the number in foster care) and increased the number of children being reunified with their biological mothers. We should consider waiving punishment for clients who agree to and comply with treatment.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In sum, we have made tremendous strides in 20 years when it comes to understanding drug addiction and treatment. We have the opportunity to keep families together today in ways that were not possible only a few years ago. I am very optimistic about our ability to reduce addiction and save future generations of children through treatment. It would be not only a missed opportunity, but a major step backward, to put all of our eggs in the punishment basket.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Dr. Lester. And thanks to each of you for your testimony. Gentlemen, we impose the 5-minute rule against ourselves as well, so if you all could keep your answer as terse as possible it would enable us to move along.
Mark—We've got two ''Marks.'' Mr. Souder, you touched on this very briefly, but I want to revisit it. The Talent-Feinstein proposal listed pseudoephedrine as a Schedule V drug under the Controlled Substances Act, and restricts monthly sales to individuals. Why did you not include it in your bill?
Mr. SOUDER. We tried to deal with the question of blister packs and quantity purchase. We're silent on that. That way, it could be merged with this. But let me say what my personal opinion is; which does not necessarily represent the group of sponsors on the bill, because it's silent on this subject.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Meth, unlike crack and other things, has not covered the whole country. Even in my district, it's in the rural areas and some of the small towns, but not in the city of Fort Wayne, of 200,000, or in Elkhart, of 45,000. It's nowhere near the East Coast. It may get there as it moves east, and it may go into the cities.
But it means that shutting down pseudoephedrine products, cold medicines, for everybody in the United States doesn't make much sense, in my opinion. Certainly, in rural areas where they don't have pharmacies in a lot of the grocery stores, in effect, you'll pull all the profitability of the grocery stores out and you'll shut them down. In these little markets in New York City and in Los Angeles, in big cities, you take all the cold medicines out. That's part of the profit of these stores, and you're depriving consumers when they don't have a meth problem.
Now, I believe that you should get at it at the wholesale level. Where you see it go up, we should try to address that. But I believe we're taking a big stick to whack a problem that is isolated—growing; it's a threat; but if we need to do that, if it becomes national, then we do it. I don't favor it at this point, and I think we need to look for something that's a more complex, diversified approach, than a simplistic answer.
Mr. COBLE. All right, thank you, Mark.
Dr. Lester, let me put a three-part question to you. How successful are drug treatment programs for meth abuse, A? What types of drug treatment programs work and what types do not work, B? And finally, C, how addictive is meth, as compared to other drugs?
Mr. LESTER. There are methamphetamine programs that are successful. Probably, the best well-known one is called the ''Matrix'' program, which was developed out in California. I think the problem with all of the methamphetamine programs, including Matrix, is that they were pretty much developed on adult male models. So again, they don't deal with special populations like women and mothers, and certainly pregnant women.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I think the ideal situation would be to take some of the models that have been developed for cocaine and methamphetamine and reorganize them for special populations. And I think we also need to get them combined with family treatment drug courts; what would be, you know, a whole package to go.
What types of programs work? The kinds of programs that work are programs that are comprehensive, that are family based—in other words, that treat the whole family. You know, for example, if you treat the mother and put her back in the home where her husband or her boyfriend is using, that's not going to do any good.
They have to be comprehensive, and treat the mental health co-morbidities that go along with substance abuse. So comprehensive programs are critical. And the programs that do not work are the kind of one-shot, you know, just going after one aspect of the problem, and ignoring everything else.
Mr. COBLE. How about the addictive? Is it more addictive than other drugs, or how does it compare with other drugs?
Mr. LESTER. It's more psychologically addictive than a lot of other drugs. It's not necessarily physiologically addictive. I mean, it's psychologically addictive like cocaine, maybe even a bit more, depending on the nature of the user.
Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think I have time for one more question. Mr. Rannazzisi, what tools would assist the DEA in increasing enforcement actions against the larger meth traffickers and the Mexican superlabs?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, there's a variety. Again, we're treating these cases just like we treat normal drug cases. We're going after the larger organizations. That being said, since there's two components here, we're looking at both the small labs, trying to deal with that, and also the large Mexican organizations.
We have the CPOT program, and we're targeting these large, major organizations, these principals that are running these drug organizations, through that program. However, you know, again, we have to go back to what we need legislatively.
I think that the Administration, through Secretary Leavitt, AG Gonzales, and Mr. Walters from ONDCP, laid out what we need legislatively to help us along with this case: the 3.6-gram limit on purchases; the elimination of the blister pack exemption that, you know, has been dogging us for years now; and also, removal of the chemical spot market loophole.
The chemical spot market loophole is, basically, killing us. What happens is, in the spot market, if an importer brings drugs—an importer sets up to import a certain amount of pseudoephedrine, say, for two or three companies. He gets permission from DEA. Over a 15-day period, we give him permission for those particular downstream customers.
Now, when the drugs come in, or the pseudoephedrine comes in, at that point in time, if he loses one of those customers, he could sell it to anybody, and DEA is not aware of it. That's the spot market loophole. It could go to any distributor, anywhere in the U.S. So what we're asking for is to close up that loophole. That's the tools we need.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. My time has expired.
The distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to compliment the DEA for the good work that they do. I also want to compliment my colleagues, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Souder. I know that their commitment is outstanding in terms of dealing with this particular issue.
Let me tell you what my problems are. I don't see anything about treatment in here. Okay? Secondly, we've been down the road before of mandatory sentences. I think it was you, Mr. Kennedy, that alluded to sending messages. We've been sending messages.
I think it should be by now conclusive evidence that just simply enhancing penalties is in no way going to reduce the trafficking in a particular controlled substance. You know, in 1988, there was legislation. I think that was the year that created the 5- and 10-year minimum mandatories. In 1996, I believe it was—the threshold amount was reduced. We're going back to do the same thing again.
You know, I'm convinced that if we're going to do something significant and substantial, we have to look at the treatment paradigms, and make some choices in terms of our funding. There's no reference in the legislation about treatment. I mean, the demand—you've got to attack this on the demand side.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Deterrence, I'm not saying that we don't have to have penalties. Clearly, we have to have significant sanctions. But we've been down that route. And now we have an epidemic. We didn't have the epidemic in 1988 and 1996. Now it's an epidemic, as described in the title of this bill.
There is a program, I understand, out in Orange County that requires a minimum of an 18-month treatment program, and whoever graduates from it must be drug free for a period of 180 days, must be employed, must have his or her act together.
What about Professor Lester's observation about there are some successful programs dealing with adult males now, and expanding that to all different subsets of the addict population? Congressman Souder.
Mr. SOUDER. May I respond?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Please.
Mr. SOUDER. Several things. First off, this is—we're doing a series of meth bills and a series of amendments. These are different appropriations. This is the Judiciary Committee. It has to be targeted to judiciary things. To go on Frank Wolf's Appropriations Subcommittee, which is where this may be attached, it had to be relevant to that appropriations bill; therefore, it doesn't address that.
I believe this does not add mandatory minimums. In fact, we changed it to make sure we held bipartisan support. We did lower the thresholds because meth—unlike crack and unlike heroin, these people are producing and selling simultaneously. It's a different type of a drug than anything else we're dealing with.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, in the treatment question, first off, I don't disagree that we need to do more. And we need to be looking at the Labor-HHS bill to address that. We need to be targeting things inside that on meth. Charlie Curie, the head of SAMHSA, was in my district. We've met with different treatment providers.
I strongly disagree with the statements—some of them—earlier; I agree with some of the conclusions. There is no adult male meth treatment. He's talking about cocaine and heroin. I don't think he's got that much experience with meth.
The Matrix model isn't working in meth. They're trying to get it to work, but you have the mom, the dad, their whole group. There's not like an enabler, a support group, to put them back.
We need to be targeting funds in HHS, and drug treatment funds. We need to increase drug courts. We've heard that drug courts work because if you have a law and enforcement, then they'll go to treatment. And we need to make sure there are treatment dollars there.
This is a law enforcement bill. We need to look at how to take this Matrix model where—you know one other problem? In these rural areas, they can't do the Matrix model because they don't have enough dollars to pay a staff-level person who's experienced enough even to test the Matrix model in these mom-and-pop labs.
I don't disagree with you at all on treatment. I support more dollars for treatment. I support legislation for that. I've co-sponsored legislation for that. That's not what this is.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DELAHUNT. Just reclaiming my time for 1 minute, you know, what concerns me is that a bill would come from this Committee with these mandatory minimums, and nothing will happen on the treatment side. What I would suggest to you, in terms of expanding your base of support, that there be an omnibus bill to be presented to the Committee, including and implicating treatment.
Whether the Matrix program works or not, I don't know. But I do know this. Okay? By cutting the threshold amounts, it's the same thing as expanding the minimum mandatory sanction. And it hasn't worked. It just won't work.
You know, mandatory treatment—mandatory treatment—should be a concept that I would suggest should be introduced into this kind of legislation; rather than just simply a mandatory minimum prison sentence. Mandatory treatment is something that I dare say would receive widespread support.
Yes, you do need those triggers, and you need those sanctions. Oftentimes, people will not come voluntarily to these potential treatment programs unless there is some sort of coercion. But that's the direction we ought to be going in.
Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman.
The distinguished gentleman from Florida, Mr. Feeney.
Mr. FEENEY. I thank the Chairman. And I want to congratulate my colleagues, Congressman Souder and Congressman Kennedy, for tackling a major national problem that seems to be expanding very rapidly.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One question I have for any of the panel is related to the demographics. On page 3 of our memorandum, the Members here have an indication that, of the Federal offenders, something like 60 percent of the offenders are white, 33 percent are Hispanic, and only 2 percent are African American. Do you have any explanations or theories as to the disproportionately high level of Caucasians and disproportionately low level of African Americans that have been convicted of Federal offenses?
