[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ICE IN THE OZARKS: THE METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC IN ARKANSAS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 28, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-245
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
97-398 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan Maryland
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Columbia
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnnesota
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio ------
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JOHN L. MICA, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
DOUG OSE, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas Maryland
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio Columbia
------ ------
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Nicholas Coleman, Professional Staff Member and Counsel
Malia Holst, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 28, 2004.................................... 1
Statement of:
Bryant, William J., Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Little
Rock, AR, Office (New Orleans Field Division) Drug
Enforcement Administration................................. 8
Counts, Larry, director, Decision Point drug treatment
facility................................................... 168
Cromwell, William M., Acting U.S. Attorney, Western District
of Arkansas................................................ 24
Dufour, Bob, director of professional and government
relations, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc............................ 178
Gibbons, David, prosecuting attorney, 5th Judicial District.. 76
Gunn, Mary Ann, circuit judge, Fourth Judicial District,
Fourth Division............................................ 98
Hickman, Danny, sheriff, Boone County........................ 73
Hoggatt, Greg, director, Drug Free Rogers-Lowell............. 182
Howard, J.R., executive director, Arkansas State crime lab... 61
Hudson, David, Sebastian County Judge........................ 56
Leach, Merlin D., executive director, Center for Children &
Public Safety.............................................. 186
Louie, Shirley, environmental epidemiology supervisor,
Arkansas Department of Health.............................. 68
Macdonald, James, Federal on Scene Coordinator, Region 7,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency....................... 32
Pyle, Michael................................................ 192
Rutledge, Keith, State drug director, Office of the Governor
of Arkansas................................................ 46
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Bryant, William J., Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Little
Rock, AR, Office (New Orleans Field Division) Drug
Enforcement Administration, prepared statement of.......... 12
Counts, Larry, director, Decision Point drug treatment
facility, prepared statement of............................ 170
Cromwell, William M., Acting U.S. Attorney, Western District
of Arkansas, prepared statement of......................... 26
Dufour, Bob, director of professional and government
relations, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., prepared statement of.... 180
Gibbons, David, prosecuting attorney, 5th Judicial District,
prepared statement of...................................... 78
Gunn, Mary Ann, circuit judge, Fourth Judicial District,
Fourth Division, prepared statement of..................... 100
Hickman, Danny, sheriff, Boone County, prepared statement of. 74
Hoggatt, Greg, director, Drug Free Rogers-Lowell, prepared
statement of............................................... 184
Howard, J.R., executive director, Arkansas State crime lab,
prepared statement of...................................... 63
Hudson, David, Sebastian County Judge, prepared statement of. 58
Leach, Merlin D., executive director, Center for Children &
Public Safety, prepared statement of....................... 188
Louie, Shirley, environmental epidemiology supervisor,
Arkansas Department of Health, prepared statement of....... 70
Macdonald, James, Federal on Scene Coordinator, Region 7,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, prepared statement of 34
Pyle, Michael, prepared statement of......................... 194
Rutledge, Keith, State drug director, Office of the Governor
of Arkansas, prepared statement of......................... 49
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, prepared statement of.................... 4
ICE IN THE OZARKS: THE METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC IN ARKANSAS
----------
MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2004
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Bentonville, AR.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., at
the Northwest Arkansas Community College, White Auditorium, One
College Drive, Bentonville, AR, Hon. Mark E. Souder (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Souder and Boozman.
Staff present: Nicholas Coleman, professional staff member
and counsel; and Malia Holst, clerk.
Mr. Souder. Good morning, and thank you all for coming.
This hearing continues our subcommittee's work on the problem
of methamphetamine abuse, a problem that is ravaging the State
of Arkansas and the entire Nation. I'd like to thank
Congressman John Boozman for inviting us here to Bentonville
and for his leadership in confronting the meth epidemic.
In 2003, Congressman Boozman testified before our
subcommittee about the meth problem in northwest Arkansas, and
since then, we have frequently discussed ways to help
communities like this one reduce drug abuse.
Meth is one of the most powerful and dangerous drugs
available, and it is also one of the easiest to make. It can be
``cooked'' using common household or agricultural chemicals and
simple cold medicines, following recipes easily available on
the Internet. The meth here in Arkansas and in other States
comes from two major sources of supply. First, most meth comes
from the so-called ``superlabs'' in California and northern
Mexico. By the end of the 1990's these super labs produced over
70 percent of the Nation's supply of meth. These super labs are
operated by large Mexican drug trafficking organizations that
have used their established distribution and supply networks to
transport meth throughout the country. According to recent news
reports, these groups have introduced the form of meth called
``crystal meth'' or ``ice'' to Arkansas, which is very pure and
extremely addictive.
The second major source of meth comes from small, local
labs that are generally unaffiliated with major drug
trafficking organizations. These labs have proliferated
throughout the country, and Arkansas has been particularly hard
hit, with one of the highest rates per capita of lab seizures
in the country. The total amount of meth actually supplied by
these labs is relatively small; however, the environmental
damage and health hazard they create makes them a serious
problem for local communities, particularly the State and local
law enforcement agencies charged with the duty to uncover and
clean them up. In my home State of Indiana, for example, more
than 20 percent of the labs raided by the police were
discovered only after they had exploded and started fires.
Children are often found at meth labs, and have frequently
suffered from severe health problems as a result of the
hazardous chemicals used in drug manufacturing.
Our hearings during the 107th Congress were mostly held in
Washington and looked at this problem from a national
perspective. This year, however, we have taken a different
approach. We have instead been holding hearings in specific
regions that have been hardest hit by meth trafficking and
abuse. In February, we held a hearing in northeastern Indiana,
followed by a hearing in Detroit, Michigan, where large
quantities of meth precursor chemicals like pseudoephedrine
were being smuggled until very recently. In August, we will
hold a hearing in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, where the use of crystal
meth is growing rapidly and also takes the most money from the
Federal Government for the meth problems.
Everywhere we go, we hear about many of the same issues;
the environmental damage caused by the labs; the high cost and
long hours required for law enforcement agencies to process lab
sites; and the heartbreaking stories of children exposed to
drugs and chemicals and in need of emergency medical care and a
safe place to go. We hear about how addictive and deadly this
drug is, and how difficult it is to provide treatment and get
meth users off drugs.
The Bush administration, and especially its Office of
National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP], has pushed for strong and
effective action against meth abuse. We will need to take
action at every level--Federal, State and local--to respond to
this problem. Let me briefly mention three issues that need to
be addressed.
First, what do we need to do to reduce the supply of meth?
In the late 1990's, the Federal Government responded to the
meth problem both here and elsewhere with stricter laws against
the precursor chemical trade and tougher enforcement. The
proliferation of smaller meth labs, however, means that we
probably will have to further restrict the ability of meth
cooks to get precursor chemicals--especially pseudoephedrine.
Already many States have acted to restrict sales of cold
medicines and other pseudoephedrine sources. A major question
Congress must address is whether to enact a national standard
for these sales, and, if so, what form it should take?
Second, how should we deal with environmental issues
created in the wake of a meth lab seizure? We have to ensure
that the toxic chemicals produced and dumped by lab operators
are cleaned up, but these criminals rarely have enough money to
compensate the Federal Government for those costs. If we impose
the costs on unsuspecting land owners or landlords, however, we
may give them a disincentive to monitor their property and
report suspicious activity to the police. In California, for
example, some farmers prefer to bury the remains of meth labs
they find on their property, because if they report them, they
will be liable for the clean-up costs. So we are having lots of
unanticipated consequences. We will have to carefully consider
how we assign the responsibility for this difficult and
expensive task.
Finally, how do we get meth addicts into treatment, and how
do we keep young people from starting on meth in the first
place? We can all agree that education and outreach are vital,
but the hard part is figuring out what works best. What works
for marijuana, ecstasy or cocaine may not work as well for
meth.
This hearing will address these difficult questions and
hopefully bringus closer to some answers. Again, I thank
Congressman Boozman for inviting us here, and for the
assistance that he and his staff provided to our subcommittee
in setting up this hearing. We will welcome in the first panel
three witnesses who have joined us to discuss the Federal
Government's response to the meth problem; Mr. William J.
Bryant, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the Drug
Enforcement Administration's Office in Little Rock, AR; Mr.
William Cromwell, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Western District
of Arkansas; my understanding, that's his career position as
acting district attorney second time through; and Mr. James
MacDonald, the Federal On Scene Coordinator for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Region 7.
At a hearing like this, it is vitally important for us to
hear from State and local agencies forced to fight on the
``front lines'' against meth and other illegal drugs. We
welcome Mr. Keith Rutledge, the Governor's State drug director;
the Honorable David Hudson, a Sebastian County judge; Mr. J.R.
Howard, executive director of the Arkansas State Crime Lab;
Miss Shirley Louie, environmental epidemiology supervisor of
the Arkansas Department of Health; Sheriff Danny Hickman of
Boone County; and Mr. David Gibbons, prosecuting attorney for
the 5th Judicial District.
We also welcome five witnesses who work in the field of
drug treatment and prevention. They're of vital importance here
in northwest Arkansas. The Honorable Mary Ann Gunn, circuit
judge for the Fourth Judicial District, who has worked
extensively with the Drug Courts initiative here; Mr. Larry
Counts, director of Decision Point Drug Treatment Facility; Mr.
Gregg Hoggatt, director of the Drug Free Rogers-Lowell; Mr.
Michael Pyle, a recovering methamphetamine addict; and Dr.
Merlin D. Leach, executive director of the Center for Children
& Public Policy. Finally, we'd also like to welcome two
representatives of the retail and trucking industries, whose
assistance and expertise we will need to stop the problem of
meth production and trafficking; Mr. Bob Dufour, director of
professional and government relations for Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc.; and Mr. Lane Kidd, president of the Arkansas Trucking
Association. We thank everyone for taking the time to join us
this morning, and look forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.003
Mr. Souder. Now I'd like to yield to my friend and
colleague Congressman Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Mr. Chairman, and staff members on the
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human
Resources, I want to welcome you to northwest Arkansas. I truly
appreciate the committee taking the time to come to Arkansas to
see firsthand the methamphetamine epidemic in our region. I
would also like to welcome our witnesses. You're all on the
front lines in the daily battle against methamphetamine in
Arkansas. I appreciate all that you do, and I look forward to
hearing your insightful testimony. Last, I would also like to
recognize and thank you for coming, the many distinguished
guests in our audience that are joining us today.
The threat posed to our Nation by the traffic and abuse of
meth is high and increasing. According to the National Drug
Intelligence Center's 2004 national drug threat assessment, it
was reported that meth is the second largest drug threat across
the Nation according to State and local law enforcement. It is
second only to cocaine. So although meth represents a small
percentage of drug use in America, the repercussions of using
meth make it the second biggest drug threat in our Nation. The
highly addictive nature of the drug paired with the intense
feelings of paranoia, agitation and depression cause extensive
cases of child abuse, spousal abuse, robbery, and theft. The
ripple effect caused by this drug is like no other.
I took an informal poll around my district and heard
overwhelmingly--notice I said ``informal.'' One of those words
where I won't get rounded up by the chairman. But, anyway, when
you visit with anyone that's related to law enforcement in a
district, they'll tell you that over 70 percent of all crime in
this region can be attributed to meth. We have another problem
here in Arkansas, a technical problem, of not reporting all of
our data to the Federal agencies. You may notice that the DEA
statistics for meth lab seizures in Arkansas are significantly
below the Arkansas State Crime Lab numbers. This is because we
need to do a better job of reporting our data to the Federal
agencies.
If you'll notice, in the latest national drug threat
assessment, Missouri was reported to have the highest number of
meth lab seizures in the central States in 2003 with 1,075.
Arkansas was listed at No. 2 with 656 seizures. These are the
Federal statistics. However, if you compare that with the
Arkansas State Crime Lab numbers, you'll see that Arkansas
actually seized over 1,200 meth labs in 2003. This figure far
exceeds Missouri's numbers. And, in fact, when you look at the
State Crime Lab's numbers, we've experienced a 4,900 percent
increase in meth lab seizures since 1995. That's not even 10
years.
In 1995, Arkansas seized 24 meth labs, and in 2004, it's
predicted that we will seize over 1,300 labs. We must get the
word to the Federal Government so that we can get some help.
I want to show you this real quick. This is a HIDA map. And
I know you can't see it back in the back, but it illustrates
where the HIDTA areas are, the high intensity drug traffic
areas are as far as where the resources are put. The little
dots represent resources that have been put in place with the
HIDTA program. As you can see, we have this huge gap from
Louisiana through Arkansas. This is something that we want to
look at. Is there a reason that all of the sudden we don't have
any trafficking in this area; it's all just home cooked labs?
Or, in realty, do we need more Federal intervention in this
area.
Winning back our communities takes a balanced approach. The
DEA can help make sure our laws are upheld, but effective
treatment and education is equally critical. We must have
adequate alternatives for those who are caught in meth's
dangerous grasp. I'm impressed by the effectiveness of the drug
courts. Many addicts do not realize they need help. Drug courts
make them accountable and keep them clean. We can fight this
problem together with local, State, and Federal resources
working together. We can loosen the grip methamphetamine has on
our Nation.
Again, I'm looking forward to hearing the testimony of our
witnesses, and thank you to Chairman Souder and his staff for
joining us in Northwest Arkansas for such an important hearing.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Let me do a couple of procedure matters. I ask unanimous
consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to submit
written statements and questions for the hearing record; that
any answers to written questions provided by the witnesses also
be included in the record. No objections, so ordered.
Second, I ask in that extent that all Members present be
permitted to participate in the hearing without objection. It
is so ordered.
Our first panel is composed of three representatives of the
Federal Government. Mr. Bill Bryant of DEA; Acting U.S.
Attorney William Cromwell; Mr. James McDonald of the DEA. It's
our standard practice to ask witnesses to testify under oath.
If you'll stand and raise your right hands, I'll administer the
oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that each of the witnesses
has answered in the affirmative. Mr. Bryant, good to see you
again.
Mr. Bryant. Good to see you, Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. You're recognized for 5 minutes.
For those of you who aren't familiar with this, it should
go yellow with 1 minute to go. We'll be a little generous, but
want to be able to ask questions and get answers; and to do
that, we'll be staying reasonably close as possible. Your full
statements will be in the record. Anything else you want to
submit will be in the record. But with three panels, I've got
to make sure we get a wide variety.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. BRYANT, ASSISTANT SPECIAL AGENT IN
CHARGE, LITTLE ROCK, AR, OFFICE (NEW ORLEANS FIELD DIVISION)
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Bryant. Good morning, Chairman Souder and Congressman
Boozman. My name is William J. Bryant. I'm the assistant
special agent in charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration
in the Little Rock district office. On behalf of Administrator
Karen Tandy and the men and women of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, let me express my sincere appreciation for your
ongoing support and for this hearing on Ice in the Ozarks, The
Methamphetamine Epidemic in Arkansas.
Before I begin my testimony this morning, Chairman Souder,
I would like to take this opportunity to recognize you for your
outstanding leadership in the area of drug law enforcement. As
you know, I served as the Chief of Congressional Affairs under
Administrator Donny Marshall and also under Administrator Asa
Hutchinson. During my time in this position, I had the
opportunity to work with you and your committee on issues both
domestic and internationally. You are a true leader, and you've
taken your position as chairman of this subcommittee very
seriously. I want to recognize you for your outstanding work
that benefits all law enforcement, not just Federal law
enforcement, but you always took the extra time to see what
State and local law enforcement is doing. And for that, I
applaud you.
I would also be remiss if didn't recognize Congressman
Boozman. Upon my return to Arkansas, Congressman Boozman came
down to Little Rock, and because he sought me out. I'd didn't
have to seek him out. He came to Little Rock, and he wanted to
be briefed on the methamphetamine situation in Arkansas,
because he has a true concern for the people in the State of
Arkansas. We had a week of discussion, and he committed his
support to law enforcement in this community. He followed up
with this commitment by Congressman Boozman by having this
hearing today, and I thank you for that.
Mr. Chairman, as I mention in my written statement I
submitted for the record, the No. 1 problem in Arkansas is
methamphetamine. The methamphetamine problemin Arkansas is a
twofold problem. It's very similar to your situation in your
home State of Indiana. The twofold problems are small toxic
labs and Mexican drug trafficking organizations.
Small toxic labs are local independent operators who
produce one to two ounce quantities of methamphetamine.
Locally, over 90 percent of these small toxic labs operate and
produce methamphetamine for personal use and local
distribution. Unfortunately, methamphetamine is a simple drug
to produce. The ingredients are not only readily available but
also inexpensive. Items such as cold medicine, such as
ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, lithium batteries, camp fuel,
match striker plates, starter fluid, and iodine crystals are
some of the items needed to manufacture methamphetamine.
Unfortunately, year after year the small toxic labs seizures
continue to increase in Arkansas.
According to statistics from the Arkansas State Crime Lab,
a total of 16 clandestine laboratories were seized in 1993 for
a total of 1,208 seizures in 2003. So far in 2004, we are on a
pace to exceed the 2,000 lab seizure statistics.
Meth labs create a environmental hazard with enormous
clean-up costs. The DEA assists State and local law enforcement
agencies with the clean up of meth labs for funding supplied by
Congress. In 2002, the DEA assisted Arkansas law enforcement
agencies in 545 lab clean-ups which totaled $1.8 million with
an average cost of $3,300 per lab. In 2003, DEA was able to
negotiate a new contract with hazardous waste and disposal
companies to reduce the cost of clean-up. In 2003, DEA in
Arkansas assisted law enforcement with 810 clandestine lab
clean ups for a total of $1.3 million with an average cost of
$1,725 per lab. Due to the increase in the number of labs, DEA
opened a second response site for the hazardous waste contract
in Fayetteville, Arkansas, in January 2004. This resulted in a
cost savings for State and local law enforcement agencies on
overtime costs.
These laboratory operators known as cooks typically have no
chemical background or training, which leads to these
laboratories resulting in fires and explosions. In 2001, the
State of Arkansas EPIC stats revealed we had 15 fires and
explosions. Unfortunately, it continued to increase. In 2002,
we had a report of 20 fires and explosions and then 28 fires
and explosions in 2003.
DEA has taken the lead in the law enforcement area of
clandestine laboratory training. I'm glad to report DEA has
trained over a total of 451 State and local law enforcement
officers in Arkansas with clandestine laboratory training,
which includes the State and local certification school, site
safety officer school and tactical training. No only do these
meth labs pose a danger to the law enforcement community, they
pose a danger to the children of our State. In 2001, EPIC
statistics showed 121 children were affected here in the State
of Arkansas. Unfortunately, again this number increased in 2002
reporting 207 children and in 2003, 219 children.
The secondfold problems are Mexican drug trafficking
organizations here in Arkansas. We have definitely seen an
increase in the Mexican drug traffic organizations in Arkansas,
primarily involving the distribution of methamphetamines. DEA
investigations have found Mexican drug traffic organizations
transport multi-pound quantities of methamphetamine to the
State for distribution. DEA intelligence in Arkansas indicates
that some of these organizations are capable of distributing 20
pounds or more of methamphetamine in a 1-month timeframe.
I thought the name of this hearing was very appropriate,
Ice in the Ozarks, due to the fact that this past 12 months DEA
has observed a significant amount of methamphetamine ``ice''
being distributed in the State of Arkansas by methamphetamine
drug trafficking organizations. As you know, ice is a
colorless, odorless form of d-methamphetamine. It resembles
glass fragments or shiny blue-white ``rocks'' of various sizes.
Ice typically has a high purity level, particularly if smoked
using a glass pipe. Ice is also compared to crack cocaine.
Crack cocaineabusers experience a high of about 20 to 30
minutes, while ice may last 12 hours or more.
I've noted several significant investigations in my written
statement that outlines a significant amount of methamphetamine
and methamphetamine ice being seized in our State. DEA has
joined forces with our State and local partners to address
methamphetamine-related trends from large traffic organizations
down to small time producer operating out of their homes.
Placing emphasis on DEA priority target programs, eliminating
small toxic labs, combining Federal regulations with local
initiatives to reduce the availability of pseudoephedrine in
the illicit market and enforcing more chemical controls on
meth.
In conclusion, the seriousness of the problem resulting
from methamphetamine threat cannot be overstated. Perhaps more
than any other drug, methamphetamine puts all of us, users and
nonusers alike, at risk. The innocence of children, the
fortitude of law enforcement and the pristine state of our
ecosystem are not immune to meth's dangers. As a single mission
agency, DEA will continue to devote its resources to identify,
investigate, and dismantle the organizations responsible for
the spread of meth across Arkansas and our country.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the
subcommittee, and I will be happy to answer questions at the
appropriate time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bryant follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.015
Mr. Souder. As you can see, we have no yellow. You can tell
you've worked in Washington a little bit because you had to
lose a Southern accent to get that much in, in 5 minutes.
Mr. Cromwell.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. CROMWELL, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY, WESTERN
DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Cromwell. I'll try to get us back on schedule. Chairman
Souder, Congressman Boozman, members of the committee staff,
thank you on behalf of the Federal law enforcement presence in
the Western District of Arkansas for convening this meeting,
for calling, I hope, the public's attention to this problem.
And it definitely is a problem. I believe you'll hear from
every level of law enforcement, whether it be a police officer
on the city beat, the deputy sheriff in the county, Federal law
enforcement from DEA or other agencies, that methamphetamine
and ice definitely cause a significant hazard for not only
life, but economic hazard for the well-being of the United
States.
The resources that are required to be spent by all levels
of law enforcement combating the problem are significant and
could be used in other areas. And I applaud the efforts of the
drug courts and other avenues of trying to treat the problem as
opposed to incarceration. I think both avenues deserve
exploration.
This problem has gone on in our district for a number of
years. In August, I will be in my 17th year with the U.S.
Attorney's office, and the problem has grown exponentially
throughout my tenure there. And it's one that even though
resources are being used at every level, we have not yet found
the solution. And as Mr. Bryant said, we have two primary
sources of production for distribution of that product in our
district.
One, are the local cooks who definitely pose a problem, as
Mr. Bryant said, not only to those around them but to first
responders, too. Law enforcement, indeed post-September 11,
have grown together and oftentimes the first responders will be
the first at the scene of a fire or explosion, and they're
exposed, perhaps not knowingly, to chemicals and other
situations which this drug brings with it. In addition to the
hazards posed to the children, the first responders and police,
of course, we've already talked about the costs in terms of
addiction, which you will hear about later on.
I want to emphasize one case in my remarks deals with a
case that started on the streets of Decatur, Arkansas, with a
traffic stop. And a police officer made a felony arrest for an
individual who was in possession of drug paraphernalia. That
can be as small as a marijuana bong. But he had information
which led to a ring which was producing methamphetamine in
California. It was determined through investigation that
approximately 100 pounds of methamphetamine and ice had been
transported by this one individual from California to the
streets of northwest Arkansas.
This was a collaborative effort between the DEA, many law
enforcement areas of concern here locally, Benton County,
Washington County, but the impact of it was they were working
together. They were sharing information. And what went from a
very minor State arrest, led to a very large seizure in terms
of quantities of methamphetamine, money, weapons, including
automatic weapons, and the arrest of an individual who was
connected to a large traffic ring in California. Although that
is a significant case in our district, it was not the final
case. This is an ongoing fight.
And as Mr. Bryant can attest, we just recently had another
case which led to the arrest of 12 individuals who are now in
custody who were, again, importing multi-pound quantities of
methamphetamine from California to Arkansas, and specifically
to northwest Arkansas. And the States that we primarily have to
deal with in the importation of the drug, California and Texas,
both share one thing in common, and that's the boundary of
Mexico. And, obviously, law enforcement of the U.S. variety
cannot reach into Mexico, we have to be effective here. And I
want emphasize to you that I think the OCDETF program has a
significant impact in bringing State and local law enforcement
to the Federal table to work together.
Mr. Bryant has a resident agency in Fayetteville, Arkansas,
just minutes down the highway from here. But it's staffed in
large part by State and local officers who are part of the
solution in bringing the manpower that's necessary to fight the
problem. And so I would like to emphasize that I think the
impact and the benefit of the OCDETF program as it works here
in northwest Arkansas.
And as you said, my written remarks are part of the record,
and I will save time and be ready for questions. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cromwell follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.021
Mr. Souder. Mr. MacDonald.
STATEMENT OF JAMES MACDONALD, FEDERAL ON SCENE COORDINATOR,
REGION 7, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. MacDonald. Good morning. I'm Jim MacDonald. I'm an On-
Scene Coordinator with EPA Region 7. Region 7 covers the States
of Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa. The written testimony
submitted is more of a national perspective on the EPA
activities in general, but I would like to just talk a little
bit about EPA Region 7 activities that we've done here in the
midwest.
In the mid 1990's, we started getting quite a lot of calls
from people in different situations associated with
methamphetamine. They would start to say, ``My child was
crossing this neighborhood resident's yard, and we've noticed
them dumping some chemicals. I think it's a drug bust happened.
Could you tell me if it's safe for my kids to cross this
yard?'' Or, ``I just rented an apartment, said there was a drug
bust occurred here previously. Is it safe for my children to
live in this particular residence?'' we started getting enough
of these that we started to get more involved in this
situation.
Methamphetamine is different from the other drugs in that
it involves chemicals and labs. The other chemicals in terms of
the drug situation, we have not been involved. But
methamphetamine pulled us in because of the chemicals.
In the late 1990's, we started a work group with our
counterparts in the States. Our counterparts in Missouri, just
like the Department of Natural Resources, the Iowa Department
of Natural Resources, Nebraska Department of Environmental
Quality, and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.
We started a work group with our Missouri Department of Natural
Resources on the methamphetamine situation to see what our
involvement should be, what their involvement should be. And
both DEA was a part of this and the highway patrol. And we
started looking at ways that we could be actively involved.
To the EPA, that became quite evident that training needed
to be done for first responders. Not just the fire departments
that we'd normally been involved with, but for law enforcement,
because their entrance into these labs for a person with
protective equipment. We also realized that we needed to get
some samples from residuals of these drug busts, so we did a
grant to the Missouri Department of Health, and we went out and
sampled over 70 different residences that had drug busts, some
immediately after drug busts, some days after, some weeks
after, months after. Homes, trailers, apartments, all sorts of
places that these drug busts had occurred for methamphetamine.
We submitted all this data. These were wipe samples, air
samples from sewer cannisters, built-in pumps, soil samples,
water samples, to the Missouri Department of Health, tried to
develop some standards that we might go for clean up.
Typically, EPA works with our risk assessment folks, our health
folks, to get these standards for us to do our clean up. For
instance, the dioxin clean ups, one part per billion lead and
mercury, all have standards developed by the health folks that
we can go in and get clean ups.
We submitted these analysis to the Missouri Department of
Health, and they came up with a booklet Cleaning Up Former Meth
Lab Guidelines. We couldn't find anything specifically. You
know, which chemicals? These are household chemicals, as was
stated previously, that you can go out and buy at different
stores. You might have some industrial ammonia, but most of
them you can purchase yourself readily.
So Missouri developed the guidelines, Kansas Department of
Health used that and developed some guidelines also for clean
up. There's still no national standards for clean up of meth,
but we're still looking and still possibly doing some more
sampling in terms of these residuals.
On the training issues, EPA and Region 7 has always been
has doing its HAZWOPER training, 40 hours HAZWOPER, based on
the OSHA 1910,120. So anybody involved in emergency situations,
hazardous materials needs to take this 40-hour training. We
tailored it to law enforcement to bring law enforcement with
the ability now to use first protective equipment. We also
developed a 16-hour HAZCAT, hazard categorization, for
methamphetamine so that the fire departments and other folks
would be more aware of what chemicals associated with the meth
labs.
In Missouri they decided to develop collection stations
scattered around the State of Missouri where the law
enforcement could bring the chemicals to the collection
station, which was usually fire departments, would do a waste
minimization and neutralize, clean, whatever, and then reduce
the amount of waste necessary for disposal. So in training
those folks in terms of how to do this.
The third thing we were involved with was a $2 million
grant that is facilitated by Senator Bond that went through our
WICKER program which I am the project officer for, was given to
the State of Missouri. For 5 years, approximately 400,000 per
year to help not only with collection stations but equipment,
and salaries associated with that.
As I stated we have submitted the written testimony, but
I'll be glad to answer any questions that you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. MacDonald follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.024
Mr. Souder. I thank you each for your testimony. Let me
first see if I can get a little bit more specific about
Arkansas and where the different types are. We were handling
questions before the hearing started describing what we saw in
other areas, and I want to see if this is true for Arkansas.
And, Mr. Bryant, maybe you can kind of do an overview.
Would you say that the 70/30 Mexican drug trafficking
versus small lab holds here in Arkansas, or is the percentage
coming from small labs a little higher?
Mr. Bryant. I would say it's comparatively the same, yes,
sir.
Mr. Souder. And then would the pattern of where the Mexican
drug trafficking organizations distribute be different? In
other words, is meth in Little Rock?
Mr. Bryant. Yes, sir.
Mr. Souder. More like 90 percent from the Mexican drug
trafficking organizations than in Fayetteville, versus, say,
the northern regions or the more mountainous regions or more
rural regions.
Mr. Bryant. I think right now, Congressman Souder, that
northwest Arkansas, most of our investigations are on the
Mexican drug trafficking organizations as compared to Little
Rock. So we have a larger population that we work on up here in
northwest Arkansas as far as Mexican drug trafficking
organizations. All our significant investigations have been
focused mostly in Benton and Washington County. Where in Little
Rock what you also see is we'll have regular methamphetamine
distributors, the white males, or whatever, their source will
be in California, and they'll travel out to California to hook
up with a source and supply in California, the Mexican drug
trafficking organizations, and then transport the meth back to
Little Rock.
But what we see here in this section of Arkansas is most of
our significant cases have been against Hispanics involved in
these Mexican drug trafficking organizations that live in this
area.
Mr. Souder. Are both aspects of the meth problems, both the
Mexican drug organizations and the smaller labs, concentrated
in northwest Arkansas as opposed to the rest of the State?
Mr. Bryant. No, sir. Unfortunately, northwest Arkansas does
have its fair share of the small toxic labs. We also have a
tremendous amount in, say, for example, Little Rock. Little
Rock Police Department actually had its own clandestine lab
group to address the issues. And I think most of our lab
seizures, small toxic labs are seized in like the Pulaski
County, Saline County area surrounding Little Rock. Southern
Arkansas, we do have some small pocket labs, but I would say
for like Little Rock all the way north between to like
Jonesboro and other parts of the northeast part of the State we
also have a tremendous small toxic lab problem.
Mr. Souder. From your perspective, what would be the
difference in the northern part of Arkansas, Missouri area from
southern Arkansas and into Louisiana?
Mr. Bryant. What we are seeing, we're seeing a trend coming
down south. You're starting to see Louisiana and Mississippi
and Tennessee develop their own meth problems which are a
little bit below ours but continue to rise. When we first saw
this meth problems--I've been stationed in Arkansas from 1991
to 1999, saw it slowly start in Missouri, eased its way down to
northern Arkansas, and since that time period, it's slowly
moved throughout the State. It's just been more time period up
in the northern part of the State where they're used to
manufacturing meth.
Mr. Souder. We were in New Orleans just a few weeks ago,
and their DEA says it was coming into New Orleans, and also
that the HIDTA had always been located in the southern parts of
trafficking regions, but they were seeing a fair amount going
through Louisiana in the northern part. I'm not sure what
interstate that is that it was going through, and that it'd
stop off.
Mr. Bryant. I think it's Interstate 20 and Interstate 10
also.
Mr. Souder. And it'd come back. And they thought the center
was in Atlanta bouncing back to the south. Do you see any of
that in Arkansas and Louisiana and Mississippi or southern
Arkansas, bounce back from Atlanta?
Mr. Bryant. What we're seeing a lot of in the State of
Arkansas, we're a relatively small State, and we have three
major interstate systems. We have Interstate 40, we have
Interstate I-30 coming out of Texas, and we also have
Interstate 55 which runs off I-40 near Memphis up through the
State of Arkansas to Illinois. So a lot of the State police do
these highway interdiction stops, and we're seeing a lot of
loads where the people cooperate, and we'll do a controlled
delivery. We're taking a lot to Atlanta, we're taking a lot to
Chicago, and we're taking a lot to North Carolina is where a
majority of these loads seem to be going. A large load of
methamphetamine from 15 to 25 pounds of methamphetamine.
Mr. Souder. Now, you had in your written testimony that one
of your big busts came out of Tijuana. Has that been a pattern
over on the west side with these super labs in the Mexican west
side in the California, or are you seeing any out of McAllen
and down across from Corpus?
Mr. Bryant. The majority of our cases have come from
California and also just across the border in Mexico in
Tijuana. A lot of them are sources of supplies that we see are
Hispanic from Mexico residing in California.
Mr. Souder. Why doesn't it come up from the southeast Texas
portion? Why way over a couple of thousand miles west?
Mr. Bryant. It just seems like maybe the influx of the
Hispanic population we have here in northwest Arkansas, may be
relatives or friends from that area of the country is the only
thing I can explain.
Mr. Souder. In Indiana, we were trying to figure out, and
apparently DEA is working on a case from a particular family
because we're seeing Yakima and the Tri-Cities areas of
Washington State, Indiana, and Winette, Georgia, and then
learned that there was a migrant pattern of I think it was
tomatoes actually, that was working through that zone because
it made no sense that we were getting things from Yakima,
coming from Tijuana to Yakima and across because they were
adding double the mileage route. Is DEA looking more directly?
I know Ms. Tandy has said, ``Let's get to the bottom of the
organization.'' I'm trying to figure out the trucking routes
and stuff they have, because, clearly, it's not a logical
``What's the closest point?'' There's got to be some other kind
of networking trafficking pattern of that.
Mr. Bryant. Well, Arkansas is a State has a lot of farms,
migrant worker situations over the State, but the seizure we're
making are vehicles equipped with hidden traps where they've
put it in gas tanks or they have hydraulic hidden compartments.
And the organizations are using those to transport the
methamphetamine from California to Arkansas. We're not charting
any, like, 18-wheelers with cover loads of lettuce and
tomatoes. What we're seeing a majority of are regular type
passenger vehicles within hidden compartments.
Mr. Souder. Congressman Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. As you've alluded to, we have all these
interstates,I-30, I-40, I-55, 71, the north and the south. And
yet--I've got to use this. I carried it all the way from
Washington. But when you look at the map, as far as the high
intensity drug trafficking areas, the resources are lacking,
and I'll show the chairman in a second--literally from the
west, Fort Smith, through almost half of Tennessee, there are
no resources. There are no resources north and south.
Again, we probably have as much truck traffic, because
we've got so many trucking firms in the region, which, again,
this is associated with truck traffick. It just seems like we
should have some resources concentrated someplace in that area.
I've heard reports from some of my sheriffs that they're so
busy dealing with their own problems, the fact that they're
understaffed and under resourced just dealing with the problems
in the county, that they really have no interest in trying to
help with anything passing through there.
Can you comment on those kind of things.
Mr. Bryant. Yes, sir. I'm glad you brought it you up. We do
have a working group now of chiefs and sheriffs in the State
that, as you know, in 2002, Arkansas tried to get a HIDTA here
in Arkansas itself. Unfortunately, no new funding was
available, and what we've done now is we have a working group
here in Benton and Washington County composed of chiefs and
sheriffs and also down in Pulaski County and near Jefferson
County in the Little Rock area, but they've formed a working
group to form a HIDTA commission to join another existing HIDTA
so we can get some of those resources.
As we talked when I briefed you on the methamphetamine
situation, we're coming to Members of Congress here in the
State of Arkansas for your support, or we can join possibly an
existing HIDTA, maybe the Gulf Coast HIDTA down in New Orleans
to be able to get some of the funding to be able to address
these Mexican drug trafficking organizations in Arkansas.
Mr. Boozman. Is it possible that we are under reporting
this type of activity as we are the meth labs in the sense,
again, that we're putting so few resources--I know that you-all
are doing a tremendous job, but the local folks are putting so
few resources that they really--again, because of their funding
problems, just don't want to deal with it.
Mr. Bryant. It's very difficult funding a difficult problem
here in the State of Arkansas. I know the State police are like
a hundred troopers down themself. What we try to do is,
Arkansas has no State wire tap law, so if any Title 3
intercepts take place, it's going to be up to the DEA to do
that. It's a very effective tool to attack these Mexican
trafficking organizations, and we work closely with Mr.
Cromwell's office to be able to do that, but the sheriffs and
local police do not have the resources or funding available,
even if they had the law to be able to pursue this Title 3
capability.
Mr. Boozman. Mr. Cromwell, also, Missouri, I believe, has a
law, a reporting law, as far as when they seize a lab, that by
State law they have to report it. Do we need to change anything
in Arkansas? I know both of you are working very hard to try
and get the labs that our cities and such reported. Do we need
to do anything different legislatively at the State level or
the Federal level?
Mr. Bryant. Just so you know, DEA has kind of established a
new program for us to better track this. I've assigned
personnel to contact these State and local agencies when they
do seize a clandestine laboratory for them to complete the EPIC
form 143, send it to us. That way, we make the checks and
balances to see that it is done, and then we forward those on
to EPIC.
Next week, we are going to meet with Mr. Rutledge in his
office, and the ACIC, maybe we can start doing this
electronically by computer with a current system called the
Justice Exchange Computer System here in Arkansas. But a lot of
sheriffs office use them, so we want to see if we can connect
that with EPIC to be able to do this electronically to make
sure we're capturing all this data.
Mr. Cromwell. I know the DEA does an excellent job in
tracking their statistics, and I feel very confident that
they're gathering all the information and data that you can put
into the system. As far as whether there needs to be a State
law fixed at that level, I would defer that to somebody close
to that level.
Mr. Boozman. Very good. Thank you-all so much.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Bryant, we're going to be meeting, I think,
in the morning over in El Paso, and we've had this constant
discussion about the reporting. Is it your stance that almost
every State is underreporting?
Mr. Bryant. Yes, sir. As you know, it's up to the local and
State agencies to do it themselves. It's not DEA's
responsibility, but in this State we work very close with our
State and local counterparts. But we've got to think of a
better system to gather this information. Because right now
there's no check and balance system for us to make sure that
all the States are reporting this.
Mr. Souder. Let me ask a question of Mr. Cromwell. One of
the challenges we have, and I know this has been true in
Indiana, as we put the DEA in, is that many State laws either
you can't extend to Arkansas that's not a wire tap law that the
State uses, or increasingly we're federalizing some of the
cases. Are you Federalizing cases that if they have similar
laws in the State that they could utilize, you wouldn't
Federalize.
Mr. Cromwell. No, sir. The investigative technique of the
Title 3 relief is the only instance in which I would see a case
being brought to our office that wouldn't normally fit our
guidelines. And, normally, we're looking at quantity and multi-
state connections and money laundering aspects, and as a
result, I feel the State drug laws are very adequate to
prosecute individuals. And we have an excellent, excellent
relationship, I believe, with our State counterparts in working
with them if they believe a case has connections outside their
jurisdiction. They're very good to bring those cases to us so
we can allow the DEA to work across State lines. But I think
our State drug enforcement laws are very adequate.
Mr. Souder. Do you see any growth in the Federal court
pressure on meth.
Mr. Cromwell. Absolutely. Yes, sir.
Mr. Souder. What are your staffing situations?
Mr. Cromwell. Our most recent additions to staff were for
gun initiative projects, safe neighborhoods, and for an anti-
terrorism slot. And those both were filled 2 years ago. So as
far as even though the methamphetamine problem has grown,
manpower has not gone along with it.
Mr. Souder. So do you have more of a backlog or do you not
take certain cases? How are you dealing with that?
Mr. Cromwell. No, sir we have not raised our guidelines on
the quality of cases we're taking. I'm just having more
assistants who do other types of criminal work being assigned
to drug cases.
Mr. Souder. Let me ask, Mr. MacDonald, are you primarily
working right now in Missouri, or you're working the whole
region? But where you have the most experience is in Missouri?
Mr. MacDonald. Yes. That's true.
Mr. Souder. Is Arkansas moving similar in guidelines that
you've mentioned for clean up with Kansas and Missouri?
Mr. MacDonald. I really don't know.
Mr. Souder. OK. We'll ask that question later. When you
look from an EPA standpoint, have you seen any where you have
these concentrated areas of labs in northwest Arkansas,
southern Missouri, places in Kansas, have you seen this impact
water quality? I mean, is it more a very localized ``I'm
worried about the house I'm in,'' ``I'm worried about the
yard''. Have you seen any dangers hitting aquifers yet?
Mr. MacDonald. No, we have not. Most of the ones we deal
with are the smaller labs. And, yes, there has been some
dumping, and we've sampled, we've tracked it, and there's some,
of course, biodegradation going on. We haven't seen any
significant impacts, you know, overall to the environment.
There are concerns about any residuals inside the houses, and
that seems to be the primary concern for the child endangerment
issues. But right now, they're following the guidelines with
the States with the cleaning process, removing porous
materials, filters and things like that. That should take care
of the problem. Again, we're dealing with the smaller labs, not
like in California that we're dealing with the large labs.
Mr. Souder. So, if we give adequate funding to clean up and
stay on top of the labs, are we making people more aware? I'm
used to being down in Columbia, and you can see flying
overhead, the Amazon basin, you can see the chemicals going
into the river from all the cocaine labs and that type of
thing. So even in the fairly intense small lab zone, as long as
we tackle them individually and implement the right procedures,
it's not pouring into any of the sink river basins or anything.