Mr. SOUDER. If I can take a quick stab at that, based on our regional field hearings, I've asked the same question in multiple locations across the country. It appears that it is in the rural areas where you see the mom-and-pop labs, which are the easiest ones to arrest because they tend to blow up their families, tend to pollute the rivers. So they come into law enforcement quicker than those who are from the superlabs and the crystal meth—they tend to be disproportionately white. The rural areas are disproportionately white. They start off in a motorcycle gang, spread into the community, and are heavily white.
When you see the superlab organizations come in, even in the rural areas, they're predominantly Hispanic; but they're still selling meth. It's predominantly a rural, and increasingly a suburban, phenomenon.
Omaha and Minneapolis/Saint Paul are the two big cities that have been hit. I asked the U.S. Attorney and the State Director in Minneapolis, when we were up there in Saint Paul at Congressman Kennedy's request, why we didn't see meth in the African American community. And he said because the traditional distribution methods are with cocaine in the major cities, and/or heroin; not meth.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But in one neighborhood in Minneapolis, one of the distribution groups moved over to meth. And in that area, in 3 months, 20 percent of the people arrested in that community—the whole community—were meth, because that one neighborhood switched over, because the local gang realized they could cut out the Colombians and just work with the Mexican superlabs with meth.
That's why I believe this is a potential epidemic that's going to destroy Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, and other cities, if it gets into the larger urban communities.
Even in my home town of Fort Wayne, which is 230,000, we have had one lab, and around it—we are fifth-largest in the nation, but it hasn't come into the city because the distribution network is cocaine and heroin.
Mr. FEENEY. Doctor? And by the way, could you address—I asked the question based on ethnic demographics, but I'd also be interested based on economic demographics. Are we largely talking about, you know, poor people? Or is this an exotic, you know, drug in the Wall Street and Hollywood——
Mr. LESTER. Sure you want to know? I can only speak from our ongoing NIH study. In that study, the places where we're doing this research are Oklahoma, Iowa, southern California, and Hawaii. And the demographics that we're seeing are pretty much what you described: very, very few black; mostly Caucasian and Hispanic.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We're looking into that because we don't, you know, quite understand it. What we've been hearing is that a lot of it is cultural; that for some reason, you know, cocaine seems to be—you know, cocaine seems to be confined to, you know, black, inner-city, poverty populations; and meth seems to just be more popular with—not so much strictly poverty, but a lot of blue-collar workers, a lot of, you know, farm people, factory workers. And not necessarily poor; it's working people.
Mr. FEENEY. Okay, Doctor. But what do you think of Mr. Souder's theory? He's got a very good control group of African Americans. His theory is that it's—based on the evidence that he's heard—is that the use disparity is because of the distribution networks; and once you infiltrate the distribution network of the traditional cocaine users, that the African American community—this problem will mushroom as well.
Mr. LESTER. We haven't seen that. What we've heard is that, for whatever cultural reasons, the inner-city African Americans don't like it. They just—they prefer cocaine.
Mr. FEENEY. Well, let's hope that's true. Finally, either for my good friend——
Mr. LESTER. Why would you hope that's true?
Mr. FEENEY.—Mr. Kennedy or Mr. Souder, on the 10th amendment issue, I have concerns about federalizing every crime. This doesn't actually add any new crimes; although it does lower some of the thresholds. Is that right?
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KENNEDY. It does lower the thresholds. Where we give the ability to add an additional penalty is when they're using these expedited entry programs coming in from Mexico; which is distinctly a Federal issue.
Mr. FEENEY. The import-export I have no problem with.
Mr. KENNEDY. So we want to make sure that we're keeping commerce going back and forth between Mexico and America, Canada and America. So when they use those sort of, you know, ''You're clean, we'll let you through quicker,'' and then bring meth in, we want them to have an extra penalty. And I think that is a Federal role.
Mr. FEENEY. I'm out of time. It's up to the Chairman, Dr. Lester.
Mr. COBLE. I didn't see the red light. The distinguished gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Lester, do I understand that you treat pregnant women that may be drug addicted with meth?
Mr. LESTER. Well, in Rhode Island, we don't have much meth; so mostly, we treat cocaine users. We are seeing some of the meth users in our other studies.
Mr. SCOTT. Well, in the other studies, I assume your interest is to reduce the drug use, just a straight—that's your interest. And in that interest, what is the medical protocol to reduce the drug use? Is it to turn the pregnant woman over to the police, or to start a prevention treatment protocol?
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LESTER. This is not a treatment study, so what we're doing is looking at the effects of prenatal methamphetamine exposure on the development of the children. So we're not providing treatment.
Mr. SCOTT. Well, what would be the protocol to deal with the problem?
Mr. LESTER. Well, the protocol that we would use would be the one that we're using in Rhode Island for the cocaine using mothers, which is our VIP program, where we identify the patients in the hospital, present the voluntary treatment part to them and lay out a treatment plan, and then develop a treatment plan and get them to sign up for it. And if they do, then they get to either keep their baby or, if the baby has already been removed, they get reunified.
Mr. SCOTT. But the focus with the goal of reducing drug use would be treatment, not incarceration?
Mr. LESTER. Oh, absolutely. No, I mean, the whole idea would be that if you can reduce the addiction, then you're going to reduce the need for drugs, right? And also, you know, since we work with children, our firm belief is that you would then prevent children from growing up in drug environments, and perhaps reduce the prevalence of drug users in the next generation.
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Mr. Rannazzisi, for 5 grams of crack cocaine you get 5 years mandatory minimum. To get the 5 years mandatory minimum, you've got to get up to 500 grams of powder. Is that right?
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, I believe that's correct; five and five, yes.
Mr. SCOTT. Is there any evidence that people use powder rather than crack cocaine because of the disparity in sentencing where you can get probation versus 5 years mandatory minimum?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. I don't necessarily if our users use the statutory minimums as a deterrent. I think it's their personal choice, whatever drug they want to use.
Mr. SCOTT. Right. And the fact that you can get probation for one or 5 years mandatory minimum doesn't really enter into the calculation. They're both illegal. So you did not reduce the incidence of crack use by having a draconian 5-year mandatory minimum sentence; did you?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. Putting it that way, I guess not.
Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Let me ask you another question. You were talking about 3 grams of meth to trigger the Federal mandatory minimums in this bill?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. I just briefly read the bill, and I believe that was 3 grams, yes.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SCOTT. Okay.
Mr. RANNAZZISI. Three-point-five.
Mr. SOUDER. It's intent to distribute; not for usage. Possession doesn't do it; it's intent to distribute.
Mr. SCOTT. Well, if you've got it and you've got friends, you pretty much can—have you got a problem, if you've got somebody with a requisite amount, busting them for distribution, if they've got friends and they kind of use it together?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. I believe that would be up to the U.S. attorney to make that decision.
Mr. SCOTT. How much is a weekend's worth of meth? How much does that cost, and how many grams is it? If somebody just wanted to get high over the weekend, how much would they be buying?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, that would be up to the user. You know, usually, they buy in grams or half-grams. It's usually three to five hits per gram. And it just depends. Remember, methamphetamine keeps you high, or keeps you up, a lot longer than cocaine does; so, you know, depending on the user, how long he's used it, he could be up for—you know, two or three hits could keep him up all day, maybe into the next day. It just depends on the user and the tolerance of the user for the drug.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SCOTT. For a user, 3 grams, how long would that last? I mean, would it be a month's worth?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. No, it wouldn't be a month's worth. Probably—probably, two, three, maybe 4 days, if he's a regular user, and if he's not sharing.
Mr. SCOTT. Wait a minute. Three grams would be a couple of days worth?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. Three, maybe 4 days, yes. It depends on how many hits he's taking. It depends on the amount he's using for one hit.
Mr. SCOTT. Well, we're just kind of getting a ball park figure to know what the trigger is for the mandatory minimums. My time is up. We're going to have another round, I believe. So, thank you.
Mr. COBLE. The distinguished gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters.
Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank our panelists for being here today, and my colleague, Mr. Souder, for his interest in this area.
I don't know if you know, Congressmen, about all that we've been through with crack cocaine and mandatory minimum sentencing. In addition to the mandatory minimum sentencing, the conspiracy laws that work hand-in-hand have jailed an awful lot of folks in the black community, a lot of women who happen to be the mates or girlfriends of guys who get caught up in possession and sale of crack cocaine.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What's troublesome about crack cocaine is young people, 19 years old, who have never committed a crime before, who come from good families, who—you know, at the wrong place, the wrong time, the wrong crowd—with 5 grams of crack cocaine, end up in prison under mandatory minimum sentencing laws. And of course, the number of years increases with the amount in possession. And these young people, once they do 5 years in Federal penitentiary, probably will never work again. It's hard to get their lives together. Mandatory minimum sentencing has been devastating on the African American community.
I hear questions being asked about, ''Why don't they use meth?'' It's kind of a strange question, and I'm trying to figure out what that means. But the fact of the matter is, we have gone through heroin, PCP, crack, now meth. And meth is being talked about as the most devastating drug in the Midwest, with the whites, I suppose, falling prey to this devastation.
The fact of the matter is, whether it is crack or meth, you know, we have a drug problem in America, and it's not going to be solved with mandatory minimum sentencing. As a matter of fact, we exacerbate poverty and family separation and devastation to communities with these kinds of penalties.