Mr. MacDonald. We're not seeing that. We've been working
with the forest services, too, as they're picking up some labs
there, and we're trying to track those. But we have not seen
any what I would consider major environmental problems from
this. Again, we're dealing with what we consider household
chemicalsused improperly, stored improperly,
disposedimproperly. But, again, you know, small cases.
Mr. Souder. There's a little bit of this in California, but
even in California with the super labs, they aren't
concentrated together like what we see in Columbia where
there's much of a danger.
And I want to say one thing for the record that when we're
trying to figure out how we allocate funds and move through,
one of Congressman Boozman's challenges as he argues for
Arkansas is every place has different kinds of drug problems,
and it's a big battle and the matter of limited budgets trying
to figure out how to do it.
For example, in El Paso, we did their hearing there, the
local doesn't even pick up anybody, hold anybody if they have
under 200 pounds of marijuana, and DEA testified 500 pounds. We
are so overwhelmed along the southwest border that unless we
can seal off to a better degree the southwest border from the
crisis of terrorism, the rest of the country is extremely
vulnerable. And the amounts and the quantities we're dealing
with down there, at each stop off point along the Interstate,
they're dumping more out. And so the degree we can get the
bigger whole semi-loads down at the border, and then often
they'll come to a regional distribution center, like Atlanta,
and it will bounce back into the Gulf Coast HIDTA.
So even in our HIDTA's, we're trying to figure out, OK--
which is the what part we're dealing with with the legislative
bill, is even if you have a HIDRA, most of the HIDTA's dollars
should go to the southwest border where the things are biggest,
and then the next group of HIDTA's, and then the question comes
is where are the next HIDTA's? So one possibility would either
be to hook up with the plainstates HIDTA or the Gulf Coast
HIDTA. They don't get as much money as the others, but it gets
you into the sharing networks of information networks of what
are similar trafficking patterns. Are you a pass-through State,
are you a central distribution point, like Atlanta, which
then--it's still extraordinary to me, the test ones that we've
got, that they go to Atlanta, then they come back almost all
the way, but, hey, that's the way trucking companies work,
that's the way distribution centers work, it makes sense that
the larger drug trafficking organizations work that way, too.
Do you have any further questions.
Mr. Boozman. No. I just want to thank you-all again for
your efforts. I've gotten to work with Mr. Bryant and Mr.
Cromwell some, and they're doing a tremendous job in the
interim capacity, and I really do appreciate that. And I have
not gotten to work with Mr. MacDonald as much, but, again, I
know all of you-all are really fighting a battle.
One of the frustrations I see, as far as what Mr. Souder
was alluding to was that it seems like with drugs, you do a
good job, and you chase it off to a surrounding State or
surrounding county or whatever. And something I would like to
see, perhaps at some time, is maybe some sort of a drug task
force that, you know, if you have the high intensity drug plan
set up, they do a good job. They shut it off there.
Meth's a little different than some of these other drugs,
because it's not like it's coming from Columbia or necessarily
from Mexico, it's something that could be made anyplace. And so
as a result of that, what I would like to see, is perhaps some
sort of a situation where we have a mobile task force that, you
know, went to an area chased it out of there and then maybe
followed it as it went to another area.
But I do appreciate you-all, and appreciate your efforts.
Mr. Cromwell. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. One of the things we're trying in Congress is
Ose has a bill, and what's happening in the appropriation
process, because there isn't a systematic way to deal with
meth, individual members have been getting in about task forces
and things, like in Missouri, and we've got to figure out how
to coordinate this so that they can get interrelated, and that
there's a separate way to deal with meth by Congress. I have a
few followup questions I needed to ask. One for Mr. MacDonald
on the EPA.
Do you know, has EPA ever taken legal action against a land
owner or a landlord for damage.
Mr. MacDonald. No, sir, not that I know of. We've been
called in to do some sentencing enhancements dealing with the
Clean Water Act and RCRA. On two occasions I've involved with
that. You know, they kind of fit in with guns and child
endangerment and then the environmental enhancements.
Mr. Souder. In Missouri, those cases?
Mr. MacDonald. One was in Iowa and one was in Kansas.
Mr. Souder. Can you get us some information on that for the
record?
Mr. MacDonald. Sure.
Mr. Souder. Also, the guidelines to Missouri where you said
Kansas was based off Missouri? If we can insert that into the
record since you referred to that, it would be helpful.
Mr. MacDonald. Yes, sir.
Mr. Souder. In the enhancements, were those against land
owners or were those against the actual cookers?
Mr. MacDonald. Against the cookers.
Mr. Souder. OK. And we talked a little bit about this, and
we'll followup this more on the precursor restrictions on the
regulations. Oklahoma has the toughest law in the country, and
I wondered if Mr. Bryant and maybe Mr. Cromwell could discuss a
little bit that Oklahoma law and what impact that's had on
Arkansas and whether you think that's the way we ought to be
looking at controlling pseudoephedrine.
Mr. Bryant. As far as the Oklahoma State law, I can give
you a thumbnail sketch of my knowledge of it. But, basically,
it requires to make pseudoephedrine a Schedule 5 controlled
substance. It's required to be sold in a pharmacy, a person has
to present a driver's license and sign a written log, or the
store has to keep receipts that they've sold that
pseudoephedrine. They let them sell gel caps without a
restriction.
Basically, from the news reports I've seen out of Oklahoma,
the first month it was enacted, it was like a 29 percent
reduction in the lab seizures in the State of Oklahoma. What
we're seeing DEA intelligence and from our sources is that
we're having a lot of the methamphetamine laboratory operators,
they're coming over to Arkansas to get their pseudo because
it's a less stringent law. So we definitely need to look at
that situation.
I briefed some State legislators here in Arkansas, but we
really need something nationwide to address this issue. Because
if we don't do it nationwide, what you're going to find is the
traffic's going to go to the bordering States who do not have
the laws to secure their pseudoephedrine.
Mr. Souder. I believe we have an individual testifying
later, and one of the things he said, my understanding, is that
he said that people even go up to Chicago to get it. In other
words, if you don't have some kind of a Federal law.
Well, there is another thing that's in his written
testimony that I wanted to ask you about. He says that
sometimes, particularly for the larger even home-type labs
there's a witness--not witness--well, it's kind of a witness
intimidation. In other words, these labs come into the area, as
they get larger, it describes people in the trees as guards and
stuff, and the neighborhood people leave because they're afraid
to report. They're intimidated in the neighborhoods.
Have you seen much of that and do you do anything? One of
the things in our new ONDCP bill, Congressman Cummings is the
ranking member of the subcommittee, the senior Democrat, put in
a thing because there's a family there whose house was torched,
the Dossen family. The mother and all the kids were burned to
death. Do you see much witness intimidation here? Is it a
growing problem? And are there any programs to help protect
people?
Mr. Bryant. What we've seen here, Congressman Souder, is we
have seen some type of witness intimidation. Most of these meth
abusers, they use it, they stay up for 2 or 3 days at a time
and get very little sleep. They're very paranoid. They see
policemen behind every tree or every car that they see, they
think it's a policeman following them. Almost all the labs we
did have firearms. We've done several murder cases, contract
hire to kill in Arkansas on methamphetamine violators. We also
filed some RICOs on some laboratory operators. They can file
witness intimidation charges on them.
Part of the meth business is the violence. Like I said
before, they're very paranoid, they're all armed, and they use
violence as a necessary technique. And also employ counter-
surveillance techniques as, you know, they put security cameras
on the property, on the roadways. Especially in the rural area,
if their house is set way back where the lab is, they'll have a
camera on the gate so they can see law enforcement coming, you
know, half a mile before they ever get to the house and make
entry. So we are seeing that in the State.
Mr. Souder. On the murder for hire active cases, can you
talk about it for a second?
Mr. Bryant. One, I believe, was over in Searcy in White
County. They killed a young lady. We prosecuted them. I believe
we never did get the body, but we were able to prosecute them
for the capital murder conviction on that. They killed her
because they thought she was going to testify.
We also had another case in the Pope County area, was a
murder for hire where they killed a witness in front of his two
children. Shot him in the head with a deer rifle the day before
he was supposed to testify. We were able to clear that several
years later and then prosecute that gentleman.
Mr. Souder. Can you provide us a little bit more on those
cases, particularly when they're federally related? We have an
obligation--there's no way we're going to get people to
cooperate with us if they think they're in that much danger.
Could you describe the RICOcase, how your RICO case.
Mr. Bryant. This gentleman in White County, and you're
going to have a witness later today, J.R. Howard, and he was
one of the case agents on this case.
Mr. Souder. OK. We'll follow with him.
Mr. Bryant. And he can give you all the details because he
was one of the investigating officers on that.
Mr. Souder. OK. Congressman.
Mr. Boozman. Very quickly, I see that we've got some of our
distinguished judges here. Mr. Cromwell, you mentioned the
problem of not having enough personnel. How about as far as you
know--I know that you-all have that problem. What about as far
as our judges? This is your chance to----
Mr. Cromwell. Shine.
Mr. Boozman [continuing]. Shine.
Mr. Cromwell. Or fail.
Mr. Boozman. I just know you're back there taking notes.
Mr. Cromwell. I believe that the statistics in the Western
District of Arkansas definitely justify additional judicial
resources as well as our Department of Justice resources in
this district. I know that last year we were far in excess of
any year we worked previously, and this year we're ahead of
that already. So I believe both at the Federal bench and from
the Federal prosecution standpoint, we could use additional
resources.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you.
Mr. Cromwell. If I might add one thing. I wholly endorse a
Federal law, just as Mr. Bryant said, addressing access to
pseudoephedrine, but I think one of the things that needs to be
addressed, too, is that Canada is a large source both by
trucking and on-line orders of ephedra. And that needs to be
addressed between the two countries.
Mr. Souder. Just so you know, because I agree with you, and
if you have any further specifics you want to add to that, at
the Detroit border, we're getting more cooperation at the
border, and they have some new laws, and they took down a load
of pseudoephedrine. It was equivalent of 40 percent of what had
previously ever been seen. This has been in the last, like, 60
days, something like that. Which is just incredible, because if
you take 40 percent in one load of what we had seen in the U.S.
total in pseudoephedrine gives you an idea of the quantity of
this stuff pours in.
Annually we have the U.S./Canada problem interest exchange,
and I'm the drug point person, so I was Mr. Unpleasant raising
the pharmaceutical question, which is getting very caught up in
prescription drug questions. Bottom line is, either we have an
FDA and we have drug laws or we don't have drug laws. And given
the way we're headed right now, which looks like a relaxation
of pharmacy laws with Canada, we're going to have a big problem
here. Because politically it's becoming very difficult to
sustain a differential price structure because in America we're
a little tighter on pharmaceuticals.
We may get a compromise that says if they go through an FDA
type approval, then they can go through the pharmacies, but as
DEA will testify, and as you certainly know in prosecution,
nothing is tougher than the Internet. And I am very worried
about where this is headed with Canada unless they'll tighten
up with Antwerp and Belgium. And their argument is they've
tightened some, and at our last Washington hearing, DEA has not
been able to identify where, if indeed we have made progress at
the Canadian border, Belgium and Holland have not reduced the
production; therefore, where is it coming in? And we're
wondering whether it's Bahamas or somewhere south, maybe even
New Orleans.
Somewhere, if you seal off one border, they're going to
push. And so we're pushing the Canadians, but this a strike at
a perimeter. But we're going to have to watch our south as
well, where we have less actually control of our border than
the north.
I thank you all for your testimony. Puts the full testimony
in the record.
And if the next panel could come forward, Mr. Keith
Rutledge, State drug director of the Office of the Governor of
Arkansas; the Honorable David Hudson, a Sebastian County judge;
Mr. J.R. Howard, executive director of the Arkansas State Crime
Lab; Miss Shirley Louie, who's the environmental epidemiology
supervisor, Arkansas Department of Health; Sheriff Danny
Hickman, Boone County Sheriff's Office; Mr. David Gibbons,
prosecuting attorney for the 5th Judicial District.
As soon as you-all get seated, we'll have you stand and
take the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that all the witnesses
responded affirmative.
Thank you-all for participating this morning, and we'll
start with Mr. Rutledge.
STATEMENT OF KEITH RUTLEDGE, STATE DRUG DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE
GOVERNOR OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Rutledge. Mr. Chairman Souder and Congressman Boozman
and the staff, on behalf of the Governor and the people of the
State of Arkansas, I want to tell you how much we appreciate
your being here and inviting us to participate.
My name is Keith Rutledge, and I'm the State drug director
for the State of Arkansas and work out of the office of the
Governor. And I'm also in that role the chairman of the
Arkansas Alcohol and Drug Abuse Coordinating Council, which is
a body of 25 people, State agencies and private people who deal
with education, planning, prevention, law enforcement, the
entire spectrum of the drug and alcohol problems in the State
of Arkansas.
First off, I have submitted my written testimony
previously, and so you have that. And I want to briefly go
through that with some high points that I think are important
from the standpoint of the State of Arkansas, and as it relates
to what's already been testified to.
As I see it from the State Drug Director's position, we
have two problems with methamphetamine. One is the major super
labs and the trafficking problem that comes in from the
Mexicans and the California connection, but the 1,200 or so
labs that we're talking about are all home grown. That's all
local stuff. And that's the ones that really are concerning our
local sheriffs and our police and our multi-jurisdictional drug
task forces, which also come within my purview.
And I had noticed by looking at the data and the treatment
people, you'll hear more from those people shortly, but in the
past 10 years or so, there's been 1,100 percent increase in the
number of methamphetamine admissions to those public facilities
for treatment, which makes it No. 1 in the State of Arkansas,
outside of alcohol treatment. It passed crack cocaine, and all
these other things. And 97 percent of those people are
Caucasians, which means that this is a real cultural drug.
But what really concerns me here, last summer when I took
this job and previously I'd been a prosecutor and a circuit
judge, and knew that, you know, that this was a problem in
domestic violence and other crimes, and we've had all this
tremendous increase in the number of people in the Arkansas
penitentiary. But the first person that called me--or one of
the first people that called me after I took this job on July
the 1st last year was the head of the Federal Government's
rural housing--I forget what they call it. They used to call it
Farmer's Home Administration. We've got a new name for it. But,
anyway, he'd known me for a long time, and he came to me, and
he said, ``Keith, we got a potential problem with our office
and the HUD office in that we get back a lot of properties that
are''--where they've had loans on them, and they were concerned
about the liability where the meth has been manufactured in
those homes. That's something I hadn't thought about. But I
know that both HUD and the rural development people are really
concerned about that.
And so I got to looking at that, and I thought, well, you
know, that is a new aspect of this that I hadn't thought about.
And then I got to looking at the other aspects that I saw as a
circuit judge, and one of those was the domestic violence thing
that we really are seeing. And, also, the children in the homes
where meth is being manufactured, we don't have a real good
tracking system, and I noticed that ONDCP has some estimates on
those kind of things, but I have talked to the juvenile judges
across the State about that particular problem, because those
children end up in their courts a lot of times, having to take
them, and this is a real significant problem. Also, the
environmental damage, you know.
And so I look at all these things, and my job is broad
based in that sense. What I would like to do is recommend to
this body, and, Congressman Boozman, this is something that I
think you alluded to a while ago, but I would like--and I've
got some recommendations in my prepared statement, and as Mr.
Bryant said, we're going to meet with DEA and ACIC on trying to
figure out a better way to get the EPIC forms in. But also the
one thing that I have looked at, and as a recommendation, is
trying to come up with a system in the State of Arkansas, and
it may need some Federal funding, where we can approach this as
an epidemic.
In other words, the word is right; it is an epidemic. Where
we could go in, for instance, at the State level and assist
these local prosecutors and law enforcement and treatment
people and prevention people and bring in some assets. In Mr.
Gibbons district down there and bring in for 60, 90 days and
say, just swarm that place with law enforcement and others,
treatment people, prevention people, and try to move those
people out of that area and then go on to the next one, leaving
a long term program in place.
And I would certainly be amenable to any questions that you
may have, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rutledge follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.031
Mr. Souder. Judge Hudson.
STATEMENT OF DAVID HUDSON, SEBASTIAN COUNTY JUDGE
Judge Hudson. Thank you, I'll be making comments relative
to the written statement from myself with attachments from the
Fort Smith police chief, Randy Reed, and the Sebastian County
prosecutor, Steve Tabor.
My concerns related to drug use focus on our jails. Our
jail's capacity to hold inmates, crowding due to drug
offenders, jail expansion and related capital expenditures,
and, most significantly, the increased ongoing operating cost
from larger facilities. We simply cannot afford to incarcerate
all drug offenders. The distinction must be made between
criminal violators we are afraid of and those we are mad at.
Lock up those we are afraid of and use other programs to deal
with those we are mad at, such as drug courts.
It is widely acknowledged that 80 percent of the
individuals in the Sebastian County Adult Detention facility
are directly or indirectly incarcerated due to some form of
drug abuse. Sebastian County is currently in the process of
expanding its jail at a cost of $3\1/2\ million with an
increased operating cost projected at $400,000 a year. The
county has been able to plan on jail expansion without
requiring a tax increase. However, any further jail expansion
will require additional revenues.
The methamphetamine drug abuse problem is considered a
major issue in the future expansion of the jail, continued
crowding of the existing facility and the need to increase
taxes to operate such a facility in the future. Our law
enforcement officers and agencies do a great job in
apprehending drug abusers, and the prosecuting attorney's
office and judges are effective in administering judgment and
sentencing these individuals to jail and prison time. However,
for a certain category of these offenders, this solution is an
expensive proposition with a high probability and likelihood of
repeat offenders continuing to exacerbate the flow of arrests,
crowding of jails and prisons, and related expenditures.
The expenditure of tax resources to deal with the
methamphetamine drug abuser in the areas of education,
awareness, and the drug courts' use of judicial sanctions to
help rehabilitate, is an effective national public policy
partnership with our State and local governments. Law
enforcement in western Arkansas has experienced a dramatic
increase in the number of clandestine methamphetamine
laboratory seizures. Each year, methamphetamine arrests and
drug seizures double those of the preceding year. This has had
a profound effect upon law enforcement, manpower and asset
allocation.
Combating this growing epidemic has become a complicated
process which crosses traditional jurisdictional boundaries and
requires investigators to consistently share information,
specialize abilities and enforcement strategies. High intensity
drug trafficking area programs expand and organize
investigative methods and abilities among local, State, and
Federal law enforcement agencies. HIDTA programs coordinate law
enforcement efforts to target those responsible for the illegal
manufacture of methamphetamine distribution and transportation.
Recent Federal, State, and local investigations uncovered
drug routes leading directly from Mexico to environments within
Arkansas and surrounding communities. A collaborative effort
promoted by HIDTA programs would prove extremely beneficial to
the State of Arkansas and regional law enforcement agencies.
Assistance from the Federal Government with regards to
developing a HIDTA in our region would encourage collaboration
and intelligence efforts and would dramatically affect direct
interstate distribution of methamphetamines in the State of
Arkansas.
The widespread use of methamphetamines is the single worst
contributor to crime in the State in this area of Arkansas. Not
only are large numbers of people arrested each year for the
use, sale, or manufacture of this drug but many more are
arrested for other crimes directly related to the use of
methamphetamines. For example, a methamphetamine user is more
prone to the commission of violent offenses while under the
influence of the drug. Many assaults, homicides, and robberies
occur as the direct result of methamphetamine use. In addition,
large numbers of methamphetamine users resort to the commission
of property crimes in order to support their habit, because
they're unable to successfully maintain employment and fund
their addiction.
Because of a disturbing trend for methamphetamine labs we
have in residential areas, increased attention has to be given
to the State for clean up of laboratory sites. Every dollar
spent in the drug court is an outstanding investment which will
reap untold savings to the system. For every person who
successfully beats their addiction through the efforts of drug
court, many thousands of dollars are saved is the long run in
the cost of investigations and incarceration. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here, and I wish you well as we fight this
very difficult issue.
[The prepared statement of Judge Hudson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.034
Mr. Souder. How big is Sebastian County?
Judge Hudson. We have a population of 115,000.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Howard.
STATEMENT OF J.R. HOWARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS STATE
CRIME LAB
Mr. Howard. Thank you, and good morning. The Arkansas State
Crime Lab was established in 1977, and it's the only forensic
laboratory in the State. The primary function of the crime lab
is to provide forensic services including drug analysis to all
local, county, State, and some Federal agencies. I might add
that within the State there are over 450 police departments, 75
county sheriffs departments, and about 80 State police and
investigators, and not even taking into account the other State
law enforcement agencies that use the crime lab. So we've got
many folks out in the State loading our wagon for us.
Illicit methamphetamine labs were relatively unknown in
Arkansas until the mid 1990's. About that time, the simplified
recipes for methamphetamine manufacture became available and
the availability of the recipe as well as the accessibility of
components resulted in an explosion, sometimes literally
explosions, in the number of meth labs beginning in 1995. And
that increase continues through today. The 400 percent increase
in meth lab seizures from 1995 to 1996 kind of signifies the
beginning of the upward spiral of the meth lab seizures in the
State.
Initially, the evidenced seized from the meth labs was
processed in the drug section of the crime lab. However, an
1,800 percent increase in the number of meth labs seizures from
1995 to 1998 resulted in an illicit lab section of the crime
lab being established. And it's established specifically to
handle analysis of evidence from methamphetamine labs. At the
time, three analysts staffed the illicit lab section.
Currently, the illicit lab section is staffed by six analysts,
and they're tasked with handling the 1,208 meth seizures that
were accomplished in 2003 and are also tasked in handling
anticipated--1,305 labs anticipated to be handled this year.
And in addition to analyzing the evidence, the analysts are
also tasked with responding to the crime lab sites at the
request of local or other law enforcement agencies, and they
provide safety information to officers at the scene; they
assist in rendering the site safe; they collect evidence
samples; they wind up testifying in court; and also they
provide training to law enforcement officers regarding the meth
lab.
Cases we receive each year continue to outnumber the cases
processed which results in an unacceptable backlog of almost
1,000 cases in the illicit lab section. And this backlog is not
a result of any inefficiencies on the part of our lab
personnel, but it's due primarily to the sheer number of cases
coming into the lab. Although additional analysts are needed,
current budget constraints hinder the hiring of the additional
analysts.
And just as the illicit lab section has no control over the
number of hours spent in court, we also have no control over
the number of man hours spent in responding to meth labs,
because it's totally dependent on calls we receive from outside
law enforcement agencies. And on average since January 1, 2004,
illicit lab analysts have spent 74 hours in court, which is
almost 2 weeks in court, and 187 hours responding to meth lab
scenes. And that's over 4 weeks. And each hour they spend in
court or at the scene takes them away from the laboratory
condition where they analyze the evidence that's needed for
court. And since 1995, the number of meth labs seized has
increased by almost 5,000 percent, while the number of illicit
lab analysts has increased from three to six. The backlog of
cases, as well as the congestion of the judicial system
contributes to another unique problem.
In many instances, persons charged with manufacture of meth
will bond out of jail and may be arrested additional times for
manufacture of meth prior to going to trial on the first
charge. The illicit lab section assists the Criminal Justice
Institute in Little Rock by providing instructors over the
methamphetamine awareness first responders course, and
clandestine laboratory evidence sampling preparation for this
course. It is through this training that analysts hope to
educate officers in the proper response techniques to meth labs
for safety service and to instruct officers in proper
techniques for evidence sampling and handling.
By achieving this goal, the analyst will decrease the call
outs to lab sites and increase efficiency of the cases
submitted to the lab because proper packaging and submission
procedures have been followed. Of course, as a result, it
allows the analyst more time in the laboratory.
And in conjunction with the need for training law
enforcement personnel and increased manpower, I, again, believe
that changes in the law to restrict the availability of
ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are much needed. I believe
Congress should attempt to address this problem by listing
ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as a scheduled drug that either
requires a prescription or at least restricted availability. As
pertains to the State Crime Lab, we're in need of additional
chemists to enhance the staff of the illicit lab section and to
support these chemists, we are going to need additional
vehicles and equipment as well as environmental training for
our people.
Despite our manpower situation and our backlog of cases,
our analysts, I would like to say, will continue to produce a
quality product the criminal justice system can utilize in
continuing the fight against methamphetamine in Arkansas and
across the Nation.
Again, I'd like to say thank you for allowing me this
opportunity to speak.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Howard follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.039
Mr. Souder. Miss Louie.
STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY LOUIE, ENVIRONMENTAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
SUPERVISOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Ms. Louie. Gentlemen, thank you. I'm Shirley Louie. I'm
chief environmental epidemiologist for the Arkansas Department
of Health. And I thank you for the opportunity to discuss with
you the potential dangers to human health associated with
exposure to hazards that you find in areas where there have
been clandestine methamphetamine laboratories functioning, and
also to discuss the complexities of cleaning up those
properties.
In Arkansas, as well as in other parts of the country,
we've heard that sites where meth has been produced are
shifting away from rural areas and oftentimes into more densely
populated and urban areas. In homes, trailers, apartment
complexes. These laboratories are not laboratories the way we
look at a lab. There's very little control. There's very little
attention paid to safety. Oftentimes there are fires and
explosions, and the chemicals are not handled in a judicious
way.
Law enforcement here in Arkansas has done an outstanding
job of doing what we call primary clean-up, which is going in
and taking out the chemicals, the paraphernalia, and then
turning the--after processing the site, they turn it back over
to the property owner. And then it becomes the property owner's
responsibility to finish the clean-up detail. Almost all of
these sites are contaminated with residuals of the meth
process.
In many cases, the property owner, however, will just turn
around and have people reoccupy the property without much
attention paid to where the contamination is or how much there
is of the contamination. And depending upon the methods used to
clean up, you can run into residuals of solvents or heavy
metals or acids or bases, or sometimes even chemicals that we
don't have any way of being able to identify.
Persons can be exposed through a contact with contaminated
surfaces or breathing in the dust. You can have rashes
associated with this sort of exposure, irritation to your eyes,
your nose, your skin, headaches, dizziness, and a myriad of
respiratory and central nervous system problems. Children are
particularly vulnerable because of their activities, especially
smaller children crawling around on the floor, putting things
in their mouths. Their skin is very, very sensitive, and they
have developing nervous systems. And because of that, they are
very vulnerable.
At this time, there are no rules and regulations in
Arkansas that cover what we call secondary clean-up. That's
clean-up that we state should be necessary before you reoccupy
a space. However, the Arkansas Department of Health has
developed what we call guidelines to help property owners,
tenants, and people who control real estate, to help them
figure out what to do. These are general guidelines, they're
not meant to be all encompassing, and they are guides and
recommendations to help the public. They are not rules and
regulations that are enforceable. Arkansas Department of Health
does understand that enforceable rules and regulations may be
required to insure the quality and uniformity of what we called
secondary clean up.
There needs to be an adequate oversight if there's going to
be proper reports. There also needs to be adequate and
continuing funding for any program that's developed. I think
relying on existing personnel and resources, as from already
overburdened law enforcement and environmental protection and
public health infrastructure will not be adequate to address
this problem.
And you as law makers, as you continue these discussions
and establish regulations and policies and programs to help us
address these problems with secondary clean up of contaminated
sites. I hope you'll ensure that these programs will be
adequately funded, they will be scientifically and technically
sound, and also that they will be protective of public health
and the environment. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Louie follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.042
Mr. Souder. Mr. Hickman.
STATEMENT OF DANNY HICKMAN, SHERIFF, BOONE COUNTY
Mr. Hickman. Thank you for inviting me here today. Boone
County is in northwest Arkansas, and Harrison's the county
seat. My county is 35,000; small county. We see many problems.
We border Branson, MO. And we're a very rural county. Some of
the meth problems we're seeing, we hear of people buying the
precursors every day, we just don't have the manpower to
maintain it. We're starting to see more violence in these meth
cases. She'd showed you a picture of a gun there; that
particular case, the gentleman that we had a 90-minute standoff
with him. He had a 4-year-old boy. It was very ``touch and go''
for quite some time. This man had been up for days on meth. And
it ended in a good resolve, the situation there.
But, also, you've got a picture of a--the gentleman spoke a
while ago of monitors. We're running into a lot monitors that
they know we're coming before we get there. In every lab
situation, every lab has weapons. We run into that every time.
It's a very dangerous situation.
Myself and the Drug Task Force, our case loads have
increased about 50 percent over the past 5 years, and I may add
that my jail is overcrowded. I have a small 35-bed jail, and
I've had as high as 80 people in my jail. And we're seeing
about 80 percent of my inmates are drug related.
I'm very high on education. I educate my staff as much as
possible. And I'm very high on any educating the public, which
we do a lot of seminars to the public, and we connect well with
the businesses. And the result of that, these businesses are
able to call us and tell us whenever there are people buying
precursors.
And as you can I work real close with the Criminal Justice
Institute, which I've got graduates from the Crime Scene Tech
school, which has helped our small department greatly. I'm just
fortunate to have sent two of my officers to the FBI Academy,
the national academy, which is, again, the education. Once
again, I do think that education has helped us out a lot as far
as prevention.
I do think the blister packs, the cold medicine, we should
continue on with the limited amount that are able to be sold to
them, but I think it should be in--I believe they should be
made to sign for these and give us a means to--a legal means to
collect data from the businesses whenever they sign for them
and such as that. We get data from pawn shops where people pawn
stuff off. We need to be able to get data so that we can
continue dealing with our drug cases that way.
Once again, thank you for allowing me to speak to you
today.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hickman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.044
Mr. Souder. Mr. Gibbons.
STATEMENT OF DAVID GIBBONS, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, 5TH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Congressman Boozman. I'm truly honored to be here. I'm
prosecuting attorney for the 5th District. The 5th District is
comprised of three counties: Pope County, Johnson County, and
Franklin County. We're at the foot of the Ozark Mountains. I-40
traverses us from east to west, west to east, and the Arkansas
River is our southern boundary. I didn't know if y'all know
where that is.
Our title for this subcommittee hearing, Methamphetamine
Epidemic in Arkansas, accurately reflects the situation in the
5th District. It truly is an epidemic, and it's a growing
epidemic.
In 2003 and 2004, the first 5 months of 2004, 52 percent of
all felonies filed were directly related to methamphetamine.
Now, when I say, ``directly related to methamphetamine,'' I
mean it's possession of methamphetamine, manufacture of
methamphetamine, possession of paraphernalia, the attempt to
manufacture or deliver. That, of course, doesn't take into
account the forgery, the hot checks, the burglaries that people
do to support their habit. Unfortunately, this epidemic, at
least in the 5th District, appears to be in large part an
epidemic of our own making.
In 1997 when I first took office, 9 percent of the cases
filed, and these aren't arrests or searches or labs uncovered,
these are actual felonies filed, there were nine manufacturing
felonies filed in 1997. Last year, in 2003, there was 67
manufacturing felonies filed, and that includes not just
straight manufacturing, that's also paraphernalia with intent.
We don't have the product, but the intent is definitely there
to manufacture. So far, the first 5 months of 2004, there have
been 36 manufacturing felonies filed in those three counties.
The manufacturing cases that we have are not truly super
labs. These are what have been called mom and pop labs, and
probably accurately reflects the way they are. Most of these
labs in one generating period will produce less than an ounce,
maybe a little bit more than an ounce, but what I would like to
drive home to this subcommittee today is that the impact that
those mom and pop labs have goes way beyond the actual drug,
the actual product in this way. It takes a lot more manpower
and a lot more resources to investigate a lab. You've got to
have the people, you've got to work informants, and you've got
to do the search warrant. You've got to go in and execute the
search warrant. That area has to be secured. It takes a lot
more manpower.
The clean up, there's been reference to clean up.
Approximately 95 percent with that specter of perjury looming
over me, I don't want to--but approximately 95 percent of all
of our labs require clean up. We have a company from out of
State that comes in and does that. And then, with
methamphetamine labs, the crime lab, we put a tremendous amount
of work on them because you have a simple possession case or a
distribution case, you've got one substance that needs to be
analyzed. That is the meth. With a lab, you've got to analyze
all those other things so that I can take it to a jury and say,
``Well, this is red phosphorus, this is iodine,'' this is this,
this is that, plus they've got to testify because they've got
to tell the jury how all this combines. It puts a tremendous
strain on the crime lab. But the trials themselves take long on
these mom and pop labs.
A simple possession case or a distribution case, you've got
a day, day and a half. A lab case could take 2 to 3 to 4 days.
And, finally, it puts a tremendous strain on the prisons
because--and I want to hasten, the meth manufacturing cases
absolutely justify that these people go to prison. And in
Arkansas, they have to serve 70 percent of their time before
they're eligible for parole, which is correct, and that's the
way it should be. Nevertheless, that's the impact it has.
One thing that I do want to bring out to this, this
subcommittee already knows that no matter the technique that's
used to produce this methamphetamine, there's one common
ingredient and that's pseudoephedrine. Pseudoephedrine is to
methamphetamine production in the 5th District as ball bearings
were to Nazi war production in World War II. That is their
point of vulnerability.
Mr. Bryant's already made--Bill Bryant, already made
reference to the Oklahoma law. That law was passed in March.
It's House Bill 2176. Basically, it says that pseudoephedrine
has to be dispensed by a registered pharmacist or a registered
pharmacy technician. This doesn't apply to gel, this is just
the solid form. But the receiving person has to have a photo ID
and sign a log, which the sheriff alluded to, and no person can
have more than 9 grams within 30 days without a valid
prescription.
Jim Talley, a writer of the Associated Press in the Fort
Smith paper, Southwest Times Record on June 22nd said that
Oklahoma--this is what the report is--in Oklahoma, the lab
production dropped 70 percent since that law went into effect
in the early part of April. He went on to say that 90 meth labs
were reported to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation in
March. The figure fell to 64 in April and then dropped to 29 in
May. Now, that's their figures, but when you think about it,
these people that run the mom and pop organizations, they don't
plan good, so that can very well be accurate, and I assume that
it is.
There's no question that you have to attack this
methamphetamine problem on all fronts; the drug courts,
treatment, interdiction on ice--or interdiction. But in my
opinion, to restrict the access of pseudoephedrine would drive
a stake in the heart of methamphetamine production, in the 5th
District.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.051
Mr. Souder. I'm going to make an absolute. One thing that's
very discouraging and what's absolutely clear is that the
growth rate expense, we don't have the money to deal with it
the way we're dealing with it. So I want to ask a couple of
questions in that vein. Let me start with Ms. Louie and Mr.
Howard, maybe, but start with Ms. Louie.
The chemicals that they're using in the labs are clearly
dangerous. Don't take any of my questions otherwise. Do we have
any hard evidence of people getting sick or being treated or
problems occurring at homes where a lab was previously, and now
somebody else has moved in, and they've gone to the hospital?
Do we have any hard evidence, or is this mostly a concern or
looking at what could be?
Ms. Louie. Some of the information is anecdotal in that a
mother or father will bring their child into an emergency room,
for instance, and they will have symptoms that are consistent
with exposure to chemicals. But it's oftentimes they don't even
know that they've moved into a facility or a home or an
apartment that was once used as a meth production facility.
Physicians don't make that cause and effect oftentimes.
They treat the symptoms, they try to make the child well, but
without that kind of information, and since these chemicals can
also be used in other areas, too, it's not always clear cut
why. We know from experience, and in occupational settings, in
accidental exposure settings that if a child is exposed to
those chemicals which clearly can be and oftentimes are
detected on those properties, they can and will be sick. And so
I think even though that hard evidence is not there, it's not
because it isn't real. Perhaps it's because we haven't looked
hard enough to find it.
Mr. Souder. Yes, we have a huge problem here because even
in Arkansas, what we're hearing is that the labs aren't
producing large quantities and that the--if we're looking at it
from an addition treatment side, the problem is not the home
grown labs, the problem is the Mexican trafficking
organizations, even in Arkansas. Because what we didn't ask,
but I know the answer to the question is, is that it isn't only
that the home grown labs only provide 30 percent roughly of
Arkansas, but it isn't as addictive and it's not as explosive.
In other words, the super lab's purity and addictive components
are greater than the home grown because they're using different
chemical forms and so on and so forth.
Looking at it from a drug treatment standpoint, it's not
the small mom and pop labs. If we're looking at it from the
numbers who are addicted, it's not the mom and pop labs. If
we're looking at it from violence to the general--if we're
looking at court cases related to child abuse, court cases
related to spouse abuse and other things, it's not the mom and
pop labs. And yet, we're spending an incredible amount of
dollars with clean-up equipment, the time, and what it
absolutely is, is the mom and pop labs are the greatest danger
physically to local police forces because as they go in, these
people are armed. So clearly it's a danger to them. It's
clearly the No. 1 thing that's taking up the time of our local
police forces, which means it's being diverted from other crime
as they zero in on this, particularly if they have to wait at
the location. It's taking the biggest percent of the prisons.
I had one county in my district that every single person is
in on meth. They can't even arrest anybody with anything else
because they're overcrowded, and everybody in there is on meth.
That is taking up the prison space.
Ironically though, with people who often have ounces as
opposed to pounds, which is the very reverse of our policy on
marijuana, that it has a huge impact on the law enforcement
side. But what I'm trying to sort through, after sitting
through hearing after hearing, in the environmental context,
we're going to have to have a very hard look at the
environmental and healthcare side of this because most of these
things are household chemicals that are already in the house in
many cases. They're in different forms.
And the question is, is there something we could do to spot
check in emergency rooms? You've got a couple of counties that
have lots of these labs. Could we do a spot check and look at
something in the 10 highest counties in the United States where
there are labs to investigate the emergency room? We may be
making a false assumption here and pouring our money
intensively into something without the greatest return. In
other words, one of the first cuts may be has there been
spillage, has the stuff been mixed, what form of the danger it
is. Because it isn't sustainable.
There's no way the Federal Government, which is more broke
than the State government, which is more broke than the local
government, but the local government doesn't want to raise
taxes, the State government doesn't want to have to raise the
taxes, and the Federal Government, we're trying to cut taxes,
so the bottom line, is that it's not like there's money. Any
money we give you, we're just running up the deficit to give it
to you. But we certainly aren't going to be able to sustain the
type of increases that you were talking about. I mean, it's
exponential.
And I can see you're backlogged 1,000 cases, and in every
lab, you have to have multiple things to take down a lab which
makes a couple of ounces, and to be able to prove it in court,
we have an unsustainable problem here. It isn't whether the
Federal Government is going to do it, the State government, or
local government. It's not sustainable.
From the law enforcement I heard that we need to be
brainstorming how we prioritize this system. So if you want to
give us some additional information, and nobody likes to make
that cut, because we'd like to get them all, but we're going to
have to have some kind of prioritization system as we've had to
in other kinds of narcotics and other kinds of challenges.
Pseudoephedrine is definitely a problem and we clearly have to
crack down, we have to get more information. We're working on
some legislation.
Now, I want to ask you a couple of particular questions
about that. I really want you to brainstorm. You can't
possibly, as a prosecutor or a judge or a sheriff, or even EPA,
you can't go running after all these labs, and we need to
figure out what is the extent of the risk, what are the major
things that get us over from potential risks to risks but more
short-term risk, the things that can really be damaging.
Clearly, it's the child abuse risk, and if Arkansas doesn't
have that law, you ought to look at the California law because
anybody that's cooking in their home where there are small
children, they put that child at risk for explosion purposes.
But, let me ask, do you use anhydrous ammonia here in some
of the labs? We have one case in Indiana, this idiot went
into--because we need to look at somehow how to protect in some
of the rural areas, they have these areas where they have
anhydrous ammonia in big tanks, and some idiot went in there,
got one and a half turns from blowing up a tank that would have
taken a town of 700 off the face of the earth. It was at the
edge of town, they were living out in the country. One and a
half more turns on that, because he couldn't get it all the way
off, one and a half more turns, it would have instantaneously
killed all 700 people in the town before they even knew they
got hit.
Now, that's a different level of risk than some home cooker
who, basically, has himself in the house or his spouse in the
house or little kids in the house. Because they're going to
burn the place up, they're going to wound the kids, that's risk
immediately on that. While he's cooking there's a risk. But
we've got to look at the clean up. Clean up and the hard data
here, because we don't have enough dollars to do this. We'll
never have enough dollars to do this.
I'd like to hear everwho wants to take a crack at that. Go
ahead.
Ms. Louie. Thank you. I guess one of the issues that we
looked at when we developed the Arkansas Department of Health
guidelines for secondary clean up was just that issue of, you
know, you will never be able to clean a facility up to where
it's pristine and spotless. However, you can be reasonable, and
let's look and see a fundamental assessment of what has been
the contamination and where were these things and where were
the chemicals stored, where was the activity going on? And then
make that assessment. It may be that clean up can be very
superficial and not all that expensive. It is still the
responsibility of the property owner. Or you make that person
take on that responsibility.
If you make those regulations or guidelines reasonable
enough so that there is still protection of public health but
it's not so overwhelming that it's going to cost that person
more than his or her house is worth in order to facilitate that
clean up. I think there needs to be a reasonableness and a
balance without jeopardizing public health and the environment
but still making it so it's doable so we're not having to dump
that last million dollars to clean up that last model.
Mr. Souder. Sheriff, if your guys come across a home meth
cooker, how long does it take to get clean up?
Mr. Hickman. It depends upon if the crime lab's available
at the time. It can be--I'm in north--the northern part of
Arkansas and Little Rock being in the central, it depends on
where they're at. Anywhere from 2 hours to 8 to 10 hours.
Mr. Souder. And do your guys leave the scene.
Mr. Hickman. No, sir. We're there until it's gone.
Mr. Souder. And the closest is Little Rock.
Mr. Hickman. Yes.
Mr. Souder. So what's typical? How long? Do you just leave
one person there or do you leave the whole team there?
Mr. Hickman. No, my--the sheriff's office and the Drug Task
Force coordinates that together. It's anywhere from probably
five to six guys.