What we don't want to talk about is the cost of dealing with drug addiction and the fact that we need treatment programs and we need a bevy of people who are trained, social workers who are trained, to be assigned to families, to keep up with them while they complete their treatments and see them into mainstream.
But that's just too much for us to talk about. And even though you say that treatment is dealt with in other places where it's more appropriate and they have the jurisdiction, and you come here to talk about trying to do something on the criminal justice side, I submit to you that those of us who have been working with the Sentencing Commission and who have been working—I hold a workshop every year with the Congressional Black Caucus. And I have brought in hundreds of folks who have been the victims of mandatory minimum sentencing.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Judges don't like it. They hate it. I've written to every Federal judge who has responded, you know, ''It's a problem that Congress created for us, and you need to do something about it.''
So I can't in any way be helpful or supportive of anything that increases mandatory minimum sentencing. I'm very, very supportive of getting tough on superlabs, getting tough on incorrigible individuals who are intent on production—and I think there are some ways to do that—clearly identified as criminals.
But most of these young people, you're going to find, whether it's in Idaho or any of these other places, that end up in these parties or barns that go on all night with the use of meth, are not really criminals. And they need help, and they need treatment programs.
And if these young people end up in prison, with mandatory minimum sentencing—and you're reducing it from five to three—you're just creating another problem in our society for people who cannot get a job, cannot get student loans, cannot get section 8 programs. And they come back and they rob and they steal and they survive.
So I would ask you to look at this again, and rethink whether or not you want to deal with the mandatory minimum sentencing in this way. I think there's some room to deal with the precursors. I think there's some room to deal with the border. I mean, you know, come in here and talk to me about Vicente Fox, and what we're going to do with him and trade if they don't do something about transporting these drugs across the border from these superlabs in Mexico.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But to just, you know, talk about, you know, young people who use this meth and get high, going to penitentiary, does not do anything to make me believe that it's going to be helpful. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOHMERT. [Presiding.] Thank the gentlelady from California.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, may I briefly comment on what the bill says?
Mr. GOHMERT. Do you have any objections?
[No response.]
Mr. GOHMERT. All right, without objection, you may take 2 minutes.
Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. I appreciate the gentlelady's concern. This deals with distribution. I know Congressman Rangel, when he first did the crack cocaine mandatories, was trying to get ahead of the curve with it in New York City and elsewhere.
And you can argue about the power of crack, and whether that worked, but meth is different. The users are the cookers. We're talking here about home labs—home-type labs, not the crystal meth. And it's not kids. For the most part, this problem isn't kids. It's adults. And it is rural-wise, moving toward the suburban and urban areas.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. WATERS. Where is your empirical data on all of this?
Mr. SOUDER. Oh, it's documented through drug court data, through DEA data. If you go in the only cities where they've had meth for 10 years, like Honolulu, it has moved into the cities. And then it starts to look like any type of drug. But they're having—but what's different about a mom-and-pop lab is they're having to spend $300 to $400 in some apartment complexes to fumigate it, once it hits the city, because it endangers—the toxic chemicals endanger the next family coming in.
This is different than other types of drugs, and we have to understand it's going to take a different solution. I don't believe the solution here, personally, is more mandatory minimums for usage. I believe you do have to get into hardline positions on distribution and get control of this.
Ms. WATERS. But distribution is possession. So how much are you talking about in possession in order to trigger these reduced mandatory minimums?
Mr. SOUDER. It's also different than other drugs, because you do not get off easy, in the sense of you start with a light part—it's not something like marijuana, where you find casual users; or even crack or cocaine, where you find casual users; or heroin users, who can still function. Meth users tend to go straight down on a line, unless they go cold-turkey off it. It's different than other drugs.
Ms. WATERS. No, I want to tell you, we heard this about crack. It's supposed to be one hit, and you can never stop. So, you know, as each of these drugs are introduced into our public policy making, they're always described as one being more terrible than the other. They're all terrible.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SOUDER. Oh, I agree——
Ms. WATERS. They're all terrible.
Mr. GOHMERT. We've lost the organizational flow here. Did you yield? If you want to yield to the gentlelady from California, then that's how it would have to be, because it was your 2 minutes. But did you finish?
Mr. SOUDER. Yes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Okay, next—all right, then the chair yields 5 minutes to Mr. Scott.
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Mr. Rannazzisi, in manufacturing and distributing meth, how much of the price that the buyer pays is actual production cost, as opposed to distribution cost? Is it fair to say the cost of the product is de minimis in the overall transaction?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. I don't know, you're looking at $100—well, between $80 and $100 a gram, we'll say. Okay? Usually, the small labs are not making—you know, they're making an ounce. They're usually about a half-ounce, but they could make up to an ounce or two. It doesn't cost a lot to make the drug. Actually, it's very cheap to make the drug, extremely cheap to make the drug.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SCOTT. In the superlab, out of the $100, $80 to $100 you pay for the ounce, how much did they pay for product?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. You mean—I'm sorry, the gram. Eighty to $100 a gram.
Mr. SCOTT. Gram? Okay. Whatever—Okay, $80 to $100 a gram. How much of that went to the actual product cost?
Ms. WATERS. Five dollars.
Mr. SCOTT. Is it safe to say it's de minimis? I mean, it's meaningless.
Mr. RANNAZZISI. I wouldn't know. I wouldn't know to answer that question. It depends on how much they're paying for their materials, their raw materials.
Mr. SCOTT. Right.
Mr. RANNAZZISI. Exactly.
Mr. SCOTT. And the raw materials, in the overall cost of what you make, the overall cost of the materials would be essentially de minimis. I mean, the real stuff is the distribution, the risk of getting arrested, and all that. That's what you're paying for: distribution, not manufacturing. Is that right?
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Scott, I agree with this: on the superlabs, it's almost all distribution. On the mom-and-pop, the price varies so much by area, and whether they're selling to their friends. Sometimes they're just selling it to purchase more materials to make it.
Mr. SCOTT. And with the mom-and-pop, they don't have the—what do you have?—the savings in volume, because they've got to buy the equipment. And if they just make a couple of ounces, all of their equipment and setup is spread over just a few ounces. Whereas, the superlab, that same cost would be spread over pounds.
Mr. SOUDER. The other minimal thing that we've heard—we haven't had a lot of meth addicts who've testified, but in talking to some of them and having their testimony, they don't appear to be able to hold a job shortly after becoming addicted. It's a fairly downward cycle relatively rapidly. So they try to replace income for their car, sometimes their house payments, with the sale.
Mr. SCOTT. Now, we're aimed at true kingpins. And is it true that the low-level guy caught up in the conspiracy will get charged with the whole operation? So if you had a corner guy, just passing it, and it's a million-dollar operation, he will be charged with the whole million dollars; is that right?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. Again, that's up to the United States attorney that reviews the case.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SCOTT. Can he do it? He can do it; is that right?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. The U.S. attorney would make that decision. If he feels he has enough evidence to do that prosecution——
Mr. SCOTT. If he's got a multi-million-dollar operation, everybody in the operation is on the hook to the multi-million-dollar threshold; is that right?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. Again, if the evidence proves that a person is involved in the conspiracy and can be culpable for that amount, the U.S. attorney makes that decision.
Mr. SCOTT. Culpable in the distribution, in the operation—your little, low-level operator in a multi-million-dollar operation. The fact is that when they say, ''How much were you involved with?'' in terms for threshold purposes, it's the whole ball of wax, all of it. Everybody gets charged with all of it; isn't that right? Excuse me, may be charged, at the discretion of the U.S. attorney.
Mr. RANNAZZISI. At the discretion of the U.S. attorney.
Mr. SCOTT. Okay. So we know it's possible.
Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, it is possible.
Mr. SCOTT. In terms of the import quotas for the chemicals, who gets to set what the quota will be? How much actually gets in?
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, since this is new, I can only speak for what we do as far as controlled substances. As far as controlled substances go, raw materials, we look at the national consumption.
Mr. SCOTT. Wait, wait a minute. Who is ''we''?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. The Drug Enforcement Administration.
Mr. SCOTT. DEA?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes.
Mr. SCOTT. Not FDA?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. The Drug Enforcement Administration.
Mr. SCOTT. Okay. There are legitimate uses for these chemicals; is that right?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. Absolutely. Yes.
Mr. SCOTT. Now, I mean, suppose the drug manufacturers, the cold remedy people, want more. Who gets to decide whether or not they can import the stuff?
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, are we talking an aggregate quota? They would have to provide justification for importing more. They'd have to provide justification. As we're setting up a quota system, justification has to—they have to provide justification for us to determine what the quota amount will be. They just don't give us a figure and we say, ''Okay.'' There's got to be some justification.
Mr. SCOTT. Well, if I could, Mr. Chairman, is this quota——
Mr. GOHMERT. The Chair will yield an additional minute.
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Is this quota per transaction? I mean, you just kind of make it up as you go along? Or is there a national quota, that so much can come in? Or you kind of regulate it piece by piece? How would that work?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. I can only speak for controlled substances, but when we have raw material quotas on controlled substances, it changes year to year, depending on the legitimate need of the——
Mr. SCOTT. Is this an aggregate quota for the country?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. For the country, absolutely, yes.
Mr. SCOTT. Okay. And then who gets it? I mean, does Merck get it, and Eli Lily can't get it?
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RANNAZZISI. For controlled substances we take each individual company, each individual company that requests a need for a particular raw material. And when we look at all the companies together, that's how we determine the aggregate amount.
Mr. SCOTT. And does Merck get what you allocated to them? Suppose they say, ''Wait a minute, we can sell more than that''?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, every year a quota is made, so every year they have an opportunity to re-request additional quota amounts. And I believe in the system we've built in where, if a company does need additional amounts, we're able to grant that, in some cases.