Mr. Souder. So they're tied up?
Mr. Hickman. They're tied up until it's gone.
Mr. Souder. So it's typically 4 hours.
Mr. Hickman. That would be the earliest.
Mr. Souder. So half day, you've got five to six people tied
up and sitting there.
Mr. Hickman. Yes. Actually, you know, from the
investigation end of it, until we write the search warrant,
while they're writing the search warrant, I've got to have a
deputy sit on the lab, you get the search warrant signed off,
and the search starts, a normal lab, you're looking at probably
a good 10 hours.
Mr. Souder. I'll come back to Mr. Rutledge in just a
minute.
Mr. Gibbons, you were talking about the difficulty in
prosecuting somebody and all you've got to put together and all
that case. Do you see any ways that we can simplify this
process? I mean, this isn't realistic. It's tough if you were
doing 20 labs, but when you get into the hundreds, we're not
even in the zone of realism here for being able to fund it long
term.
Mr. Gibbons. There's nothing the Federal Government can do
of which I'm aware of that brings to mind that would enable me
to prosecute a case easier. Because, you know, simply the facts
are there, and that's what they are. And a jury's got to learn
that there's certain things you have to do.
Yes, you're right, Mr. Chairman, it isn't realistic, but
the fact is, it's realty. And these things have to be stopped,
and we do have to go out to these labs. We may not have to
clean each one up, but we have to go to each lab. Because if we
don't, the whole block will be tampered--the whole area is
contaminated.
Mr. Souder. Let me give you an example. If we said that on
the surface if you had X amount of pseudoephedrine and it's not
in the pill bottle to be used as for aspirin or something, that
you are de facto able to be prosecuted for a certain of crime?
And then you would look at a prosecutor and the prosecutor
would say, ``Since he was only producing this amount, I'm going
to get him on the pseudoephedrine charge rather than a meth
charge.''
Mr. Gibbons. Yeah, I do that. We have a law in Arkansas
where we actually have one in possession of certain quantities
pseudoephedrine is in and of itself a crime. We use that to a
degree. Also, I mentioned earlier, the possession of
paraphernalia with the intent to manufacture is a Class B
felony. I use that a lot. And we do that, just what you're
talking about, Mr. Chairman. When we see something that's not
an active lab that's putting out a whole lot of product, if we
can stop them there, that's how we do that. Nevertheless, we
still have a lot of the chemicals, and we still have that same
problemof showing what they intended it for. So, yeah.
Mr. Souder. So is there a way when Sheriff Hickman walks up
to the place, rather than tying up 6 to 10 people, that he can
get a quick read as to whether this is going to be a
paraphernalia pseudoephedrine prosecution as opposed to a large
one?
Mr. Gibbons. Sheriff Hickman will know when he goes in
there that these people have purchased all of these items. He
will know that they have--I'm almost sure he will be positive
that they have producedmethamphetamine in that house before, or
else he wouldn't be there. Some informant's told him that. Then
he has the duty to go in and see what's actually going on.
Sometimes he'll get a lab in progress, sometimes he'll get the
lab after it's down. Sometimes he'll get simply pills. So he
doesn't--he doesn't know that, but he knows he's got to go in
there and do something because that's just the----
Mr. Souder. Mr. Rutledge.
Mr. Rutledge. There were a couple of things, Mr. Chairman,
that you mentioned that I think might be helpful. One is the
definition of a lab. You know, what constitutes a lab? And I
have tried to find that out from various people, and it would
make it easier if we had some definition.
One thing that you might--that I've noted in my other
statement was that the drug task forces in Arkansas last year
alone confiscated 273 pounds of methamphetamine, and the vast
majority of that was home grown in these mom and pop. That's a
lot of methamphetamine in these little mom and pop operations,
that--when you break it all out.
We are also meeting with the--I think the sheriff mentioned
the CJI a while ago, which is part of the University of
Arkansas. It's the Criminal Justice Institute. And my office
and others have been meeting with CJI and the State police and
DEA and others in an attempt to try and develop a training
for--instead of him taking six guys, six deputy sheriffs,
certified law enforcement officers, to sit there on that lab
while--you know, it may take 8 hours for somebody to come there
and clean it up and look at it and all that kind of stuff, that
if there was some cross-training ability with the emergency
management people and the volunteer fire fighters who are
trained in certain aspects of chemicalspills and hazardous
waste and those kind of things, where they could be utilized
with the sheriff's deputies to fill in. Because a lot of these
are volunteer guys, and they would be more than willing to be
there to protect the site while the law enforcement people
could be doing other things and--if they were properly trained
in those techniques. And, conversely, the law enforcement
people could be trained to do some chemical hazardous work as
it relates to terrorism and other chemical things that the
emergency management people are trained to do.
And what we're looking at is trying to figure out a way to
cross train those people into some kind of a system. Because
one thing we're--the DEA does a good job of training our
people, but as Mr. Bryant said, there were 400 something that
they had trained for the State of Arkansas. Well, all these
labs require certified lab officers. You can't just have John
Doe Deputy Sheriff walking in there doing this stuff. And a lot
of those people, you know, we get them trained, and then they
go on, they get promoted to different jobs, or they move to a
different agency. And so it's a continuing flow problem. And
we're looking at trying to come up with a proposal that maybe
the government can help us fund to train more people and not
just law enforcement officers. You know, cross training. That
may help alleviate some of these local law enforcement
problems.
Mr. Souder. I believe Congressman Boozman has some more
questions. Thank you very much.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you-all for your testimony and your
statements. Your written material that you turned in really was
excellent.
Mr. Gibbons, people tell me that the small labs, that it's
almost like the Amway, they cook for a little bit, maybe for
one or two or three people to support their own habit. Is that
true, or is reality that they are supporting their own habit,
but they're also--you know, you mentioned a large amount that
was seized over and above. When we talk about a small lab, what
are we really talking about?
Mr. Gibbons. Well, I think that we're talking about, at
least in my district, Congressman Boozman, we're talking about
a lab which would generate somewhere around an ounce of
methamphetamine during just one generation period. One
generation period, using the methods that are used in the 5th
District, generally would be about a 24-hour period from pills
sold to finished product. It's not--I haven't seen it--like
when you say it's for their own use, there's two or three of
them that it never gets outside that circle, and that's where
it enters the trade. It's part of it.
I would agree with Mr. Bryant who testified, that's
probably 70/30. I might put it more like 65/35, but somewheres
in there. But it does enter the stream of commerce, if I can
use that phrase. It does get outside those two to three people.
And it has to be stopped.
You know, the sheriff, whether it's a pill soak or whatever
it is, it may have ramifications on how we clean it up, but it
nevertheless has to be stopped because it's a problem that just
feeds on itself.
Mr. Boozman. You mentioned that the primary ingredient, no
matter how you make it, is the ephedrine and pseudoephedrine.
As you-all make your busts and do your analysis in Arkansas,
where do the perpetrators get their stuff?
Mr. Gibbons. They go, Congressman, they go--or in my
experience in the 5th District, they go from retail store to
retail store, they go to convenience stores, they go to Wal-
Mart, where they're limited, but then they go to the other one.
There's Russellville Wal-Mart, Clarksville Wal-Mart, and Ozark
Wal-Mart in my district. And we have good cooperation from
retail merchants, but iodine and things of that nature, they
may go to the feed store, red phosphorus, of course, they get
from the striker plates in matches. But, basically, the
pseudoephedrine, they'll purchase from convenience stores and
places like that.
Mr. Boozman. So we are getting more cooperation? You
mentioned, Sheriff Hickman----
Mr. Hickman. We're getting a lot more cooperation. Like I
said, the education of businesses and what have you, just like
he said, what we find is a group of people will come in and
they'll split up and go to these retail stores and Wal-Mart and
feed stores, and then they'll gang back up and go off and do
their lab.
Mr. Boozman. Have we prosecuted any stores, as far as
convenience stores, that seem to be breaking the law far as
dealing?
Mr. Gibbons. We----
Mr. Boozman [continuing]. Themselves.
Mr. Gibbons. I didn't mean to interrupt you, but in my
district we had one store that we came very close to, but it
went awry. But that's the only one that I'm aware of in my
district.
Mr. Boozman. Is that an area we need to concentrate on?
Mr. Rutledge. You know, there is a State law that, you
know, limits the amount these people can--and the enforcement
of that law is real tricky, because just like Mr. Gibbons said,
you know, the guy goes through this line at Wal-Mart and goes
through that line down there, and he goes to the next Wal-Mart
or the next convenience store. And these stores are helpful in
furnishing data and about who's buying and all that kind of
stuff.
I do think that most prosecutors in the State will
prosecute if the stores violate, but I don't think that's the
big problem. I think it's the guy--you know, they're not
violating--now, there are a few, and we've had some in north
Arkansas where some 7-Eleven type store might buy cases of this
stuff and pedaling it.
I know there was one case in Batesville that they were
taking it to Jonesboro by the case and--this was a number of
years ago--and selling it to the people that were
manufacturing, and that kind of thing. And those people are
being prosecuted if we find them, but I think the biggest
problem is just this buying it, you know. But we're certainly
looking at it from the State level.
Mr. Boozman. How about the statistics I read which say that
this is something that many people get into later in their
life, and since late teens or whatever, on up into their 40's,
and lot of women get into this disproportionally, compared to
some other stuff? I mean, how is that impacting the system?
Mr. Rutledge. I think that is probably the most--we have
had a tremendous explosion in the number of women committing
crimes, and especially this particular crime. In Arkansas, as
the data would show, in the public facilities, admissions for
methamphetamine, 40 percent are women, which, that's pretty
high on any kind of drug problem. And what we're seeing in
Little Rock and in some of these other areas where we have
treatment facilities for women and children, pregnant women,
we're seeing an increase in that particular problem of--you
know, young women with babies, small children, or who are
pregnant. And this is just a devastating thing.
You know, when I was circuit judge, I never will forget
when these people come to me and--for commitment, or some kind
of domestic abuse order, and 90 percent of it was
methamphetamine. And you had some young lady there who was
admitted for treatment that--you know, with her teeth falling
out and all this kind of thing. And it was just devastating.
And that's what I've got a real concern about this. What are we
going to do about it.
But, yeah, women are a big problem. Not more so then men,
but the idea that more women are becoming criminals because of
this particular drug than any other, because of the--one other
thing, Congressman, that--it's not really a teenage drug, but
it's--you know, we have them as young as 9 or 10, but the vast
75 percent, I think, of the people who are committed or
admitted for treatment fall within the age range of 20 to 45
years of age. We have some older.
What really concerns me is because of that age group and
the devastation to the family and other things that this stuff
is causing, I see a potential for real explosion in the number
of people going into nursing homes at an earlier age and a real
devastating effect on the Medicaid funds that we have, because
we don't--in Arkansas, we don't spend any Medicaid funds per se
on substance abuse treatment, but it could become a real source
of problems when those people become dysfunctional and end up
in a nursing home.
Mr. Boozman. One other thing, and I'll then let Chairman
Souder continue. The Oklahoma law, has it been in effect long
enough to know if being a State that borders, are we seeing
more people--David, you're in Fort Smith, Mr. Gibbons, are we
seeing more people crossing the line to buy product in Arkansas
and then taking it back to Oklahoma, or do we not know yet?
Mr. Gibbons. Congressman, there's always been a real
permeable membrane there between Oklahoma and Arkansas. I did
talk with a State police drug agent last night, and I asked him
that very question. He indicated to me that, yes, he seemed to
think that there were more and more people coming over, but he,
obviously, didn't have any hard facts on the affect of that was
having, or something like that. But, again, you know, he--that
was his impression.
Mr. Boozman. Something's happening because the statistics
that you quoted were pretty dramatic.
Mr. Gibbons. Yes, they are.
Mr. Boozman. David.
Judge Hudson. I can't clarify anything on that.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. I guess if they were purchasing in Arkansas and
taking it back, there's not a tracking--I think if they destroy
the packages, you wouldn't be able to tell. Is there a way to
tell from packaging where it was purchased.
Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe there is, Mr. Chairman. I
don't believe so.
Mr. Rutledge. If they buy it at Wal-Mart, there probably
is. They track almost everything in sight.
Mr. Gibbons. But you've got a Wal-Mart man coming.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Howard, you had a chart in the back----
Mr. Howard. Yes.
Mr. Souder [continuing]. With clan labs, so this is over a
3-year period?
Mr. Howard. Are you looking at this----
Mr. Souder. No, actually, I was looking at the map.
Mr. Howard. Oh, yes. Yes, sir, that is. That map of the
State of Arkansas is the number of labs seized in 2000 to 2003.
Mr. Souder. In looking at this, what's unusual about this
compared to any other meth map that I've seen is the highest
number is in Little Rock county.
Mr. Howard. Yes, sir.
Mr. Souder. In Pulaski and around there. Do you have any
opinion why that is? Does anybody else have an opinion of why
that is? It's counter to the national trend.
Mr. Rutledge. Well, it's three times as big as any other,
you know, county in the State, approximately. There's 300,000
people live in Pulaski County. And in the surrounding area,
there's probably, you know----
Mr. Souder. But, for example----
Mr. Rutledge. Out of the 2.7 million, you know, there's a
pretty good chunk of people right in there.
Mr. Souder. But, as an example, in Missouri, you wouldn't
see Kansas City and St. Louis have the biggest meth problem. I
mean, they don't. So why would it be in the urban, is it not as
urban? Is it--I mean, I don't have a geographic sense.
Mr. Rutledge. Yeah, it's really not.
Mr. Souder. Because some of the surrounding counties around
there, too, are the heaviest counties. You've got--it looks
like No. 5 and 6 are up here in the northwest, but the top 4
are right in the Little Rock area.
Mr. Howard. I agree with Judge Rutledge there. That's the
population density of Arkansas is that area. Plus, Little Rock,
you don't have to travel too far out of Little Rock until
you're in rural areas. And I can't say that has an affect on
it, but it's possibly one of the reasons. I think the density
population is one reason.
Mr. Souder. Yeah. But, for example, in my district, Indiana
is fifth highest in meth labs. In fact, we're reporting almost
the same as Arkansas, just a little bit behind, and it's
unreported as well, because our State police numbers are almost
twice as high as our Federal number.
In looking at that, however, my home city of Fort Wayne has
had maybe three of 230,000, Elkhart that has a lot, it's about
a town of 40,000; another town of 30,000 next to it, but you
get out in the rural areas and exponentially, the number of
labs increase. And I'm trying to figure out is that what we--in
Kansas, the biggest problem in Kansas is outside the metro
areas. In Tennessee and Kentucky, it's outside the metro areas.
I'm trying to figure out why would it be different in Arkansas.
First off, maybe these areas are quickly rural, and my
question would be, are the meth labs outside the city of Little
Rock or is it just in Little Rock? Is it in the suburban areas
or is this pattern changing? Another explanation would be
there's more law enforcement there, so, therefore, they caught
them.
Mr. Rutledge. That last explanation is part of it. And I
think, too, in those places that you're talking about like--now
Kansas is a little different, but it's just now getting into
south Arkansas and southeast Arkansas, and those--and in Little
Rock. If you go back 10 years, there were hardly any there in
the Little Rock area. Now, you've got the 3-years latest, you
know.
And I think what you're seeing is an explosion in and
around Little Rock. In most of the--Pulaski County itself is a
lot of rural, even though Little Rock is in the middle of it.
And I don't have an answer to your question, but that would be
my supposition is that we've seen a real explosion in the
urban--in the number of labs in buildings, in homes, in cars,
in those kind of things, where it used to be everybody hid out
in the brush, so to speak, like the old--when my daddy made
moonshine, you know, he wasn't making it in the house because
somebody might take his house. Well, so what we're seeing is it
moving into the urban areas. And I think you will experience
that probably in Indiana as this thing explodes up there.
Mr. Souder. Yes, I want to state for the record that I'm
referring to a chart without putting it into the record, and
people here, this chart shows 709 in Pulaski, 256 in the county
next to it, so nearly 1,000 in those two counties. And then
next is--Benton with 174, Sebastian with 143, and Washington
with 131. But then you come in here with White at 158, another
one just east of Pulaski at 116, one north at 114, then a
couple with 72, 83, and 85, and the whole rest of the State is
under 30. So you have--it looks like almost 65.
Mr. Rutledge. Now, is that a total for 3 years?
Mr. Souder. Yes. It's a total for 3 years. And that's a
tremendous concentration around this population area. Now, do
you feel that--I mean, maybe what we're looking at is in
Arkansas being more mature in meth where it's been evolving
toward that. Can you tell whether that trend has increased
toward the latter part of 2003 as opposed to the first part?
Mr. Howard. Yeah, I think the records reflect that. If you
went back to, say, 1995 and compared the number of meth labs in
just, say, Pulaski County, it's going to be an increasing
number. And probably increasing at an increasing rate. That
would be my guess, if you went back and looked at the figure
for each year leading up to 2003.
Mr. Souder. In other words, it might start in rural areas,
but then it will move into Fort Smith and Sebastian and Benton
are populous counties, it will start to move to them, and then
when it hits Little Rock, it just goes exponentially.
Mr. Howard. Yes. And----
Mr. Souder. I mean, 708 is just a huge number compared to
the other counties around.
Mr. Howard. And just a few years ago, down in the southwest
corner, Miller County, shows 74----
Mr. Souder. Uh-huh.
Mr. Howard. Not that many years ago, there were one or two
labs. And now it's moving in the south.
Mr. Souder. And when you see a trend toward more labs, do
you also then start to see a bigger lab where you would see--
instead of an ounce, do law enforcement start to see guys
banding together where you have more lookouts as opposed to an
individual? I mean, is there a logical progression as the
market builds, large organizations start to move into the
market, and then trafficking organizations will move in? Or do
you see the reverse, as the traffic organizations are in
selling the stuff and then they decide to cook it themselves?
I'm just wondering if there's a pattern to those in reality.
Mr. Rutledge. I don't know.
Mr. Howard. I have an opinion on that. You have isolated
incidents where folks have large mom and pop labs, but I'm not
sure if--David, is there a pattern at work.
Mr. Gibbons. I haven't seen one. When I first started--when
I first recognized this problem, I tried to make it that way. I
tried to make it an either/or, you know, either it's
distribution or it's manufacture, and I didn't see that. We had
a big distribution organization from the State of California,
Tulare County, California, into Pope County, and it didn't seem
to have much effect on the lab, you know, either people who
make it, you know, or distributed it. And the connection
between Tulare County, California, and Pope County, Arkansas,
was relatives. You know, just happened to be someone who had
relatives back in Russellville and was coming here to meet with
relatives. And it was a tremendous amount.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Howard, do you have any suggestions for how
you deal with 1,000? How are you going to deal with this? Your
backlog is 1,000?
Mr. Howard. It is. And one thing that we're looking at is
our analysts are conducting some training with crews at the
Criminal Justice Institute to educate the first responders on
dealing with meth labs and also in sampling and packaging. And
we're hoping that through that, we're going to decrease the
number of times our guys have to respond to the field. That
would increase the time that was spent in the laboratory
actually analyzing cases.
We've discussed a little bit involving the Criminal Justice
Institute in further training of meth certified personnel.
Right now in Arkansas, in order for a person to be trained to
be meth--clan lab certified, you either have to attend training
in DEA headquarters in Quantico, which is a long waiting
period, waiting list, and/or wait on the Arkansas State Police
to put on a training program for certification or
recertification. And those are the only two sources for having
folks certified to enter these labs. So if--and this has just
been a talking stage.
If we could get the Criminal Justice Institute involved in
training and certifying these folks, it would increase the
number of people available to respond to these labs. And from
the laboratory standpoint, that would increase time our guys
can spend--and our girls, can spend in the lab.
Mr. Souder. Are you the biggest problem with congestion in
the judicial system? I don't mean you personally.
Mr. Howard. Yes, I know what you mean.
Mr. Souder. Because your testimony is that some people will
be on bond, and they'll be arrested for additional crimes
before they come to the charge, and the question is that the
sheriff's got his people tied up sitting out there where
they're not able to arrest other things when they're sitting
out there a long time. But then once he gets all the
information in, I mean, in some places, because we don't have
enough judges, we don't have enough U.S. Marshalls to move the
people around, we don't have enough prisons to put the people
in, we don't have enough prosecutors to prosecute. We have all
those different things, but are you so backlogged that you're
now the problem in the system.
Mr. Howard. That's part of it. There's a bottleneck there,
but there's also a bottleneck in the judicial system with
enough cases that are on--you know, waiting to be tried there.
And in some cases, and I can't give you specific, but it's not
uncommon for a person to be arrested for manufacture of
methamphetamine and bond out and, literally, 10 days later,
they're arrested again. There's no way that--I mean, they
couldn't be tried in that length of time, so--you know, so it's
a--yes, the crime lab is part of the problem because of the
backlog, but, I mean--and the backlog not only in the illicit
lab section but every other section of the State Crime Lab. And
it's a problem with crime labs nationwide. It's not just
limited to Arkansas.
But, yes, we are a problem, but part of it is these folks
are out there, as soon they can hit the door, they're at it
again.
Mr. Souder. Does the bond go up?
Mr. Howard. Yes.
Mr. Souder. They increase the bond limits each time?
Mr. Rutledge. This is a real problem, and I found this when
I was a prosecutor and judge, I think most prosecutors have
across the State. Before that person that manufactures ever
goes to the pen or gets convicted or pleads or whatever, I'm
going to guess that they will be arrested three times for
manufacture and bond out until the bond gets so high that they
can't do it, and then they go on and plead guilty or something.
But so often, and you'll find this, and I think David will
back me up on this, is that the fourth offense is the--you
committed that before you ever plead or get to trial because of
the backlog.
And one of the suggestions that I had put in my proposal
that may or may not have anything to do with your committee's
responsibility is the idea of requiring as a condition of bail
that the people with the drug problems, and especially the meth
problems, be restricted and be required under the threat of
being incarcerated quickly, to go into treatment or to some
other method where they can be monitored for drug use and--
while they're out on bail.
Mr. Souder. Uh-huh.
Mr. Rutledge. Could be a way to get them back to jail if
they're getting out of the pen.
Mr. Souder. Yeah. One of problems that we have, and I'll
conclude with this, or Congress Boozman can, one or the other.
One of the problems we had that's unlike other drugs, this drug
is costing taxpayers far more money because if we're having to
do the drug lab, you're having to do multiple research with it,
taking more days to prosecute, tying up six policemen at the
scene, and the people who are doing it probably don't have a
lot of money that we're going to be able to recapture for
funding it, so we've got to figure that out, and the bonding or
a drug test.
And the way the Federal Government could do it is if the
State gets any additional money from methamphetamine for their
drug labs, whatever they have to show that they have a State
law that will, in fact, not force the American taxpayers to do
three cases on one guy, when they should have had him the first
time. That either through a higher bond or a higher risk or a
drug testing followup or a drug treatment program with drug
testing, that, basically, says that, ``Yes, we're going to let
you out, and you are a high reasonable suspect.'' I mean, he
likes fleeing.
If you're going to do it, it would be a similar thing of on
bonding whether this person is going to flee the scene because
the taxpayers have to go back in there three times to clean it
up. This isn't free, and he isn't going to pay for it, because
he doesn't have the assets to pay for it.
We've got to figure out some creative ways to bring some
more pressure on them because we can't sustain the dollars to
do the clean up, and policing and stuff if this thing continues
to increase at a double and triple rate, how would we even
begin to do it? Congressman Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. I just had one last thing. This is such a
horrible drug mentally and physically. When you look at people
that have been on the drug for extended periods of time, it
doesn't take a rocket scientist to know, you know, that normal
persons become very dysfunctional as you mentioned. You know,
sometimes for those individuals we're going to have to pay a
significant cost through nursing care or whatever. We've had
other drugs that have been very popular.
I was in college in the late 1960's, early 1970's, LSD,
some of those things were very popular, and because of their
side effects, they ran their course.
I guess the only question I would have is, you-all are out
there fighting the battle; where do you see this thing? Are we
this way (indicating) and maybe leveling down a little bit?
Statistics don't indicate that, but your gut feeling out in the
field, are we still going straight up or--I'm just going to
start with you, Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, Congressman, yeah, it does seem as if we
are going straight up, and someone touched on it, you know,
it's an unusual drug in the sense that it appears to be some
sort of sexual component on the females. The women of our
society are really drawn to it. When I first started practicing
criminal law as defense counsel, you never saw a women in
criminal court. And now, gosh, it's normal and that doesn't
even account for hot checks or forgery that they--you know. So
maybe through education, you know.
Some of the children now, I'm sure, are seeing their
mothers without keeping their--it's a terrible price they pay
for this. But it's going to take an effort. I don't see it
leveling out of its own accord. No, sir, I don't. Not in my
district.
Mr. Rutledge. I see a potential for leveling statewide, but
the problem with meth is the--unlike the LSDs and all those
other things that you had to buy from somewhere else, you know,
even--you know, back again to our problem which is you can
produce this in your bathtub or in your back yard or in your--
you know, with the stuff you can buy over the counter. And you
can't do that with most drugs, you know. And now we're seeing a
lot of other club drugs and things like that are equally bad,
but they don't have the environmental devastation or the
paranoid destruction that comes with this one.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you-all.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much. The committee will stand a
few minute's recess for the stenographer to rest her fingers,
and we can break and recess for 5 minutes, please.
[Recess.]
Mr. Souder. The subcommittee will come to order. Will the
third panel please come forward. The Honorable Mary Ann Gunn,
circuit judge, Fourth Judicial District; Mr. Larry Counts,
director of Decision Point drug treatment facility; Mr. Bob
Dufour, director of professional and governmental relations
from Wal-Mart; Mr. Greg Hoggat, director, Drug Free, Rogers-
Lowell, Mr. Layne Kidd, president of the Arkansas Trucking
Association; Dr. Merlin Leach, executive director of the Center
for Children and Public Policy, and Mr. Michael Pyle.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that all witnesses
responded in the affirmative. We thank you for your patience.
As we can tell, we've had a very interesting hearing. We're
looking forward to your testimony. Your full testimony will be
in the record. If you want to summarize what you have as your
written testimony and add any comments on what you've heard
thus far or stick to your script, either way will be fine.
We'll start with Judge Gunn.
STATEMENT OF MARY ANN GUNN, CIRCUIT JUDGE, FOURTH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION
Judge Gunn. Thank you. For the record, my name is Mary Ann
Gunn, and I'm a circuit judge in the 4th Judicial District in
Washington and Madison County, and I'm based in Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
First, let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, and, Congressman, how
much I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. It's truly
an honor and a privilege. And your staff members have been
wonderful.
I am the drug court judge for Washington and Madison
Counties. Now, I will tell you it's on a voluntarily basis
only. We started with volunteers in 1999. I did not, when
approached and asked to be drug courtjudge, I was not
interested. I felt very strongly that if you commit the crime,
you need to do the time. And I was not sympathetic to drug
abusers. But I'm still there, as you can tell.
But our program is a prejudication diversion program. And
if a person is charged with a felony and has a drug problem at
all, it is entirely up to the prosecuting attorney to determine
solely if that person is eligible for drug court.
Now, if there's any violence in his or her background, or
if he or she is a trafficker, drug court is shut to that
person. They're not allowed into drug court. After an extensive
assessment, psychological assessment through our treatment
team, and a defendant is approved for drug court, then they're
transferred over to the program.
Now, it is a 9-month long program, and it demands a
lifestyle change. It is a community-based program, and it's a
privilege for the candidate to be in the program because if
they successfully complete it and graduate, the charges are
dismissed. If they're terminated, I send them to the pen.
Inside that 9 months, they must complete 136 hours of group
therapy sessions, 148 hours of outside AA or NA meetings, they
must submit to at least 78 drug--random drug screens, they must
maintain full-time employment or be a full-time student. They
have to complete 10 hours of community service. If they don't
have their GED, they better secure it, or I'm not going to
graduate them. And if they don't have a valid driver's license,
they must have their driver's license reinstated. They must
also complete 36 hours of individual counseling, and whatever
that counselor recommends, anger management or family
counseling, they must complete it.
They also have to do 36 hours of moral reconation classes.
And after all that is said and done, the lifestyle change
dramatically, it must be in place, and then I will graduate
them from the program.
We currently have a capacity of 108, and we have 120 in the
program, and 35 waiting assessment. Our retention rate in the
program is 85 percent, and our recidivism rate is 12 percent.
These folks, at least the ones that we've graduated, have not
been subject to recidivism, are paying for their own housing
and their own food, and their own utilities, as opposed to
being housed in the penitentiary.
But I would like to also address with you after what I've
heard today my opinion on prevention. About 2 years ago, I went
to a high school, and I was talking to the children about drug
court. And they were yawning. So I asked them, and this the
high school, full high school, 630 students, and I asked the
students how many of them began--either smoked marijuana or had
been with someone that smoked marijuana. And almost every hand
went up. And I asked them the same question regarding alcohol
use, and the same hands went up. When I asked the children
about methamphetamine, if they had used it or been with someone
who used it, about a third, a little less than a third of the
hands went up.
So I went back recently and determined that the median age
for drug--for meth use in people that have gone through drug
court, and we've treated a little over 500 people, is 19 years
old. Their drug usage began anywhere from the ages of 5 to 13
or 14. So we started going to the schools, and we have held
drug court in 13 schools on 22 different occasions. I asked
every school the same questions that I asked the first school,
and I get the same answers from the students.
And I will tell you that the last school we went to in this
school year, a little boy came to me after it was over, and he
said, ``My best friend wants me to use methamphetamine. What
should I do?'' and I said, ``Well, now you understand what peer
pressure means.'' He had big old tears in his eyes, and he
said, ``Yes, but he's my best friend.'' And I said, ``Well,
son, he's not your best friend. Not anymore. He's a drug
addict.'' And a light went on with this child. And he was--it
was like--he said, ``You're right.'' He said, ``Thank you.'' I
knew that he wouldn't try methamphetamine, because it became
crystal clear to him that it wasn't cool to use meth, that if
we can reach these children in the schools and teach them that
drug usage at any age is not cool, and you will find yourself
sick and diseased, then I think we've reached our goals. And
I'm out of time. Thank you very much.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Judge Gunn follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.119
Mr. Souder. Mr. Counts.
STATEMENT OF LARRY COUNTS, DIRECTOR, DECISION POINT DRUG
TREATMENT FACILITY
Mr. Counts. Thank you. For the record, my name is Larry
Counts. I work as the executive director at Decision Point.
We're an alcohol and drug treatment center located in
Springdale and have a catchment area of residents of about
353,000 people. I've been with the agency since 1998, and this
past year we've treated more folks in our agency than we had by
history and just a little over a 1,100. And since 1998, over
5,000 addicts have come through our facility for treatment.
I would like to first make a comment in regard to
Congressman Boozman's question before. After listening to the
two panels previously, I do believe that the effort and the
work put into this problem of methamphetamine, which it
certainly is an epidemic, we will stem the tide a bit. I think
by history, looking at something as simple as the Harrison Act
in 1914 and trends from 1953 to today, drug trends have come
and gone, but it always seem like another drug will come and
take its place.
And I think that is part of what I would like to bring to
the public today is a message, and that is one of the message
just looking and focusing more on the disease of addiction
rather than a specific drug. And I'm saying that to--I know
that in our drug courts and our treatment facilities, I see
time and time again people coming in looking at methamphetamine
as the problem, but they--they don't choose to stop smoking
pot, or they don't choose to stop drinking alcohol, or they
don't choose to stop using other substances. So, again, we're
seeing more poly substance than we are anyone coming in just
simply using methamphetamine and having to work with that.
Right now, I guess, too, like everyone else, we need more
funds, and we look at the distribution of the drug control
policy, we're only getting about 32--a little over 32 percent
to divide up between treatment, prevention, and research in
this effort. And it's really not adequate enough for the
numbers that are coming in and demanding treatment where even
our own governmental studies are reporting that up to 48
percent of the people that need treatment aren't getting it.
We're looking--today I was looking, and certainly the
statistics have already been spoken, and I know certainly there
are crimes in relation to drugs in terms of the manufacturing,
the selling, the adolescence and certainly the harm put to
that. And I do know that also in this--in our efforts, there
were I found 1,498--1,498,000 children of drug addicts locked
up or incarcerated in the United States in one form or fashion.
I would say that the majority of these are certainly treatable.
I hear that. And certainly 80 percent of those locked up in our
facilities have the problem either directly or indirectly
related to drugs. And having years of working in this field, I
do know that it is treatable.
I hear a great deal about intervention, and I would like to
ask again in regard to policy, studies have repeatedly shown
through NADA, through Samsul, through Seaside, that a person
who is--has a family history, which is a great predictor of any
illness to include alcoholism and drug addiction, that we--we
are not allowed by prevention to focus on that. We do a great
deal of broad based prevention, but we know that there is a
high risk of kids out there that have the potential to become
addicted, but we're not able to target that, much like say that
they do in HIV, AIDS, and STD prevention. And I think that to
the job, your drug courts, treatment, what really, everybody is
doing is remarkable, given the conditions and the funding. But
one of the things today, too, is that certainly with treatment,
we're really charged, as Judge Gunn certainly pointed out, that
to treat a chronic illness with an acute intervention, we need
to be able to get at the families to work in those areas of
social skills such as education, jobs and finance. We're not
seeing adults who come in that made adult decision to use;
we're seeing children or adults coming in who have 5, 10, 15
and 20 years of drug use without really any period of
abstinence and not even recognizing it as a disease.
Again, I appreciate your time in allowing me to speak. I,
too, think it's been an honor and a privilege. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Counts follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.127
Mr. Souder. Now we go to Mr. Dufour.
STATEMENT OF BOB DUFOUR, DIRECTOR OF PROFESSIONAL AND
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, WAL-MART STORES, INC.
Mr. Dufour. Thank, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of Wal-Mart, I
would like to thank you and both Congressman Boozman for
inviting me to appear before you today to speak about the
methamphetamine crisis in our country.
Currently, Wal-Mart, which, as you know, is based in
Bentonville, Arkansas, we operate stores in all 50 States,
Puerto Rico and nine foreign countries. We currently employ 1.2
million people in the United States and 330,000 people in other
countries. Unlike many of the drugs that are abused,
methamphetamine, as you heard today, can be made using common,
low-cost products and supplies that are widely available. For
this reason, Wal-Mart has taken a keen interest in the
methamphetamine issue. Our challenge is to meet the needs of
legitimate customers while preventing the proliferation of
abuse of these products.
In 1998, Wal-Mart entered into a partnership with local law
enforcement and the Drug Enforcement Administration to help
fight against this threat of methamphetamine production. At
that time, Wal-Mart voluntarily placed a register limit of
three packages of product to be purchased if it contained the
active ingredient pseudoephedrine. Pseudoephedrine, as you
know, is used to treat nasal congestion, and it is found in
many cough and cold products that are widely available.
Millions of Americans each year at one time or another have
legitimately used these products to get relief. Unfortunately,
pseudoephedrine is also the primary precursor used to make
methamphetamine. Today, these Federal limits are in place.
There's also a growing number of States and also local
communities that have even higher restrictions on these
products. Wal-Mart has taken an active role in working with
lawmakers and agency officials across the county to insure
these restrictions are appropriate and effective in our stores.
Methamphetamine, though, continues to grow in areas of our
country. Wal-Mart has responded in these areas of growth by
further restricting access to pseudoephedrine. Currently, in
over 500 Wal-Mart stores across the country where we have
noticed high theft or unusual sales trends, we've taken single
entity pseudoephedrine and put it behind the prescription
counter. Customers must ask for these products from a member of
our pharmacy staff, and these products are only available when
the pharmacy is open. Wal-Mart recognizes the inconvenience
this is to our legitimate customers, but this action
underscores our commitment to work with the DEA and other
agencies on this issue.
We also found in 2003 that larger pack sizes were a primary
target for many people wanting to produce methamphetamine. At
that time, Wal-Mart responded with our Wal-Mart stores
voluntarily discontinuing to sell the 96-count pseudoephedrine.
When we did this, we also kept the three package limit in
place, and our largest packet size was 48 count. This, in
effect, reduced by half the amount of pseudoephedrine you could
purchase at a Wal-Mart store. Our Sam's Club took a similar
action. While they kept the 96 count, they limited the quantity
to two, and this late March has reduced the quantity to one.
Not all of our actions at Wal-Mart have been focused on
restricting sales of pseudoephedrine. We've also made
significant efforts to educate both our associates and our
customers regarding methamphetamine. Wal-Mart cashiers as part
of their training are shown computer simulation of a
transaction that attempts an above-threshold purchase of
pseudoephedrine. The cashiers were then asked how to respond to
the situation. Our customers who try to purchase more than
three products or less in restricted areas may not understand
why they can't purchase more than those three packages. In
order to address this issue, this February, we teamed up with
the Partnership for a Drug Free America to provide information
for them. Currently, each time a register limit regarding
pseudoephedrine is triggered, a small informational slip is
printed at the register. This slip can be handed to the
customer by the cashier. It informs the customer of the
pseudoephedrine limit and directs them to the Partnership's Web
site where they can learn more about pseudoephedrine and
methamphetamine.
We are committed to finding ways of limiting access to
these products and the illegal use of methamphetamine
production, but also finding ways to keep these products
available for the legitimate customers.
We appreciate the opportunity to participate today, and we
look forward to working with the subcommittee as we work on
this issue. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dufour follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.129
Mr. Souder. Mr. Hoggatt. I believe it was your testimony I
referred to earlier of the people in the trees.
STATEMENT OF GREG HOGGATT, DIRECTOR, DRUG FREE ROGERS-LOWELL
Mr. Hoggatt. Yes, sir, it was. And I wanted to thank you,
Chairman Souder, and, Congressman Boozman, and this
subcommittee for allowing me this opportunity to speak to you
today. On behalf of the RogersLowell area Chamber of Commerce,
I'd like to welcome you to our community. You may have noticed
Benton County and all of northwest Arkansas are enjoying
tremendous growth and prosperity. We've been recognized as one
of the fastest growing areas in the Nation. We have three of
the global leaders in their industries in our midst: Wal-Mart,
Tyson Foods and J. B. Hunt.
On the surface, we are a booming metropolitan area.
Underneath the surface, we are quietly experiencing the
economic and the human impact of a very dangerous and defiant
monster, that being methamphetamine. In less than 10 years,
methamphetamine lab seizures in Arkansas have skyrocketed from
54 meth lab seizures to over 1,200 meth lab seizures, according
to our State Crime Lab.
Each year that passes brings an increased number in these
labs. Our jails are filled with felons charged with crimes
related to methamphetamine. Our social services are ill-
equipped to handle the effect methamphetamine has had on our
families. Gentlemen, if it can happen here, it can happen
anywhere.
By now, you have heard from the law enforcement perspective
of the impact of methamphetamine, and I would like the
opportunity to describe the effect it has had on our community.
And to do so, I would like to share two examples with you.
As a family, you have lived in your home for years. You
have raised your family, your kids have gone to school, and you
attend church every Sunday in this peaceful little town. But
now you find yourself uprooting your family and hastily moving
miles away, not because of greater job opportunities, but,
rather, out of fear. Fear for your life and fear for the lives
of your family. Within the past week, a meth lab was discovered
on your neighboring property. Not a mom and pop operation, but
a large, well-equipped compound where night vision and security
cameras are utilized or armed guards put in trees and where a
veritable arsenal of semi-automatic weapons and explosives are
used to protect the operation. The alleged operators of this
meth lab are now out on bail, and all your neighbors are living
in fear that they may be considered informants. The entire
neighborhood is forced to leave their homes and the lives that
they have become accustomed to because of fear of retaliation
by a small militia of methamphetamine producers. No one in this
country should have to live in such fear.
My final example is focused on the greatest of all victims
of methamphetamine, the endangered children who are exposed to
methamphetamine use and manufacturing. Our resources have been
taxed to the limits, and innocent victims of this supposed
victimless crime, children who do not go to school; children
who are not fed and taken care of; children who learn and
participate in the process of manufacturing because that's what
their parents do; children who are exposed not only to toxic
chemicals and potential explosions but are also exposed to
sexual and domestic abuse and live in the filthiest
environments you could possibly ever imagine. One local child
was discovered in a meth lab with their nose crusted shut by
repeated nose bleeds due to the inhalation of toxic chemicals.
Another local child was given methamphetamine in a nursing
bottle in hopes that it would stop him from crying.
Children born in our community are testing positive for
methamphetamine, and children are dying because of it. Our
communities need help. We need your help. Our communities must
be mobilized to combat the demand for illegal use. We must
teach our leaders, or businesses, our schools, our churches,
and our families how to stop methamphetamine before it starts.
We must arm our communities with the tools that they need to
fight when methamphetamine ravages their infrastructure. The
cost of human lives and families is much too high. Meth will
not go away on its own. The only way that we can successfully
defend our communities against meth is to arm them with the
proper resources.
I ask the subcommittee to reexamine the current drug policy
and its initiatives. Please allocate more desperately needed
resources to local communities to fight their wars against
methamphetamine. It is the local communities that will put up
the strongest fight in the war on meth because they have the
biggest incentives to win.
I strongly urge you to recognize and respond to the
destruction that methamphetamine brings to lives and families
of our small and middle sized communities across the country. I
challenge you to actively be involved in finding solutions to
this problem before it continues to grow and further damage the
quality of life that we have come to expect in northwest
Arkansas and similar communities all across the country. I
commend you for taking the time to come here and consider this
issue, because that is the first step toward finding the
desperately needed solutions. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoggatt follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.131
Mr. Souder. Dr. Leach.