Mr. SCOTT. And if they have a complaint, like they feel they weren't treated fairly, what remedy do they have?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. They would again apply to DEA, and it would go through our process of reconsideration.
Mr. SCOTT. And if DEA is obnoxious, what remedy do they have?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. I believe——
Mr. SCOTT. I mean, suppose——
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RANNAZZISI. I believe DEA is fairly——
Mr. SCOTT. No, suppose you've got two competing drug companies and you've allocated more to one than the other. I mean, can you go to court?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. It goes through the regulatory process. And there's a notice and comment period, and they can request a hearing.
Mr. SCOTT. And so when the DEA says, ''Merck, no, you can't get any more cold medicine,'' that's it?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, again, it goes through——
Mr. SCOTT. No remedy. Is there a remedy?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, I believe there is a remedy. I believe that's through the regulatory process, administrative process.
Mr. SCOTT. What about a lawsuit?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. I'm sure that—everybody, I think, has that opportunity to file a lawsuit, sir.
Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman's time has expired.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I did want to ask questions. I got in this afternoon. My district has been hit by Hurricane Rita, and we were already holding quite a few folks from Hurricane Katrina. But I did want to ask, I mean, Texas has been restricting the numbers of pseudoephedrine that an individual could get for some time now. And I wondered if there was any empirical data that had been gathered from States that had been restricting the purchases of pseudoephedrine for a while.
Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, the only full-year data set we have is from Oklahoma. And that was described in the interim report for the National Synthetic Drugs Action Plan Strategy. Oklahoma had approximately a 52 percent reduction, based upon their restrictions, which was a straight Schedule V restriction.
It was kind of like a hybrid Schedule V, because in Oklahoma you actually—there were three products—liquids, gel caps, and liquid gel caps—that aren't affected by that law, so they could be sold in the retail markets. Other than that, in Oklahoma Schedule V, they're sold in pharmacies only.
Now, there's other States, such as Oregon who went through the pharmacy board to create a regulation to make it similar to Schedule V. But if I'm not mistaken, the combination products—the single-entity products were Schedule V; the combination products were not—were kept in pharmacies only. The combination products were sold outside of the pharmacies. And I believe that was changed later on.
In Iowa, it's all Schedule V. Even if you have a trace amount of pseudoephedrine in the product, it's a Schedule V product.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So as you see, all the States are operating differently. Now, Oregon has shown a 42 percent reduction in the first 4 months of enactment, and that was in the interim——
Mr. GOHMERT. When you say 52 percent in Oklahoma and 42 percent in Oregon, reduction, in such a short turnaround, what is it? Fifty-two percent reduction in what?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. In lab seizures, clan lab seizures, a 52-percent reduction in clandestine lab seizures.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, sir.
Mr. SOUDER. When we first held a hearing, I had the Oklahoma program come forth when it was brand new. I was enthusiastic about this program. The fact is, Kansas doesn't have such a program. They have Meth Watch, and they also dropped. Indiana just did one that put it behind the counter, but not Schedule V, and guess what? Meth labs have dropped before the law was implemented.
The fact is that if you tackle this issue, and if you have a combined effort in the community—through law enforcement, through drug treatment, through prevention programs, through TV and newspaper awareness—it's a drug that's so bad that you can turn it around.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But over-reaction, which I believe is happening in some—Mr. Scott put it into the record. The Oregonian is reporting that they've had a rise now in meth in Oklahoma; only it's first coming in with the superlab stuff.
But the second thing is, we all know the biggest problem in drug trafficking is Internet. At least when it's going into a local pharmacy, you can kind of see where it's coming up. You can have the law enforcement come in, check it, figure out why a pharmacy is doing it. If these people start ordering on the Internet—and most of them will say they got the recipe on the Internet—if they start ordering from Mexico and Canada, we'll never find them. We won't have any control.
So what looks like a quick, short-term, 12- to 24-month solution, I would argue, is causing greater problems down the road. And I came through as an enthusiast for this initially. Maybe that's where we'll have to go if the epidemic gets too bad. But it's too quick of a political reaction to a complex, difficult, multi-level problem.
Mr. GOHMERT. I'd agree with you, except I do believe it is an epidemic. As a district judge in Texas, I was constantly sentencing people who were cooking or selling the results of the cooks. And of course, when it was a hot cook, well, that was a little easier to spot, because of the smell, and then when it went to the cold cook—of course, you could also find people after the explosions sometimes, in the hot cook. But the cold cook made it harder to catch them.
But for someone who is already on the record—because I've had to give my driver's license and everything else, just to get the Sudafed so I don't snore at night when I take the Sudafed and it opens up my sinuses—it's a real hassle to somebody that's law-abiding, plays by the rules. But I know those people that want it, they don't come in and turn their driver's license in like I did, and have all that stuff written down.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I wasn't sure, from the law enforcement I've worked with and was a judge for so many years and dealt with it, that making honest, law-abiding people like me go in and have to be restricted in what we can get, and also now have to give in your driver's license, that it really made that much difference to people that were determined to be criminal.
It is an epidemic. It does need additional enforcement. Of course, some of the testimony I heard, if your neighbor is mowing his lawn at 3 a.m., he's a suspect, even if you don't smell the cook or whatever. [Laughter.]
That came up in one trial I was trying. If your neighbor is mowing at three, you may want to let law enforcement know.
But anyway, I just hate to rush head-long into anything, if it may sound like a good quick fix, when overall it may not actually be what fixes the problem, to a multi-faceted problem.
Now, my time has expired, but if you'd care to address, any one of you?
Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, I just want to say that if you look at the States and what they've done, the States have tailored their legislation to their needs, what they feel their law enforcement needs. And it's all over the board.
We have some States that follow Federal legislation. We have some States, like Oklahoma and Iowa, that have gone to the extreme end. It's just a balance. We have to balance law enforcement needs with the legitimate consumer needs.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I didn't say one thing, though. If I'm not mistaken, Kansas was one of the States mentioned that was Meth Watch. I believe they went to a Schedule V, as well.
Mr. SCOTT. If I could ask one other question?
Mr. GOHMERT. The Chair yields to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SCOTT. Could you tell me how this bill would affect convenience stores and drug stores?
Mr. SOUDER. What roughly happens is, in Indiana, after it was originally proposed as a Schedule V—in a Schedule V, it's got to be in a pharmacy. And in small towns, the grocery stores don't have pharmacies. In fact, they're lucky if they have a grocery store or a pharmacy any more, because it can't make money. In Indiana, just going behind the counter, which means you have more and more behind the counter—you have lottery tickets, you have cigarettes, you have everything else—that they've restricted—the practical implementation in the last 30 days has been they've gone from 120 alternative cold medicines down to 20. They can't put them all behind the counter.
Furthermore, as it starts to ripple through, when you realize it's only—even in a State like Oklahoma, it's not in the big cities. And in States like Indiana, it's not in the mid-sized cities. So you're restricting everybody in the cities from their ability to get cold medicine because you have an epidemic outside. But if you don't, they merely go to the adjacent State. But if we restrict it at the States, they're going to go to Canada and Mexico and the Internet.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The problem is the reason—with the Meth Caucus tomorrow, we're having a roundtable summit. And my frustration with this Administration is it takes every angle. It takes a law enforcement angle. I'm proud of this bill, and I believe it's a compromise. But we're also having ADMHA there tomorrow, we're having NIDA there tomorrow, we need—the National Institute for Drug Abuse, the Alcohol and Mental Health and Drug Substance, ADMHA. We need to have them working on treatment programs.
We need to have the Safe and Drug Free School Program looking at how to get the kids themselves involved in this. We need to have our community programs talking about a community effort. We need to be looking at every agency and how, when this hits, to get ahead of the curve.
This is one we've seen march west to east, Hawaii to California, going to the Midwest, now in upstate Pennsylvania, in eastern North Carolina. It's coming. It's coming inside out. It hit Dayton for the first time last week. And so we need to get ahead of this comprehensively.
Mr. SCOTT. My question was what effect the bill would have on drug stores and convenience stores.
Mr. SOUDER. The bill has no—has minimal effect. It restricts the, basically, 48-count; gets rid of the blister packs; gets it into a manageable form; starts to track the wholesale spot market.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As Mr. Rannazzisi said, you look at this, and you're trying to get the places where there are bulges in the market addressed. We're trying to get the big amounts of pseudoephedrine coming into the United States.
Mr. SCOTT. Well, I mean, you've testified that you're trying—is this thing targeted? I mean, because it sounds like the bill would apply where there's no problem and it would create the administrative hassles whether there's a problem in the area or not. Is that true?
Mr. SOUDER. What started this discussion was Mr. Coble's question to me about Schedule V with my bill. This bill is silent.
Mr. SCOTT. Well, my question—I don't know what Mr. Coble's question was—was if you're running a convenience store or a drug store or a grocery store, what difference would the bill make?
Mr. SOUDER. Minimal. That's quantity sales.
Mr. SCOTT. Quantity?
Mr. SOUDER. For the individual retailer, all it does is reflect quantity sales at that store. He's restricted if somebody comes in with a big blister pack, wants more than 48 at a time, he's restricted. But it's not behind the counter; it's not at a pharmacy. We're going at the wholesale national level.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There is another bill moving that Senators Talent and Feinstein have done in the Senate, that Congressman Blunt has in the House, that could be married to this. And I was expressing my opinions and concerns about that bill. This bill is de minimis impact on an individual retailer, and de minimis impact on people in Virginia and other parts.
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Chairman, I'd like a letter, testimony from the American Council on Regulatory Compliance, in reference to the legislation, and one from—and the other letter that I've cited from, signed by 92 professionals, suggesting that we need to focus on prevention.
Mr. GOHMERT. If there is no objection.
[No response.]
Mr. GOHMERT. I don't hear any down at either end. Okay. Well, without objection, then, those will be entered into the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix.]
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you.
Mr. GOHMERT. Anything else?
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman?
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GOHMERT. Yes.
Mr. SOUDER. May I clarify one other thing from earlier? That we have a safety valve in this matter of sentencing. For people who aren't central to drug trafficking, it allows a sentence beneath the mandatory minimum. You can't be charged as a kingpin if you aren't the leader of the organization. That's different than conspiracy. So kingpin is statured slightly different than conspiracy. It also allows the sentence to be negotiated if you turn in the higher-level person.
Mr. GOHMERT. All right. And by the way, that 3 a.m. mowing, it actually came out in a capital murder case, because the whole ring was involved, and one of them they were afraid was a snitch, and she was killed and stuffed in a 55-gallon drum. But anyway, unpleasant stuff we're dealing with. And it is an epidemic, and we appreciate your attention to that.
I do thank the witnesses for their testimony. This Committee thanks you—or this Subcommittee. And we appreciate all you're trying to do to help with the epidemic and the problem.
And in order to ensure a full record and adequate consideration of this important issue, the record will be left open for additional submissions for 7 days. Also, any written questions that a Member wants to submit should be submitted within the same 7-day period.
This concludes the legislative hearing of H.R.3389 [sic], the ''Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act.'' I thank you for your cooperation. This Subcommittee stands adjourned.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Whereupon, at 5:31 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join you in convening this hearing on the ''Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act.'' Unfortunately, I am not able to join you in supporting the bill in its current form.
In the last 15 to 20 years, methamphetamine (Meth) abuse has grown to what some now refer to as epidemic proportions in parts of this country. We've been making efforts in the Congress for years to address the meth problem. The Subcommittee on Crime held 6 (six) field hearings on methamphetamine production, trafficking, and use in 1999, in Arkansas, California, New Mexico, and Kansas. Testimony was received from numerous witnesses, including former methamphetamine addicts, family members of the victims of methamphetamine related violence, law enforcement professionals, and prevention and addiction treatment professionals. Despite what we heard about the need for treatment and family support to get people out of meth's grip and back on track, the basic approach of the Congress has been to increase the number and severity of mandatory minimum sentences. Yet, the fact is that this approach clearly has not worked to stem the tide of meth and the fact that there is no evidence to suggest it ever will.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The evidence shows that treatment does work to stem meth addiction and abuse. Recently, in an open letter to the news media and policy makers, 92 researchers and treatment professionals stated that:
''Claims that methamphetamine users are virtually untreatable with small recovery rates lack foundation in medical research. Analysis of dropout, retention in treatment and reincarceration rates and other measures of outcome, in several recent studies indicate that methamphetamine users respond in an equivalent manner as individuals admitted for other drug abuse problems. Research also suggests the need to improve and expand treatment offered to methamphetamine users.''
Drug Courts have proven especially successful in the case of methamphetamine treatment as an alterative to the ''get tougher'' approach. The Orange County, California, Superior Court Drug Court Program is an example of a program that has effectively addressed the methamphetamine problem. This court requires a minimum of an 18-month treatment program in which the graduate must be drug free for 180 days, have a stable living arrangement, and be employed or enrolled in a vocational or academic program. This Drug Court has a 72 percent retention rate, with 80 percent of the graduates not being rearrested for drugs and 74 percent with no arrest for anything.
Nonetheless, time and again, Congress has responded to this serious problem primarily with more and harsher mandatory minimums. In the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Congress established a 5 year minimum for 10 grams of pure meth or 100 grams of meth mixture and a 10 year minimum for 100 grams of pure meth or 1 kilogram of meth mixture. In the 1990 Crime Control Act, Congress heightened sentencing for ''Ice'' a particular form of Meth. Then again in 1996, Congress responded to the still growing problem with even tougher mandatory minimums, by cutting in half the quantities of the pure controlled substance and mixture that would trigger the respective five and ten year mandatory minimums.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the meantime, as the epidemic has grown exponentially despite these ever-increasing punitive approaches by the Congress, states have taken a similar approach, enacting harsher and harsher penalties and putting more and more emphasis on law enforcement. Yet, they have had no more success than Congress with this approach. A recent series of articles in The Oregonian newspaper reflected the frustrating results of this approach in Oklahoma, and ask unanimous consent to place this article in the record. The article pointed out that while Oklahoma had great success in slashing the number of home meth labs through vigorous law enforcement, it failed to curb meth use. They found that in place of the local labs, a massive influx of meth made by Mexican ''superlabs,'' where tons of pseudoephedrine can be easily obtained, had come into their locale, and that it was cheaper and better quality than the locally made stuff.
Despite the clear evidence that increasing penalties does not stem the spread or impact of meth, and despite the evidence that treatment does significantly decrease the problem, the response in this bill, yet again, is to increase mandatory minimum sentencing, even more. This bill would further lower the threshold amount of meth that triggers harsh mandatory minimum sentences. The major problem with this approach is that it will actually make meth more available. This is because lowering the quantity threshold for triggering mandatory minimums will cause federal prosecutors to concentrate even more on low-level offenders that are now being left to the states to prosecute. This will simply mean that we will be sentencing the same low level offenders to longer sentences, including those who are tied in through conspiracy and attempt laws which punish bit players the same as kingpins. This is what we have seen with the so-called crack epidemic, where we are seeing that over 2/3 of those sentenced for crack offenses are low levl offenders, generally addicts dealing to supply their habit. And now, her we go, in the words of Yogi Berra, with ''de ja vue all over again.''
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, Mr. Chairman, I look for word to the testimony of our witnesses with the hope that they will enlighten us on proven ways to stem this problem, rather than simply doing what we always do—put more low level addicts in prison longer, while the problem rages on. Thank you.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF FREDA S. BAKER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES, ALABAMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
FSB0001.eps
FSB0002.eps
FSB0003.eps
FSB0004.eps
FSB0005.eps
FSB0006.eps
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAURA J. BIRKMEYER, CHAIR, NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR DRUG ENDANGERED CHILDREN, AND EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
LJB0001.eps
LJB0002.eps
LJB0003.eps
LJB0004.eps
LJB0005.eps
LJB0006.eps
LJB0007.eps
PUBLICATION ENTITLED ''THE METH EPIDEMIC IN AMERICA, TWO SURVEYS OF U.S. COUNTIES: THE CRIMINAL EFFECT OF METH ON COMMUNITIES, THE IMPACT OF METH ON CHILDREN, SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATINO OF COUNTIES (NACO)
NACO0001.eps
NACO0002.eps
NACO0003.eps
NACO0004.eps
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NACO0005.eps
NACO0006.eps
NACO0007.eps
NACO0008.eps
NACO0009.eps
NACO0010.eps
NACO0011.eps
NACO0012.eps
LETTER FROM A. BRADFORD CARD, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, NATIONAL TROOPERS COALITION TO THE HONORABLE MARK SOUDER AND THE HONORABLE ELIJAH CUMMINGS
LETTER FROM DONALD BALDWIN, WASHINGTON DIRECTOR, FEDERAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS ASSOCIATION TO THE HONORABLE HOWARD COBLE
LETTER FROM CHUCK CANTERBURY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, GRAND LODGE, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE (FOP) TO THE HONORABLE MARK SOUDER
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
LETTER FROM WILLIAM J. JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ORGANIZATIONS, INC.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE THERAPEUTIC COMMUNITIES OF AMERICA (TCA)
Therapeutic Communities of America respectfully requests that this written statement become part of the official record for the hearing held before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on September 27, 2005 on H.R. 3889, the Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act. TCA commends the Chairman and the Committee for their leadership in holding a hearing on this important issue.
METHAMPHETAMINE AND THERAPEUTIC COMMUNITIES
Therapeutic Communities of America (TCA), founded in 1975 as a non-profit membership association, represents over 500 community-based non-profit programs across the country dedicated to serving individuals with substance abuse and co-occurring mental health problems. Members of TCA are predominately publicly funded through numerous federal, State, and local programs across multiple agency jurisdictions.
TREATING METHAMPHETAMINE ADDICTION
Therapeutic communities have been successful in helping many addicted individuals, often thought to be beyond recovery, secure a way out of self-destructive behavior. There is a misunderstanding, mentioned several times during the hearing, that methamphetamine addiction cannot be treated. Methamphetamine can and is being treated successfully, both in TCA member programs and by other treatment providers.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Historically, therapeutic communities have been extremely effective at adapting their programs to provide effective treatment as drug use trends change, and in this respect, the current methamphetamine epidemic is no different. Therapeutic communities and other treatment providers have found success in creating special protocols to deal with the unique challenges that methamphetamine addicts present, while treating them with the general population of patients addicted to other drugs of choice. No less than Dr. Nora Volkow, the Director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse, has noted that ''methamphetamine addiction can be treated successfully using currently available behavioral treatments.''
Counselors at several TCA member therapeutic communities that treat a high volume of meth users have recorded long-term abstinence rates for their patients of between 30–50%. These numbers are not much different from typical long-term abstinence rates for treating alcohol and other drugs. In the words of a clinician from a TCA member program, ''Overall success rates have been the same or better in our programs after the meth wave came as compared to before. Meth users initially experience some cognitive deficits, but otherwise there is not much of a difference between them and other users.''