STATEMENT OF MERLIN D. LEACH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
CHILDREN & PUBLIC SAFETY
Mr. Leach. Thank you, Chairman Souder, and, Congressman
Boozman. I sure appreciate being here today and the opportunity
to speak with you. Being this late on the list, I think most of
my testimony has been covered. I would like to point to my
written document that the polls in there, and the reason I put
those polls in there was to demonstrate that the people of
America, particularly this State, and the people of these
cities and communities around here are pretty supportive of
your efforts. And it's very nearly unanimous that people are
concerned about the future of America and the children are a
great component of our future.
As a policy center and as a center devoted to children, we
see three distinct victims. The first class of victims are the
adolescents and teens who use the drug. I'd like to address a
little later why we think that's occurring. The children who
are exposed to the precursor chemicals and finished products in
the clandestine labs, and then what we think is the most
tremendous damaging thing is a baby born addicted to meth
loving mothers. And that's very prevalent in Arkansas.
I would like to just sort of dispense with most of my
document because it is testimony, and address a couple of
issues that Congressman Boozman and yourself brought up
earlier. As with other drugs, I think we need to look at the
larger picture. We live down in kind of the bowels of the rural
poverty in our policy center. Our people are poor, our children
are poor, our families are poor. This place up here is
beautiful. I haven't been up I-540 beyond the airport in
several months, probably 9 months. Seeing all these new
buildings, this is wonderful. But 40 miles east of here, and
you will see Appalachia level poverty.
We have a breast care program that gives free mammograms to
women without health insurance. The average family income of
our clients is $11,000 a year. A good job is to get to go to
work for Wal-Mart; a great job is to go to work for Tyson. I
should have reversed that for this panel. At some place with
some health insurance, anything.
So the driver from our perspective, living in rural
Arkansas and living in rural poverty, which I've seen rural
poverty all through the southeastern States, is to make it,
these meth labs is a proper motive. It turns all crazy because
it's not that simple because you start becoming your own best
customer. And eventually you get caught, and you go to prison.
Or you die because of the chemicals. But the initial process is
a frustrated, poor people with no way out in their minds.
There's very poor educational services. I think Arkansas ranks
46th, 47th in the Nation. I just heard this morning from the
Governor's Office that we have the lowest rate of college
graduates in the entire United States. I didn't know that.
So when we take this poverty, we take this lack of hope,
and I can turn $2,000 in the next 24 hours without taxes,
there's a lot of motivation. I can't make that working this
month at Wal-Mart, and I can't make that much working for
Tyson's. So there's a profit motive that because the drug is so
insidious and so tricky, it sucks them into this thing, and
that's where it all starts going haywire. I think that the
profit motive includes the Mexican distribution and the active
war lord and all the other problems.
So the underlying motive is profit, and the other thing
that we see in the high schools is this extreme need to be thin
for girls. One of the side effects of this drug is that until
it totally crashes your life you lose a heck of a lot of
weight, and you feel great. Talking to kids that use this
stuff, they love it. This is not something they're forcing on
themselves; this is not something that is just peer pressure
and that.
But as far as drugs go--I don't use this stuff, never have,
but as far as drugs go, it's been reported to me that this is
one of best drugs ever built. And the kids like it. It does all
sorts of things for them. They're smarter, quicker, better, run
faster, at least from the inside that's the way they perceive
it.
This is a huge, huge societal problem. And when you touch
on funding it, I think Congress needs to look at all 13
appropriation bills and say, ``What is the future of America
worth?'' you know, obviously, homeland security and the big
issues are always there for us, but I think we need to look at
what's going to destroy this country in the future. And if we
keep having low graduation rates, if we keep having babies born
here in Arkansas going into intensive care, I mean going right
into Medicaid and all the way into Medicare if they live that
long, we are creating a far greater tax burden on the next
generation than any of us want to put there.
So I would ask that you continue not only what you're
doing, which is great, I'm absolutely elated that you're here,
I'm absolutely elated your committee is so committed to this,
but we also have to look at the problems underlying this
impressive level of perspective. We have to look at our
resources, we have to look at hope, we have to look at
education, and the whole rehabilitation process. You're not
going to stop this drug by even taking this stuff off the
shelves of Wal-Mart entirely. I promise you that's not the way
to cure it. I don't know what the correct way is, but we can't
fragment this thing. We have to look at it from a whole new
perspective. My time is up.
I thank you, sir, for allowing me to be here, and I'm sorry
if we had to poke a little too hard here.
Mr. Souder. No. Appreciate that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Leach follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.135
Mr. Souder. Mr. Pyle, you're our clean-up person.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PYLE
Mr. Pyle. Thank you, Congressman Boozman, Chairman Souder,
for this opportunity to share with you my battle with drug
addiction and my road to recovery.
Thanksgiving weekend 1998 was the first time I used
methamphetamine intervenously. Like many tragic stories of
addition, my life quickly spun out of control. I lost a well-
paying job, a marriage of 7 years, and my mortgage was
foreclosed. I traded my personal possessions to feed my $100 a
day habit. I eventually lost my freedom. For the next few
years, whenever I was incarcerated, I swore I would never go
back to the drugs. Every attempt to get clean on my own failed,
and I got deeper into a criminal lifestyle.
On March 18, 2002, I was arrested once again and was
introduced to the drug court program in Sebastian County. Upon
release from jail, I was required to report every morning at 8
a.m. to the State parole and probation office. I began my drug
court program by attending three group counseling sessions,
three narcotics anonymous meetings, and three random drug
screens per week. In addition to this normal drug court
schedule, I also had one-on-one counseling sessions. I was also
required to obtain and maintain employment. In addition to all
these requirements, I was subjected to random at home visits by
representatives of the drug court whom were allowed to search
my living space at their discretion. I was forbidden to
communicate with any criminals or people I used to associate
with. Violations of any of the above requirements subjected me
to drug court sanctions or dismissal from the program.
This strict supervision did not allow me the opportunity to
fail or slip up. The program allowed me to recognize the
situations and people that threatened my recovery. In previous
attempts to get clean on my own, I had been introduced to
Narcotics Anonymous and was unable to use the program for more
than a few months without falling back into my old patterns. By
requiring me to attend three Narcotics Anonymous meetings a
week, drug court forced me to be disciplined enough to develop
the foundation of NA principles that I live by to this very
day. I'm grateful to NA for showing me the way to live without
drugs and alcohol, and I am also grateful to drug court for
requiring me to attend these meetings until the program became
a cornerstone of my life.
During my drug court journey, I saw many people fail to
live up to the requirements. Many were punished with county
jail time and community service, while others were removed from
the program and sent off to prison. The Sebastian County drug
court's graduation rate is similar to the national average
where very few make it through this strict regimen. However,
for the few that go on to graduation, it means that a new
chance at life that did not exist a few years ago.
In drug court, we're given tools and education that allow
us to end the cycle of addiction. It's like being a cancer
survivor who is in remission. My addiction is still a part of
me, and I require treatment through my NA program, but I am
able to live a healthy and productive life.
I have been clean of both drugs and alcohol since March 18,
2002. I went back to school and recently graduated from the
University of Arkansas Fort Smith with a bachelor's degree in
business administration. I am currently looking into attending
graduate school. I have maintained steady employment since my
release from county jail, and I am proud to say that I'm paying
my taxes. I maintained a 3.8 GPA and was active in many school
organizations. On graduation day, I was honored to receive the
College of Business Student Service Award for my dedicated
service to the college. This award is especially important to
me because service to my community is one of the core
principles I try to live my new life by. It is one of the
primary reasons why I'm here today.
I would like for the public and the lawmakers to know that
the old adage, ``Once an addict, always an addict,'' does not
have to be true. Alternative sentencing programs like drug
court do work. The lock-them-up mentality and throw away the
key is not the answer. Had I gone to prison or just gotten a
suspended sentence, I don't believe that I would be before you
today. To put a drug criminal through drug court costs a few
thousand dollars a year, while housing them in a penitentiary
with violent hardened criminals costs tens of thousands of
dollars a year. From a purely economic standpoint, it makes
sense to try to save these addicted souls. I do, however,
support sending drug criminals like myself to prison as a last
resort. I believe that the threat of going to prison helped me
to recover.
For years our Nation's policy of fighting the war on drugs
has involved increasing the sentences of drug criminals, and we
have continued to build more and more prisons at great expense
without much success at winning this war. Drug courts and other
alternative sentencing programs attempt to win the hearts and
minds of the addict. We spend billions of dollars a year as a
Nation burning fields in South America trying to stop the
supply of narcotics, but spend very few dollars on the demand
side of business.
If my story can help an addict find recovery I believe that
I am helping as much or more than any covert operation can do
with winning the war of drugs. I know that I personally
decreased the demand for methamphetamine in western Arkansas by
over $100 a day. For many drug criminals, there is a pattern of
bouncing in and out of prison. The only solution that makes
sense is drug court. A study commissioned by the State of
Oregon found that for every dollar spent on these programs, a
savings to society is 10 times that amount. Another California
study found that for a $14 million investment in drug courts,
there was a total cost avoidance by the State of $43 million.
I recently read an article by the Institute for Applied
Research that I'd like to quote. ``What you learn in drug
courts, which involve treatment for all the individuals and
real support, along with sanctions when they fail, are a more
effective method of dealing with the drug problem than either
parole or probation.''
Thank you, and God bless you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pyle follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.138
Mr. Souder. Judge Gunn, are people who go through your drug
court program, are they voluntary? In other words, do they have
to agree or are they assigned?
Judge Gunn. Oh, no, they have to agree. It's a voluntarily
program. You mean for the candidate coming into drug court.
Mr. Souder. Yes.
Judge Gunn. Yes, sir. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes they
have the choice of probation, OK, on a first offense, small
amount of marijuana, or something like that, or they have the
choice of going to the penitentiary, but it's strictly a
volunteer program.
Mr. Souder. That varies from courts, certainly.
Judge Gunn. Yes, sir, they--yes, Mr. Chairman, they do
vary.
Mr. Souder. In your graduation, what percentage of people
who start the program finish the program?
Judge Gunn. Eighty-five percent.
Mr. Souder. So eighty----
Judge Gunn. So far. That start the program and finish it.
Mr. Souder. Finish it.
Judge Gunn. Is my retention rate.
Mr. Souder. Graduate.
Judge Gunn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Souder. From the program.
Judge Gunn. That's correct. Eighty-five percent.
Mr. Souder. And when you say you have a 12 percent
recidivism, is that over--how long do you track?
Judge Gunn. We track every 6 months on every person that's
ever been in drug court.
Mr. Souder. And how long have you had the drug court?
Judge Gunn. Full-time for 3 years; part time in 1999. So
about 5 years.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Pyle, when you went through the program,
you alluded at the tail end that had you not had the threat of
going to prison, you're not sure it would have worked as much.
Had you gone through any drug treatment programs before? You
said you had tried on your own to stop in Narcotics Anonymous,
and stopped going. Had you been through a drug treatment
program, multiple-treatment programs?
Mr. Pyle. I did an outpatient treatment before for
marijuana use, before I ever tried methamphetamine previously.
Unfortunately, the way my disease progressed, it always ended
the same way, with a multiple months stay in the county jail.
My cycle of addiction always ended that way, and it always
ended with me swearing that I going to kick this thing and go
to meetings. And without that constant supervision, I can lie
to you, I can lie to my family, I can't lie to a urine--you
know, dip stick in the urine test.
Mr. Souder. Do you know other meth users?
Mr. Pyle. I try not to associate with them anymore.
Mr. Souder. No, no. But when you were doing drugs, you got
to know other meth users?
Mr. Pyle. Yes.
Mr. Souder. Do you know any who didn't start with
marijuana?
Mr. Pyle. Marijuana, you know, I've heard that argument
it's a gateway drug, and I truly believe it leads to other
things, if the addict is inclined. You know, me personally, I
was always looking for something new.
Mr. Souder. There are some drugs where you can skip
marijuana. I just haven't heard that meth is one that you can
skip marijuana. Some people go to OxyContin without having----
Mr. Pyle. Well, I'm not an expert on the nature of
addiction, and, you know, every individual's case is----
Mr. Souder. But as far as you know, everybody you knew who
did meth also had done marijuana and were looking for a better
fix?
Mr. Pyle. The come down off of methamphetamine is very
difficult, and one of the ways that's used to come down is to
smoke marijuana.
Mr. Souder. Would alcohol do that to you?
Mr. Pyle. Yeah. Yes. I was never a drinker.
Mr. Souder. How did you get introduced to meth? You didn't
cook it.
Mr. Pyle. I eventually progressed into running with some of
the people he was describing in his--I forgot the name of your
piece about, you know, the little organization that thought it
was, you know, organized crime, but, really, it was just a
bunch of addicts that were having some dreams of easy money.
But I spent a great deal of time in my early addiction to
methamphetamine, just simply selling off the possessions that
I'd accumulated through my life. And then I eventually reverted
to crime because it was the only way to feed my habit.
Mr. Souder. And then once you reverted to crime, did you
eventually start cooking because you couldn't afford it or
because you needed to sell to raise money?
Mr. Pyle. In my written testimony or--I mean, I talk about
the fact that I saw it as the--as manufacturing as the only way
for me to sustain my usage and pay for this lifetime of
addiction that was a full-time job.
You know, there were many days when I was a gopher that I
visited every Wal-Mart, sometimes multiple times, you know, and
it's a little step that limiting the pills to two or three
packages, but, you know, a paranoid drug addict doesn't like to
break out his driver's license at the pharmacy counter. So we
started looking for other ways to get the quantities of
ephedrine. And you alluded earlier to--I took a couple of
trips, overnight trips, to Chicago, IL, because I could walk
into a Walgreens in suburban Chicago and buy ephedrine by the
case. Buy $800 and $900 worth of generic pseudoephedrine pills
in Chicago because they don't have a methamphetamine problem.
So--and, you know.
Mr. Souder. Who tipped you off to that?
Mr. Pyle. That was actually a career criminal from your
State, sir, who was--who had heard some time down, and he
actually encouraged many of us to try to move to Indiana where
the grass was greener, he said. So--I think he's doing Federal
time right now.
Mr. Souder. You said you were looking for a constant,
better high. When you got to the meth, did you still want to
seek a better high or was this plenty high?
Mr. Pyle. That was all I needed. That was--after putting
meth intravenously with the help of another junkie, I leaned
back on the couch and then looked at my wife--my then wife, and
said, ``Darlin, you've got to keep me away from this. This will
kill me.'' It was like a foreshadowing of what was to come.
The next few years, you know, I lost 100 pounds, I lost
everything that meant anything to me and betrayed my family.
And I--my wife--my life was saved through the drug court
program.
Mr. Souder. I will ask you one other question. You said you
were told about Illinois by somebody from Indiana. Was that
person down here in Arkansas? Is it somebody you knew from
where--how did that information network get connected?
Mr. Pyle. Criminals hanging with criminals. These--the
gentleman who was--I won't call him a gentleman. The criminal
that I was working for, basically, had done time with a guy we
called Indy because he was from Indiana, and they associated
together. We had night vision, we were on a hilltop mountain in
eastern Oklahoma. And they made us all carry guns. And when we
weren't--when they weren't cooking, while we were watching,
they set us up to do gopher runs. Go to Chicago, go to as many
Wal-Mart stores as possible, go to as many Dollar Generals.
I think the pill issue, it's a nice effort to try to
change, but addicts will go to any lengths to get the
ingredients. And there's also a way that it's in feed.
Ephedrine is in feed, cattle feed and such. It's not as high
quality ephedrine that--the pharmaceutical, of course, is
preferred, but it's a low grade ephedrine that's found in many
cattle feeds. And you can--it's just in so many things that
restrictions on it, I don't see, as the answer. You've got to
end the cycle of addiction.
Mr. Souder. Let me ask you another question. If we called
them up, other guys who were in your gang, and put them into
Judge Gunn's drug court, do you think they would have the same
reaction as you? In other words, how much of this is that you
were ready? I mean, I'm a big supporter of drug courts.
Actually, in my home area, Fort Wayne, Indiana, was one, I
think, of the first three. In 1996 maybe. And I go to the
graduations, and I've seen--look, people say 12 percent
recidivism. Hey, if you can get down to 70 percent, you're
doing pretty good. If you can get it down to 30, you're doing
pretty good. If you can get it down to 12, you're doing really
good.
I'm a big supporter of drug court, but I'm wondering how
much of this is you had a family that you felt you had
betrayed, you had a job, you're employable, you clearly now
were able to go to school. You scored 3.8 at school, which not
everybody who is a meth addict is going to be able to do. You
had a support network similarly around you. I think I met your
father earlier. What do you believe--what's our realistic range
here?
Mr. Pyle. I think even if you're saving 10 percent, all
you're doing is delaying the inevitable which is just sending
them to an already overcrowded prison. You know, the
gentlemen--or the people in question, I'm trying to refer to
them nicely, they were career criminals. Most of them had been
in an institution. I was different in that respect. I did not
get involved with criminal activity until getting involved with
methamphetamine.
Mr. Souder. You're saying the sooner we catch them, the
more likely we are to turn them around?
Mr. Pyle. Yes.
Mr. Souder. More support network, more likely we're able to
turn them around.
Mr. Pyle. I think if they've already gone to prison,
they're getting to the point where they're set in their ways,
unfortunately. There are exceptions. You know, one of the
people that I graduated from drug court with had been down to
prison four different times. And to my knowledge, I saw him a
couple of months ago, and he's been clean as long as I have.
Mr. Souder. Doctor, I notice you work with lots of kids and
families. What's your reaction to his testimony and how would
you expand on that to a higher risk, low income, little hope.
Mr. Leach. Well, No. 1, I would testify that he's telling
you the truth, because I hear it a lot. Unfortunately, I'm not
hearing it enough as far as a success story, but as far as
victims of crime or the activity, it's very exact. You get into
this malaise and then you find a way out. One of the things
that I think we need to look at, and it's probably
congressional, what you're doing is absolutely needed. You
know, looking at it from a drug perspective, and the DEA
perspective and the prosecution's perspective, and a rehab
perspective, but I think we also have to look at is what are we
doing with the youth of America? What are we telling them?
Where are they going, you know? And I think this may sound way
out there to you, but when you look at the Enrons and I've had
kids tell me, ``Well, if I make enough money to hire the best
lawyer there is, I'm unconvictible.''
The kids are really smart today. They're doing some real
dumb things. But there's a smart generation coming up here, and
I think we're going to have some spectacular future Congressmen
and Congresswomen. But the ones without opportunity are just as
smart in most cases, and they're going to make it. And if by
hook or by crook, then in my generation you just didn't even
make it. That was not a choice. You played by the rules.
Now the people who--and looking at television and looking
at the news and that, most of the people who really made it
have some little piece of shade on the side. And so it's a
society issue, and I'm just going to say if you feel like
you're frustrated in that you're fighting a huge battle not
just the drug battle. We're fighting for the morals and the
ethics of this country. And how the children are looking today
at public servants, more and more public servants are in the
Federal penitentiary and more and more public servants are
getting off with kind of their gold wings.
And these big corporations, it's a huge, it's a giant
problem. And I think doing the restricted packaging, all this
stuff helps, but I think we really need to look at what are we
doing for the youth now? Because what we're handing them is
best efforts, and it's just not good enough.
Mr. Souder. Congressman Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Judge Gunn, tell me about the drug court, you
really do honorable things. Michael was actually a product of
the Fort Smith court that also does a tremendous job.
Judge Gunn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Boozman. You work with people like Michael and help
bring them around. Tell me about your going to the schools and
actually taking court to the students in a sense with a
preventive aspect now.
Judge Gunn. All right. Thank you. Well, for drug court to
be successful, you have to be--it takes incredible structure,
as this gentleman has suggested to you. If someone is non-
compliant, I mean 99 percent compliant, they're before me in 3
days. I don't accept anything but 100 percent compliance. So
when we go to the schools, if you--I've got 120 people in my
program right now, 10 percent are going to have some level of
noncompliance. And what I'll do is I'll revoke their bond, I'll
throw them in jail, if they're positive for alcohol, marijuana,
let alone, heaven forbid, meth, or I put them in residential
treatment.
So when we go into the schools, we have a written protocol
because the security's at issue. And we may have 6th grade--I
try not to take more than 250 children. And in the school
gymnasium or auditorium, it takes incredible security because
you have to separate the children from the felons. Because
you've got people in jail that are shackled coming up before
the children, and then I've got people that may test positive
or be noncompliant that I'm going to throw in jail. OK? Or put
in residential treatment. And it's a reality check for
children. It's just a reality check to them.
And of every person in drug court, I tell them, ``It's part
of the program, OK, if you come in, we're going to go to the
schools.'' And they have told me routinely that--perhaps maybe
not 100 percent of them, but a great many of them have said,
``If I had seen this when I was 10 years old, I probably
wouldn't have taken that first joint.'' It's the marijuana and
the alcohol that are the gateway drugs that I see the most of.
So, hopefully, it's effective in the schools.