TCA RECOMMENDATIONS
While TCA strongly commends H.R. 3889's focus on methamphetamine abuse, we believe that this bill could be greatly strengthened with provisions providing for methamphetamine treatment funds. The 2002 National Survey on Drug Abuse and Health Report stated that only 18.2 percent of all Americans over the age of 12 needing treatment actually received it. Along with enhanced law enforcement capabilities and interdiction efforts, evidence-based treatment services provide a valuable tool in fighting the growing methamphetamine epidemic. Treatment funds are especially crucial because of the nature of the meth epidemic—the drug is mostly present in rural communities, where evidenced-based treatment services tend to be scarce or limited.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TCA also recommends that H.R. 3889 include a component that encourages NIDA to undertake further research on effective modalities for treating methamphetamine addiction. Lastly, TCA respectfully requests that the Committee recognize the benefits of treatment as part of the solution to eradicating the methamphetamine epidemic from our communities, and strongly encourages the Judiciary Committee to work with the relevant committees with jurisdiction over substance abuse treatment to add provisions that support treatment to this important piece of legislation.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE (FMI)
INTRODUCTION
The Food Marketing Institute (FMI), on behalf of the nation's supermarkets and grocery stores, appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security in response to the issue of methamphetamine abuse in the United States and legislation that is designed to combat the problem.
By way of background, FMI is a national trade association that conducts programs in research, education, industry relations and public affairs on behalf of its 1,500 member companies—food retailers and wholesalers—in the United States and around the world. FMI's members operate approximately 26,000 retail food stores with combined annual sales of $340 billion—three quarters of all food retail store sales in the United States. FMI's retail membership is composed of large multi-state chains, regional companies and independent grocery stores. Our international membership includes some 200 companies from 50 foreign countries.
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As reflected in our testimony presented by Joseph R. Heerens, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Marsh Supermarkets, Inc., before the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources on November 18, 2004, the supermarket industry fully understands the magnitude of the methamphetamine problem here in America, and we also recognize the sad fact that legitimate cough and cold products containing the ingredient pseudoephedrine (PSE) are used to make methamphetamine.
According to law enforcement sources, legitimate PSE products either purchased or stolen from retail stores account for approximately 20 percent of methamphetamine that is made domestically here in the United States, whereas the lion's share of meth found in this country, an estimated 80 percent, comes from foreign sources, primarily super labs located in Mexico. Thus, it is FMI's view that to effectively address the methamphetamine problem we need a comprehensive strategy and partnership between law enforcement, regulatory agencies, OTC manufacturers and the retail community.
SCHEDULE V—SUPERMARKET CONCERNS
The supermarket industry has serious concerns and misgivings over recent initiatives that have been enacted into law at the state level and pending federal legislation (S. 103-H.R. 314) that impose stringent controls on precursor chemicals at the retail level. We are referring to what is called the Oklahoma model that relegates PSE products to Schedule V status. Under this approach, only retail stores that have a pharmacy department are allowed to sell these OTC medications, and these items must be kept behind the pharmacy counter.
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Without question, Schedule V is very troublesome to our industry. That's because an overwhelming majority of grocery stores doing business in the United States don't have a pharmacy department and would be precluded from selling PSE products. For those supermarkets that do have a pharmacy department, store hours are quite different from hours of operation in the pharmacy department. For example, while supermarkets may be opened from 7:00 am to 11:00 pm, the pharmacy department operates on an abbreviated schedule and may only be open from 9:00 am to 9:00 pm weeks days, 9:00 am to 7:00 pm on Saturday and 11:00 am to 5:00 pm on Sundays. Thus, even though the grocery store is open for business, if the pharmacy department is not open, or if the pharmacist is not on duty, PSE product sales would not be permitted.
IMPACT ON CONSUMERS
The end result under the rigid Schedule V approach is a dramatic reduction in consumer access to cough and cold medications depending upon whether their local grocery store has a pharmacy department and what hours the pharmacy department is opened on a particular day. For consumers living in rural areas or in inner city communities, Schedule V can create major hardships if the nearest pharmacy is 15 to 20 miles from their home or if the person is elderly or poor and would have to rely on public transportation in order to get to a pharmacy to purchase PSE products.
FMI along with the National Consumers League (NCL) gauged consumer opinion and views on sales restrictions of PSE products in a national survey that was released in April of 2005. What the FMI-NCL survey found is rather revealing. Forty four percent of the 2,900 adult survey respondents felt that Schedule V would create a hardship for them, while 62 percent said they did not believe that restricting sales of PSE products to pharmacies is a reasonable measure for controlling meth production. In stark contrast, the survey respondents were far more receptive to less severe restrictions to Schedule V, such as placing cough cold and allergy products behind a counter, not a pharmacy counter, or placing them in a locked display case. Additionally, more than 80 percent of the survey participants expressed support for limiting the quantity of such products that individuals can purchase, and 74 percent said it would be reasonable to restrict the age of purchasers.
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For the above mentioned reasons, FMI and our members cannot support a Schedule V classification for cough and cold products containing pseudoephedrine. Schedule V clearly poses significant problems for consumers who have legitimate needs for these medications to treat their allergies, coughs and colds. Schedule V means reduced consumer access and hardship because their nearby grocery store, which they visit 2.2 times per week, won't be allowed to sell these items. FMI further suspects that Schedule V may mean higher prices as PSE products move from self-service to behind the pharmacy counter, where the pharmacist, a highly salaried professional, will be required to ask for photo identification and have the customer sign a log book. While our industry applauds the hard work of the law enforcement community in their efforts against the methamphetamine plague, we do not believe Schedule V is the right solution.
COMBAT METH ACT OF 2005 IS FLAWED
In terms of pending federal legislation, the Combat Meth Act of 2005 (S. 103) approved by the Senate on September 9, 2005, as part of the FY 2006 Commerce/Justice Appropriations, FMI firmly believes that this proposal is both deficient and flawed, and in need of significant revisions. The following are the deficiencies and flaws that we see in this legislation:
S. 103 fails to provide for a national standard governing the sale of PSE products. Methamphetamine is a nationwide problem that necessitates a national solution. Regrettably, S. 103 allows states and well as localities to establish different restrictions on the sale of PSE products, making compliance by retailers more difficult and complicated.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Combat Meth Act of 2005 does not exempt liquids and gel caps even though every state Schedule V law regulating the sale of PSE products exempts liquids and gel caps.
Unless the Combat Meth Act of 2005 is amended, it will trigger a ''by prescription only'' requirement in as many as 19 states. This would mean consumers would have to get a prescription from their doctor in order to purchase PSE products. As a result, a product that normally sells for about $6.00 at retail will now cost close to $60 when you factor in the physician office visit charge.
Moreover, the Schedule V provisions in S. 103 will force grocery warehouses and distribution centers that handle PSE products to apply for a Controlled Substances Registrant license from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). This will entail higher licensing fees and new regulatory burdens for these facilities. Imposing Schedule V requirements and costs on warehouses and distribution centers makes no sense since these facilities are not a source of supply for meth cooks.
S. 103 is too narrow. It only addresses 20 percent of the problem in terms of domestic meth production resulting from PSE products that have been obtained or stolen from retail stores. S. 103 does nothing to address 80 percent of methamphetamine that finds its way into the United States from foreign countries.
The Combat Meth Act of 2005 dramatically and unfairly reduces consumer access to cough and cold products by limiting their sale to stores that have a pharmacy. PSE products would have to be placed behind a pharmacy counter. Moreover, due to space limitations in the pharmacy, retailers will not be able to carry and offer for sale the wide variety of PSE medications that consumers want or need, and because these products will be behind the pharmacy counter, consumers will no longer have the opportunity read and compare product labels.
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Combat Meth Act of 2005 limits purchasers to no more than 7.5 grams within a 30-day period. This arbitrary limit may be unfair to a family with allergy problems or a parent with several sick children who has a legitimate need for more than 7.5 grams within a 30-day period.
S. 103 is cavalier in its treatment of internet sales and flea markets. The legislation allows but does not require the Attorney General to promulgate regulations governing the sale of PSE products over the Internet. Furthermore, S. 103 has no provisions relating to flea markets which routinely sell PSE products that in most cases have been stolen from retail stores by organized theft gangs. Flea markets should be precluded from selling PSE products unless these transient vendors have written authorization or appropriate business records from the manufacturer.
S. 103 allows stores without a pharmacy department to sell PSE products under very limited circumstances. The exemption process is so complicated and convoluted involving both state and federal agencies. It is our view that very few exemptions will be granted and they will not be granted in a timely fashion.
The implementation dates for Schedule V are unrealistic. For example, single ingredient PSE products would be placed in Schedule V 90-days after enactment and retailers would be required to maintain a log book. It is highly unlikely that the Department of Justice (DOJ) would be able to promulgate necessary regulations in 90-days to tell retailers how to comply with the law.
FMI SUPPORTS METH EPIDEMIC ELIMINATION ACT
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
FMI wishes to express our industry's support for the Meth Epidemic Elimination Act (H. R. 3889) that has been introduced by Representatives James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Mark Souder (R-IN), Chairman Howard Coble (R-NC) and Roy Blunt (R-MO). Unlike the narrow focus of the Combat Meth Act of 2005, this initiative seeks to address the methamphetamine problem in a comprehensive manner. The legislation is multi-faceted with provisions that would establish domestic as well as international regulation of precursor chemicals while providing for more severe penalties for methamphetamine production, possession or trafficking.
In expressing our industry's support for the Meth Epidemic Elimination Act, we would urge the Subcommittee to make the following changes:
Amend the bill to include strong federal pre-emption language governing the sale the PSE products in order to facilitate retailer compliance, or at the very least prohibit local communities from implementing restrictions that are different from sales restrictions that have been established by a state.
Revise the legislation from a 3.6 gram per single transaction to 6 grams per transaction.
Establish a ban on Internet sales of precursor chemicals.
Prohibit flea markets from selling PSE products as well as infant formula unless these transient vendors have written authorization from the manufacturer.
FMI, on behalf of the nation's supermarket, appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony on this important issue to the Subcommittee.
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
The American Council on Regulatory Compliance is an association especially established for small and mid-size manufacturers, distributors and retailers of over-the-counter medicines and preparations containing List I chemicals that are regulated by the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Although this constitutes a very diverse group of businesses both in size and activity, they nevertheless share certain common regulatory concerns by virtue of distributing these products.
Although many such businesses may be members of other associations, no one single association addresses this situation in depth. The commerce in these registered products serves the legitimate requirements of millions of consumers. The American Council on Regulatory Compliance and its members recognize and accept the importance of regulating these products in order to assure proper use. They support the state and federal government, and particularly the US Drug Enforcement Administration in this important effort. Although this effort involves concerns and continually changing issues to the business community, it is essential that government and business establish the maximum level of cooperation and communication.
THE ACRC COOPERATES WITH CONGRESS AND FEDERAL AGENCIES
The American Council on Regulatory Compliance is dedicated to cooperating with the U.S. Congress, Federal regulatory and law enforcement agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration, State and Local Authorities, and other organizations to help prevent illegitimate use.
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The ACRC encourages all members to improve training and compliance activities and to establish constructive partnerships at all levels of government. The association supports the following initiatives:
(1) Compliance training for Members;
(2) Assisting with education and compliance at the retail level;
(3) Developing security and record keeping models;
(4) Implementing a system for screening orders and monitoring sales.
(5) Promote understanding of laws and regulations.
''METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC ELIMINATION ACT''
The ACRC supports the overall thrust and spirit of H.R. 3889 and believes that it addresses a major problem of illicit Methamphetamine use through import controls and increasing penalties for the illicit production of Methamphetamine. However, there are provisions of the bill that could be modified to improve and clarify the legislation.
Current law, Title 21, United States Code (21 USC), Section 971 (c) (1), allows the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to disqualify customers of a List I Chemical Importer, if the List I Chemical may be diverted to the clandestine manufacture of Controlled Substances. This is achieved by providing written notice to the Importer. After the Importer has given notice of their intent to import, they are not permitted to continue the transaction. The Importer registrant is then entitled, by written request, pursuant to 21 USC 971(c) (2) to an administrative hearing within 45 (forty-five) days, to challenge the DEA's allegations.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Currently, the law specifies that a challenge can only be made by whom the order applies. Thus, there is a dispute as to whether the wholesaler or downstream customer of the Importer can challenge DEA's allegations against them. Heretofore, DEA, with the exception of situations in which they have been challenged in District Court, have not given ''standing'' to customers of the Importers. The new legislation language codifies DEA's position of not giving ''standing'' to customers of the Importer. This procedure, and the current approach taken by DEA, does not give the right of the accused to face their accuser in an administrative hearing to challenge the DEA allegations. The limited times, it seems, that DEA has been challenged by the downstream customer, in lieu of the Importer registrant, appears to the outsider, to have been mired in court actions, appeals and continued objections by DEA.
Section 104 of H.R. 3889 (lines 6 through 10) seeks to place ephedrine (EPH),
Pseudoephedrine (PSE) and Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) within the same statute that currently applies to Schedule III-V Narcotic Controlled Substances. (This could be modified to apply to the creation of a special statute section for the listed chemicals PSE, EPH and PPA.)
The significant questions posed by the provisions of H.R. 3889 are:
Under what criteria will imported quantities of EPH, PSE and PPA be determined?
Who will decide the legitimate use in the U.S. for PSE, EPH and PPA—DEA or FDA?
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Will convenience stores, which DEA classifies as ''gray market'' distributors, be entitled to continue dispensing products that contain PSE, EPH and PPA?
Will retail restrictions be used by DEA to tabulate retail quantities to limit imports?
The proposed legislation in lines 15–26 on page 7 and continued in lines 1–20 on page 8 address only the right of Importers to have legal standing. It does not address the needs of downstream customers of the Importer registrants. If the Importer wishes not to challenge the downstream customer, i.e. distributor or retailer, his customer has no ''standing''.
Section 105 defines the conditions by which an Importer registrant must adhere, if their initial customer does not purchase the import they originally requested. This language subjects the new customer, if any, to the aforementioned scrutiny of possible denial, again based upon only a challenge by the Importer registrant.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We do not dispute the need to control the Importation of Listed Chemicals, especially
with majority of the problem being illegal importation. However, the downstream customers of Importer registrants have no legal standing to challenge DEA's allegations they are using listed chemicals PSE, EPH and PPA illegitimately ''on the grounds that the listed chemical may be diverted to the illegal or clandestine manufacture of a controlled substance''. DEA has long held the opinion that convenience stores selling cold remedies containing EPH, or EPH are not legitimate retail distributors (''gray market'').
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If not modified, certain provisions of this bill could be construed to limit sales of legitimate cold remedies to small stores by arbitrarily limiting imports to Distributor registrants that sell to small retail establishments. In many administrative hearings, DEA has used past retail sales history of cold products as evidence that the store is engaged in the illegal diversion of pseudoephedrine, even if the store increases retail sales in a legal manner.
Recent enactments of state law also pose a problem. Liquid gel cap forms of listed chemical drug products that have been exempted from Schedule V requirements under state law could be cumulatively aggregated together in import quotas and applied against small retail distributors. In such a case, retail establishments would not have standing to protest arbitrary restrictions of their supply of medications.
PROPOSED REVISIONS
1. EPH, PSE and PPA should not be subjected to the same statutory scrutiny as controlled drugs in Schedule III-V Narcotics for purposes of importation as proposed on page 7. There is sufficient legislation currently in place under the provisions of 21 USC, Section 971 that govern imports of listed chemicals.
2. Under the provisions of the proposed new section (d)(1) there are no rights given to a registrant (distributor) or business exempted from registration (convenience store). The only rights are given to the Importer registrant to object to DEA's denial. Importer registrants will be persuaded not to object to challenges, as they are now, for future considerations in the marketplace.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
3. Title 21, Section 971 should be amended in all proper places, by the insertion of language to expand the rights of the customer of the Importer registrant, which are the distributor, dispenser or business exempt from registration (retail stores not registered as a pharmacy). All rights of the customers of the Importer registrant should be delineated, to provide for the expectations of all registrants to be permitted to face their accuser.
ARTICLE ENTITLED ''THE MEXICAN CONNECTION,'' STEVE SUO, JUNE 5, 2005, THE OREGONIAN, submitted by the Honorable Robert C. Scott
ArtA0001.eps
ArtA0002.eps
ArtA0003.eps
ArtA0004.eps
ArtA0005.eps
ArtA0006.eps
ArtA0007.eps
ArtA0008.eps
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ArtA0009.eps
ArtA0010.eps
ARTICLE ENTITLED ''MORE POTENT SUPPLY OF METH WIPES OUT SUCCESS AGAINST HOME LABS,'' STEVE SUO, SEPTEMBER 25, 2005, THE OREGONIAN, submitted by the Honorable Robert C. Scott
ArtB0001.eps
ArtB0002.eps
ArtB0003.eps
ArtB0004.eps
ArtB0005.eps
LETTER FROM VARIOUS MEDICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCHERS TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE
DCL0001.eps
DCL0002.eps
DCL0003.eps
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DCL0004.eps
DCL0005.eps
DCL0006.eps
DCL0007.eps
ADDITINOAL PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. BARRY M. LESTER, PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRY & HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND PEDIATRICS, BROWN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL SCHOOL
Chairman Coble, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Scott, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3889, the Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act.
We are in a similar situation today with methamphetamine as we were 20 years ago during the cocaine epidemic. During that time, there was legitimate concern for the welfare of children exposed to cocaine in the womb. But based on insufficient and inaccurate information, society rushed to judgment—an over-reaction that had negative consequences for women and children (1). Many women were prosecuted and children were removed from their birth mothers. Families split up. As a result, by the mid 1990s, the number of children in foster care reached an all-time high of over 500,000. Many of these children suffered emotional problems from multiple foster care placements. This lead to the 1997 passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, or ASFA, requiring permanent placement of a child within 12 months of being removed from his or her birth mother. Unfortunately, ASFA has been counterproductive for families who could easily be reunited if they had access to appropriate drug treatment and/or if they were not in jail for drug related offenses.
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
After 20 years of research, we learned that the effects of cocaine are not nearly as severe as initially feared (2). In fact, when factors like other drugs and poverty are controlled, the effects are subtle—IQ lowered by 3 to 4 points, a slight increase in behavior or attention problems. These effects are similar to those caused by cigarette smoking during pregnancy. Scientists also learned that while there are most definitely drug users who are inadequate mothers, there are also drug users who are competent mothers who, with treatment, can care for their children. Families can be preserved.
We also learned that the ''cure'' of foster care can be worse than the disease of addiction. University of Florida researchers (3) studied two groups of infants born with cocaine in their systems. One group was placed in foster care, the other with birth mothers able to care for them. After six months, the babies were tested using all the usual measures of infant development: rolling over, sitting up, reaching out. Consistently, the children placed with their birth mothers did better. For the foster children, being taken from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine.
It is extremely difficult to take a swing at ''bad mothers'' without the blow landing on their children. That doesn't mean we can simply leave children with addicts—it does mean that drug treatment for the parent is almost always a better first choice than foster care for the child.