Mr. Boozman. You're shaking your head, Mr. Counts. You want
to join in? She was talking about marijuana and the other being
the gateway drugs.
Mr. Counts. Again, I----
Mr. Boozman. Alcohol.
Mr. Counts. As far as the gateway drugs, I don't see many.
I think that's an exception rather than the rule that somebody
would start with cocaine, methamphetamine, or heroin. I mean,
it's progressive. And I think a great deal of that has to do
with just simple availability. The more you hang around in that
environment, somebody is going to have something that you're
going to be able to try.
But, I mean, this--in our facility, I think everyone, I
mean, alcohol is by far the most abused drug in this Nation.
And, in reality, I mean we're talking about crime again. It's
up there above anything else. So I think the message to not
only prevention but that intervention and teaching what
addiction really is. We've hidden that for years; although
we've known that since 1954. Even the American Medical
Association with the message has been Just Say No, but--as an
example, but there was never a contingency when we know that
there were going to be children or adolescents who were going
to be using. And we never offered an alternative that just if
you made a bad decision, if you made a mistake, you know, we
understand that, so here's what we can do now. But we just kind
of left this hanging out there to dry.
Mr. Boozman. I appreciate your testimony, Dr. Leach. I've
seen the work that you do and see how hard that you work in the
centers and things that you participate with and the good work
that you're doing. It does seem like the effort that Miss Gunn
is doing, as you mentioned, how society kind of glosses these
things over. That it's kind of cool to maybe be out smoking a
joint or doing whatever. It does seem like this type of real
hard, this is what it's really about with seeing the guy
shackled. That does seem like that's a reality check.
The other thing I would like to ask you about is the effect
this is having on our women's shelters. I've had the
opportunity to view those with you. Tell me what's going on
there, Mr. Leach.
Mr. Leach. Well, one of things this drug does in addition
to the paranoia and all the medical ramifications, it's a
deinhibitor. And by deinhibiting, it also breaks down any kind
of fear of law enforcement, fear of laws, and so forth, and so
you add a little paranoia to these shelters and stuff, and when
you're really upset, and you come home, and your wife's giving
you a bad time, and you're on this stuff, one is the paranoia;
she's not on your side anymore.
Two, there's just the sheer devaluing of the judgment
process where smacking around doesn't mean anything. And,
three, you have no idea of the intensity. When these people get
violent on this drug, it's a no joke violence. I'm an old man,
and I can't imagine what I can do, but I know that if I were on
that drug, I can do at least twice as much. Whether it's a law
enforcement officer or my spouse or my child.
So what you see is greater damage, more irreparable damage
and greater fear on the part of the victim. In this case, you
know, there's obviously the female victims in domestic
violence. We experience mostly female victims. When you have
that kind of paranoia that's been addressed here today, where
these people are hanging out with guns and going nuts about,
``You squealed on me,'' and they're going to kill you. And you
know their judgment is flawed, and they point a gun, and they
can kill you. This isn't about morals and ethics or whether or
not I kill people or not. There are good friends that kill
people. This is like, ``If I don't kill you, I'm going to
die.'' And so many women are more inclined to go back out of
fear.
Fear is a big factor to go back. Lack of money is another
factor to go back. There's a lot of other factors that's going
on as well. But this intensifies that problem. It intensifies
the child abuse problem with it. In the Children's Advocacy
Center it is appearing also. So all of these things, it's just
a complete terrorizing of the family, the family structure.
This is the most destructive drug I have seen in my life.
I've been around probably as long or longer than anybody in the
panel. This stuff is horrendous. It is unbelievably bad with
what it's doing. It's not like anything else. This drug is set
at 25 percent of the drug use in America as opposed to all the
others. This thing is going to get us. Cocaine is tough, but
cocaine is also for the most part expensive. Heroine is tough,
but people have figured out heroine for the most part, but it
is coming back. LSD, that's just some crazy stuff. It's
floating in and out of the high schools again today, but it's
not going to go anyplace. But this stuff is real.
What you're doing today, what you're doing around the
country, it has to be done. Something has to come of this,
because this is the most destructive thing of human life that
we've ever had in this country. Did I answer your question, or
is that just too brief?
Mr. Boozman. No, that's very good.
Mr. Dufour, I really do appreciate the example that Wal-
Mart set. Not only this, I know that you-all are very active in
the Red Ribbon Enterprises and things like that. You mentioned
that in high crime areas and shoplifting and stuff that you
actually put it behind the counter. So you're in a situation
where you have stores behind, you've got stores without stuff,
and for all this testimony about the tremendous problems with
this stuff, is it an unnecessary burden? Is it a tremendous
burden to the storekeepers, the retailers, if we do put it
behind the counter?
Mr. Dufour. It's more of an issue for the consumers, having
it available for them, because pseudoephedrine is a very
effective medication for folks' treatment, coughs and colds and
nasal congestion. So our pharmacists have been educated on this
issue; they understand it. If our pharmacists in a local area
believe it is a problem, it's being stolen, or it's being
abused, they have the opportunity to move it behind the counter
themselves. So we do it on a store-by-store basis with our
local folks. But the balance is--it's not readily available to
the consumer to use.
Mr. Boozman. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. I wanted to, if I can, just followup on that a
minute. You mentioned that you had some stores and some high
risk areas. Do you know how many that is?
Mr. Dufour. It was just a little over 500 the last time we
surveyed.
Mr. Souder. 500 that put it behind.
Mr. Dufour. Yes, sir.
Mr. Souder. OK. I see. So you said over 500 stores noticed
high theft or unusual uses. Is that usually law enforcement
that come to you, or do you notice it internally?
Mr. Dufour. No, we do an awareness program with our
pharmacists. They understand. Most of them get it. I mean,
understand what the issue is. If the pharmacist, if their
opinion is that the medication needs to be behind the counter,
they'll make that decision themselves to pull it back. We get a
survey of our stores to find out how many have done that. From
the last survey, it was just over 500.
Mr. Souder. If law enforcement came to you in a given area,
would you--are the pharmacists contracted out in most cases?
Mr. Dufour. No, they're company owned.
Mr. Souder. So if they came to you, you would work with
local law enforcement as well?
Mr. Dufour. We have worked with local law enforcement, and
it's a judgment call on the pharmacists. I mean, if the law
enforcement agency came in and said, ``Will you put it behind
the counter in all the stores in the State?'' we would have to
take a look at that and say, ``Is that reasonable?''
Mr. Souder. Yeah, they'd have to give you some kind of--I
was thinking more of county or, I guess, the targeted areas.
Obviously, we could go on for a long time, and, Mr.
Hoggatt, were groups like yours--before I do that, I want to
make a comment on Wal-Mart, because one of the things that
often is lost when we have a single hearing is the context of
how many things and challenges you have on these type of
things, particularly as the largest retailer in the world. But
we held a hearing down in Houston on baby formula being stolen,
and Wal-Mart sent a representative down to testify. Because in
Texas, this is a huge issue. It's spreading into Oklahoma, as
we heard in Texas, spreading in Arkansas and other areas. And
it's incredible the millions and millions of dollars in baby
formula that's stolen in this market, and particularly we have
some very difficult Al Qaeda network who are funding some of
their Al Qaeda efforts from stolen baby formula.
So the next thing is, we're asking Wal-Mart to put baby
formula in controlled areas where people can't get to it, and
then the ephedrine, the pseudoephedrine, and it is a huge
challenge as a retailer how to keep market share when this
isn't demanded elsewhere and when everybody else isn't doing it
and when most usage of it is above board.
We appreciate your working with us and we understand that
puts extra pressures on your corporation. But literally, in
Florida, it still astounded me that there are more deaths from
the Oxycodones and hydrocodones. Legal medications. There are
more deaths from overdose in those two drugs than there are
from all illegal drugs combined in that's why the President was
talking not only about steroid use but legal drug abuse, that
we're talking methamphetamine is up to 8 percent. Hasn't been--
maybe it was 6, maybe in some areas it's pushing higher, but it
hasn't really changed nationally as much because we have other
new things that are coming on, that's abuse of the illegal
drugs, not to mention the story of alcohol problems, that just
are overwhelming.
And this is a much more difficult challenge in the society
when most of your deaths are coming from legal drugs. And the
amount of black market money, so to speak, are coming from
ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, baby formula money, and other
things, and what kind of pressure that puts on our system to
sort through. Not to mention the whole Canadian question of
Internet pharmacies and the competition that isn't restrained
elsewhere.
Do you have a followup to that, Mr. Dufour? You looked like
you wanted to say something.
Mr. Dufour. Well, I think you said a lot, and it is a
challenge for retailers to keep up, not only with Federal laws
but with State and local ordinances. We work very hard at that.
The one thing that I do appreciate is the cooperation that
we've had and the partnership we've had with DEA in every case,
whether it was the agent out of Little Rock or Washington, DC,
or some other area. We've had very good success working with
them as well as a lot of the local sheriffs' departments. We
want to appreciate that cooperation.
Mr. Souder. Well, we've had a long hearing. I wanted to
share a couple of things with you and make sure the record
reflects there have been some statements that haven't been, I
believe, completely accurate about what the Federal Government
is doing, and I want to put in context of what we're trying to
do from our end and how this hearing fits into that.
First off, it isn't inaccurate to say, as somebody was
saying Columbia a lot, Columbia and South America represent
about 10 percent of the Federal dollars. Drug treatment
represents about 60 to 70 percent of Federal dollars in what we
do in law enforcement. And State and local law enforcement is
another chunk of that, counting DEA. But there is a common
street notion in and around the country that we spend most of
ours on international, which isn't true, or that we spend most
on law enforcement, which isn't true.
Furthermore, most of our funding of drug treatment doesn't
come through direct Federal funding, it comes through
indirectly through other programs. Whether it's insurance, tax
write offs that people have, through mental health assistance,
through Medicaid assistance. And so in addition to what I said
was direct Federal, we spend far more in treatment than we do
in law enforcement intervention.
Now, depending on whether you want to count State and
local, which is a whole different thing, including, by the way,
sentencing laws because we've had this debate, if you wind up
in jail for usage in the Federal system, you're rare. In spite
of 60 Minutes, because we've had fencing with 60 Minutes, and
they edited me out of the show because they didn't like the
Federal numbers. The fact is, there are only about 600 people
who are in Federal prisons or in for usage. And most of those
are negotiated sentences. They couldn't go to nail them for
distribution, so they went for usage.
When you hear the sentencing problem for usage, you're
mostly talking State and local where there's been a
proliferation. Quite frankly, the Federal Government doesn't
have prison room, judges, marshals, to lock up the people who
are dealers. As you heard me say earlier, 400 pounds in El
Paso. OK? We were having a hearing on a Lakota--on an Indian
reservation on the Arizona border, they had 1,500 pounds the
previous year, and I think this was in 2002. So it was 2002,
they had 1,500 pounds. In January through March they had 1,500
pounds that they had seized. This is marijuana in addition to
cocaine that was moving through there.
During our hearing, because these idiots kept running this
stuff while we had all these Federal officials there, they
caught 500 pounds, 400 pounds, 300 pounds, 200 pounds, got a
700 pound later that day. They had nearly 2,000 pounds running
through that zone in this particular area. And, literally, they
don't even mess with arresting a lot of them because our
borders are, basically, for the most part not very tightly
controlled.
Now, the reason I say that is here's the basic from the
Federal Government approach that we're trying to do. To the
degree that we can eradicate the drugs--now I'm speaking mostly
cocaine, heroin, and some degree marijuana, at their source, we
get it with the least amount of people being damaged. To the
degree it moves out of the country and into the Caribbean up
through Mexico, it's spreading out and harder to get. The
degree it gets in the United States, it's harder and harder to
get. To the degree it gets into northwest Arkansas, then it's
proliferated so much that we're dealing with a totally
different nature of the problem.
Similar with ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. To the degree
we can get more controls over in Amsterdam and Rotterdam and
Belgium, we won't have to worry about every single Wal-Mart and
whether they're going to 18 Wal-Mart stores, because the stuff
is mostly coming from one area of the world and from one place.
And to the degree that we can control our harbors, to the
degree we can control the entrance levels, once it gets into
the pharmacy level, it is very difficult, particularly--you
just are fairly overwhelmed. So we have a percentage trying to
do that.
Now, so eradication, interdiction, and then the law
enforcement question. We are attempting to initiate several
drug treatment type initiatives. The President has proposed an
increase in that, and we increased it in the last session.
We're trying to do it again. We're trying to look for
accountability programs.
For example, I'm a big believer, as you said, you know, you
can't lie in a urine test. And certainly not in the hair
follicle test, which make it a little more difficult if on top
there's not any hair. As we do drug testing and have real
accountability, it isn't to play ``Got ya,'' and throw somebody
in the prison, the goal is that you're not helping somebody if
you don't really know whether they're progressing. And you've
got to put accountability in the systems and drug treatment.
But we're wrestling, because, clearly, the length of time,
comprehensiveness, whether there are support groups, and how we
deal with a more holistic picture in the drug treatment is one
of our challenges.
Our prevention programs, quite frankly, are not
particularly effective. And we're trying to make them more
effective. We put a whole bunch of new variations into drug
free schools. I'm still not convinced as a person who wrote
almost all of the last drug free school laws that it's
particularly effective or targeted.
The Community Anti-Drug Coalitions that Congressman Portman
developed and went through our committee on an attempt to do
more what you're trying to do at the local level. In other
words, if you can get activists in the community often who
either are parents who struggled with it, people in the
neighborhood who are concerned about it, those people can work
to help identify and try to reach other kids. I can't tell you
what a great idea of having the drug court at the schools is as
part of this effort to communicate the consequences.
Almost every prevention program, even though they
understand that the threat only will reach part of the people,
the fact is, even the most effective--we're going to take them
to the movies, we're going to play basketball, and we're going
to do this, and so on, and if you don't, you might go to jail,
it's always a part of that in having that be part of that.
And I want to make one other comment on the Just Say No
program. That, in fact, in the United States from our
perspective, and I'm just going to say this overtly. As a
committed Christian, I believe that ever getting rid of the
drug problem's chance is zero because there's always going to
be sin in the world. We're never going to eliminate child
abuse, we're never going to eliminate spouse abuse. The goal
isn't zero. And if you say you're going to get rid of it, you
have a false thing. Every day somebody new is exposed, there
are different problems, and you're never going to eliminate
sin.
And with that context, the goal that we have, is we try to
limit it as much as possible, make it as hard as possible, make
it as infrequent as possible. And it's true that over the
course of history, we haven't eliminated drugs, but the fact
is, we've had some huge up and downs. And, interestingly, the
Just Say No program from 1981 to 1992, we had 11 straight years
of decline. From 1992 to 1994, for a variety of cultural
reasons, including a cutback in interdiction dollars of 75
percent, including a ``I didn't inhale'' type of an attitude,
we would have to reduce drug abuse in the United States 50
percent to get back to 1992 from right now. We had such a
soaring increase in 2 years.
So this thing is going up and down when you look at it in
its totality. Furthermore, I often hear from kids, and I know
all you hear this, ``Well, why is marijuana illegal? Alcohol
isn't illegal.'' Well, I doubt if we'd have made it legal, if
we were starting right now. Second, that we have constricted
alcohol almost every year tighter. Accountability on bars,
accountability on drivers, accountability in selling to minors.
Just like we're choking the tobacco industry.
Now, you can argue whether marijuana and alcohol have the
same impact, or whether we'll ever completely eliminate it, or,
for that matter, whether we're even going to enforce the
marijuana laws, but the fact is, is that in the structure, we
have to deal particularly with minors and increasingly in our
society in usage. Part of the prevention effort needs to be
targeted toward the clusters and the exposure to drugs,
alcohol, and tobacco. Marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol as
gateway type of things. And to refuse or to not acknowledge
that those things are there when you're dealing with the meth
question--today we're focused on meth, but, obviously, those
are the biggest. They also go in waves. And often when you have
one wave going up, you switch it, and enough alcohol will pop
up when you reduce marijuana use.
But right now we're looking--we're at four straight years
of total reducing of drug use in the United States. So even
when you say--actually, it's more than four. It's about 6 years
now--that when you look at something and say, ``We failed,''
the fact is, we're making incremental progress. We have this
huge national ad campaign which is one of our major national
efforts, that has, in fact, gradually, not dramatically,
reduced marijuana use in the United States and other drug use.
Now, under that you'll have bursts of OxyContin, but the total
amount of people who are abusing drugs right now is down in the
United States. It's way too high, but if we constantly say,
``Oh, it's hopeless,'' then why spend money on it; it's
hopeless. If we're spending all this money and not getting
progress, then we have a problem. I wanted to give you that
holistic view.
In addition, on Thursday, Congressman Portman of Ohio,
Davis of Illinois, myself, and Congresswoman Tubbs of
Cleveland, introduced the Criminal Justice Package. The
President in the State of the Union said, ``We have to look at
the prison population.'' Here's what's happening with locking
up. Crime is down in the United States because we took
criminals off the street. It's pretty simple. Put all the
criminals in prison, and crime is going to be down, so murder
rates are down, violent crime is down, and you have it. But
long term, that's no solution. Short term, it gets the crime
rate down, but what do we do long term? In that long term,
these reentry programs right now that we're trying to tackle is
now that people are coming out, particularly those three and 5
years from the tough sentencing that we had a few years ago, we
took them off the streets. So as they come back out, what are
we doing as a society?
And so this comprehensive package that, hopefully we can
pass yet this year, tries to address housing questions,
education questions, job targeting questions. Things beyond
just ``OK. You're coming out of prison. Good luck.'' ``Yeah,
but what if people won't hire me? What if you can't get a place
to live? What if you can't get in a job training program?''
Now, we're not talking about violent criminals here, we're not
talking about if you go out and you abuse it again. You're
right. But we have to have a process of reentry if we're going
to end that, which should start while they're in prison with
job training, with preparing for reentry, or we as a society
aren't going to be able to deal with it, and the individual
isn't.
What I wanted to give you is an idea because while we're
focusing on meth, in realty, we're focusing on a whole range of
things from treatment and prevention and how we make those
prevention programs more effective, whether it's community
anti-drug coalitions, whether it's a National ad campaign,
whether it's efforts in the schools and in the communities. And
it's treatment programs, in the prison reentry programs,
whether it's interdiction and so on.
Now, with meth, the danger here is, and here's the plain
truth--I also sit on the Homeland Security Committee. If we do
get our borders better protected and we enable the process of
protecting our borders better, choke off some of the cocaine
and heroin and other things that are coming in, then we'll just
see an explosion of meth. Because unless we've eliminated the
demand for drugs, which, you know, even if we've reduced it, we
can produce this drug domestically. And trying to figure out
what impact that has, because we're going to get better at
sealing our borders. We're not going to get perfect, but we're
going to get better at that, which means, in my opinion, meth
problems are likely to increase because it's something we can
produce in this country. And we've got to figure out, how we
balance these laws on the PACs and people moving through. How
do we get the pseudoephedrine? How do we control that? Are
there really treatment methods that we treat meth differently?
And so part of our education process right now is, yes, the
biggest threats in Arkansas are still marijuana, alcohol. My
bet is if we looked at it, you'd probably have cocaine here
pretty heavily, too. But meth is a way, when it's newly
exposed, of all the media coverage that's occurring, all the
focusing on it, we have a chance to shape the community
attitude on meth yet, unlike on marijuana where we're battling
a community attitude on it. And meth, if we can convince
people, like LSD, like OxyContin, and some of these, that this
is evil, that this is an extra great threat, to get ahold of
this before it explodes even farther on us nationally. And
clearly in Arkansas, certainly in pockets of Arkansas, you're
at epidemic proportion, and that's what we heard today with
this.
But I wanted to make sure the record reflected and that you
understood that this is just in the context of a much broader
fight that we're fighting, and why we're particularly looking
at meth, and why we're particularly in this area looking at
meth, because, in effect, you potentially are not only
modelling to some degree Arkansas and the region, but what
could happen all over the Nation. Instead of 8 percent, we
could be looking at 40 percent, and if we start seeing that at
a National level, how would we even have EPA function, how
could we have DEA function with the types of the things that
you're talking about in a State the size of Arkansas? What
about in Chicago? I mean, my lands, this stuff is bigger in one
city. Or take Los Angeles where it's three times the size of
the whole State of Arkansas. We wouldn't even begin to tackle
it because your resources are just overwhelmingly strained
here.
Do you have any final comments?
Mr. Boozman. Well, I would just like to thank you for
coming and bringing the committee and would like to thank the
panel. I know all of you--I know what a tremendous job you do,
and that you truly are experts in your field. And I'd also like
to really thank Michael. I think that especially to be willing
to get up and share what you've been through, what he's gone
through, and, yet, I think it's a great testimony that there is
life after.
So, again, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. I thank all of you. And thank you not only for
coming today, but for your work that has to be frustrating on a
day-to-day basis, include working in all the drug treatment
programs for so long with so many people. It's very important
work. And I thank you.
Thank you very much. With that, the subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:43 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.165