Our understanding of addiction has also changed in two decades. We know more about addiction as a disease—a medical condition that can be treated. Addiction is a complex disease with multiple mental health co-morbidities; Women who use drugs also tend to be depressed and anxious and may have even more severe mental health problems. So the bad news: Addiction is complex. The good news: Addiction is treatable. We can reduce the problem of drug addiction in this country. I don't see treatment addressed in this legislation.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We learned some hard lessons since the cocaine story unfolded. I am concerned that we are on the verge of making the same mistakes with methamphetamine that we made with cocaine, as suggested by sensational media coverage, the absence of federal treatment dollars—and the punitive nature of this bill.
Methamphetamine is a stimulant like cocaine and produces similar effects on neurotransmitters in the brain. Research on the effects of prenatal methamphetamine exposure on child outcome is just beginning (4). The National Toxicology Program, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR), Expert Panel Report of 2005 on meth concluded that
in terms of the potential adverse reproductive and developmental effects of meth exposure, that ''studies that focused upon humans were uninterpretable due to such factors as a lack of control of potential confounding factors and the issue of the purity and contaminants of the methamphetamine used by the drug abusers.
To my knowledge, my current research into the prenatal effects of methamphetamine is the only such project funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIDA). Children in our study are still infants. So we can't measure all the effects of this drug. But, so far, we are seeing the same kind of subtle changes with methamphetamine that we saw with cocaine (5). Again—to put this in context—not very different than what you'd see with cigarette smoking.
In a recent open letter (attached), more than 90 medical and psychological researchers, with many years of experience studying prenatal exposure to psychoactive substances, outlined the science in this area.
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The use of stigmatizing terms, such as ''ice babies'' and ''meth babies,'' lack scientific validity and should not be used. Experience with similar labels applied to children exposed parentally to cocaine demonstrates that such labels harm the children to which they are applied, lowering expectations for their academic and life achievements, discouraging investigation into other causes for physical and social problems the child might encounter, and leading to policies that ignore factors, including poverty, that may play a much more significant role in their lives. The suggestion that treatment will not work for people dependant upon methamphetamines, particularly mothers, also lacks any scientific basis.
Does this mean that methamphetamine is harmless? Is it acceptable for women to use meth during pregnancy? Of course not. And we know from previous research—including research with cocaine-using mothers—that even small neurobehavioral effects can turn to larger deficits if the parenting environment is not adequate. And, it is also possible that there are drug effects that don't show up until children get to school and higher-level brain functions get activated.
In terms of treatment, even a cursory examination of the data shows that methamphetamine is not uniquely addictive, and that methamphetamine abuse is treatable. The federal government's most recent National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that 4.9% of Americans have used methamphetamine at some point in their life. Only .6%, however, have used it within the last year, and only .2% have used it within the last month. Most people who use methamphetamine do not become addicted and those who do become addicted can be treated. The recent open letter by dozens of leading researchers notes:
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
claims that methamphetamine users are virtually untreatable with small recovery rates lack foundation in medical research. Analysis of dropout, retention in treatment and reincarceration rates and other measures of outcome, in several recent studies indicate that methamphetamine users respond in an equivalent manner as individuals admitted for other drug abuse problems. Research also suggests the need to improve and expand treatment offered to methamphetamine users.
Disturbingly, this bill would lower the trigger thresholds for long mandatory minimum sentences to amounts that methamphetamine addicts typically possess. It seems designed to ensure that Americans with substance abuse problems get long prison sentences instead of treatment. What we need is a balanced approach—one that will attack the root causes of drug addiction. Sending more people to prison for longer periods of time is not the answer. We know enough now to fight addiction with treatment and do much more to keep many families safely together.
Here are some specific suggestions:
Develop a national consensus on how to deal with maternal drug use that draws on current research and tested treatment strategies—and demonstrates a fair and unbiased attitude towards drug-addicted women and their children.
Urge states to enact legislation protecting mothers who voluntarily seek drug treatment from having their children taken away. Many mothers who want treatment are afraid to come forward out of fear they will lose their children.
Improve access to treatment and develop coordinated treatment programs with interconnected services based on the needs of women, mothers and children. Models of methamphetamine treatment are based on adult male models. Few are designed to meet the specific needs of women, pregnant women or mothers. For example, we know from the cocaine experience that it does no good to tell a poor mother with four kids in tow that she has six different appointments in six different locations without providing transportation or baby-sitting.
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Enact a federal grant program that encourages states to develop treatment programs for women.and families
Develop systemic prevention efforts. This includes education to prevent onset or continuation of drug use as well as treatment to prevent future problems due to drug use.
Develop Family Treatment Drug Courts with the goal of keeping custody or reunification whenever possible. Drug Courts are a way providing a ''treatment with teeth'' approach that includes rewards for compliance with treatment and sanctions for noncompliance with treatment. In Rhode Island, we have a program called VIP (Vulnerable Infants Program) which includes a Family Treatment Drug Court (FTDC). Vulnerable is meant to imply that these children are somewhat fragile but not damaged and of course they are Very Important People. This is a voluntary ''treatment with teeth'' program that has been successful. We have reduced the length of stay of drug-exposed babies in the hospital, increased the number of infants who are going home with their biological mothers (hence reducing the number in foster care) and increased the number of children being reunified with their birth mothers. We should consider waiving punishment for clients who agree to and comply with treatment.
Sacramento County, California has pulled all of these strategies together into a comprehensive, effective system for coping with meth addiction and keeping families safely together. As a program planner for child protective services in that county recently told the authoritative trade journal Youth Today:
We've got big meth issues in Sacramento County, but they're not paralyzing anybody.
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Enact legislation prohibiting health facilities that receive federal funds from denying treatment to patients with addition and dependency disorders because they have relapsed and manifested the disease they are fighting. Many people with diabetes cheat—use sugar, fail to stay on their diets yet they are not denied insulin, thrown out of their treatment program, and disconnected from the health care that can eventually help them to control their disease. Similarly people with hypertension who eat fatty foods and fail to exercise are not thrown out of their treatment programs and do not have their blood pressure medication taken away from them. Congress could significantly improve health care and chances for long-term recovery by ending this unique form of discrimination.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the focus of H.R. 3889 is to ''further regulate and punish illicit conduct relating to methamphetamine'' and that other companion bills may address the treatment and other research issues raised in my testimony. However, I would ask that the official hearing record include a copy of the Final Report of the Methamphetamine Interagency Task Force http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/methintf/ as an existing comprehensive strategy aimed at blending both criminal justice and public health approaches to reducing methamphetamine use. While this Report originated in a previous Administration, most if not all of the guiding principles, findings, recommendations, and research priorities are still relevant and may save Congress and the current Administration from reinventing the wheel.
Specifically, I'm sure that the scientific community would endorse the panoply of prevention, education and treatment initiatives outlined in the report. I would give special emphasis to the following: (1) Increasing treatment capacities in correctional facilities; (2) conducting research on which treatment models work best in prison, in drug court and in the community; (3) increasing research on medications development and other treatments for meth, and (4) conducting research on the effects of meth on pregnant women, treatment of exposed infants and (5) evaluation of treatment programs for children and adolescents.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Additionally, I would appreciate it if you would include the attached update highlighting NIDA research on methamphetamine addiction.
In sum, we have made tremendous strides in 20 years when it comes to understanding drug addiction and treatment. We have the opportunity to keep families together today in ways that were not possible only a few years ago. I am very optimistic about our ability to reduce addiction and save future generations of children through treatment. It would be not only a missed opportunity, but a major step backward, to put all of our eggs in the punishment basket.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today. I would be happy to answer any questions.
REFERENCES
1. Lester, B.M., Andreozzi, L., Appiah, L. Substance Use During Pregnancy: Time For Policy To Catch up With Research. Harm Reduction Journal, 2004 Apr 20;1(1):5.
2. Lester, B. M., LaGasse, L. L., and Seifer, R. Cocaine exposure and children: The meaning of subtle effects. Science. 1998;282:633–634
3. Wobie, K., Behnke, M., et. al., To Have and To Hold: A Descriptive Study of Custody Status Following Prenatal Exposure to Cocaine, paper presented at joint annual meeting of the American Pediatric Society and the Society for Pediatric Research, May 3, 1998.
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
4. Wouldes, T., LaGasse, L., Sheridan, J., Lester, B. Maternal Methamphetamine Use During Pregnancy and Child Outcome: What Do We Know? N Z Med J. Nov 26;117(1206):U1180, 2004.
5. Lester, B., LaGasse, L, Smith, L. M., Derauf, C., Grant, P., Shah, R., Arria, A., Huestis, M., ann Liu, J. Prenatal exposure to methamphetamine and child development. Proceedings of the Community Epidemiology Work Group. 2005;22:1–4
ATTACHMENT
BML0001.eps
BML0002.eps
(Footnote 1 return)
National Association of Counties (NAoC) survey, ''The Criminal Effect of Meth on Communities,'' July 5, 2005.
(Footnote 2 return)
Ibid.
(Footnote 3 return)
Ibid.
(Footnote 4 return)
Statements of Laura J. Birkmeyer, Chair, National Alliance for Drug Endangered Children, and Director, National Methamphetamine Chemicals Initiative; and Freida S. Baker, MSW, Deputy Director, Family and Children's Services, Alabama State Department of Human Resources; presented to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, July 26, 2005.
(Footnote 5 return)
''The Mexican Connection,'' and ''Mexico's Math Problem Adds Up to a U.S. Meth Problem,'' Steve Suo, the Oregonian, June 5, 2005.
(Footnote 6 return)
p.6, Interim Report.
(Footnote 7 return)
Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, August 2005.