<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:24258.wais]
COMPREHENSIVELY COMBATING
METHAMPHETAMINES: IMPACTS ON
HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH
and the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
of the
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 20, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-57
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
24-258PDF WASHINGTON : 2005
_______________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida Ranking Member
Vice Chairman HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia BART GORDON, Tennessee
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
Mississippi, Vice Chairman GENE GREEN, Texas
VITO FOSSELLA, New York TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
ROY BLUNT, Missouri DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE BUYER, Indiana LOIS CAPPS, California
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire TOM ALLEN, Maine
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania JIM DAVIS, Florida
MARY BONO, California JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GREG WALDEN, Oregon HILDA L. SOLIS, California
LEE TERRY, Nebraska CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey JAY INSLEE, Washington
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Bud Albright, Staff Director
David Cavicke, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Health
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BART GORDON, Tennessee
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ANNA G. ESHOO, California
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, GENE GREEN, Texas
Mississippi TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
STEVE BUYER, Indiana DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania LOIS CAPPS, California
MARY BONO, California TOM ALLEN, Maine
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey JIM DAVIS, Florida
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
SUE MYRICK, North Carolina JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas (Ex Officio)
JOE BARTON, Texas,
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas HILDA L. SOLIS, California
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia Ranking Member
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona BART STUPAK, Michigan
VITO FOSSELLA, New York ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire LOIS CAPPS, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
MARY BONO, California TOM ALLEN, Maine
LEE TERRY, Nebraska JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan JAY INSLEE, Washington
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho GENE GREEN, Texas
SUE MYRICK North Carolina CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma TAMMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
JOE BARTON, Texas, (Ex Officio)
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Coleman, Hon. Eric, Commissioner, Oakland County, Michigan,
on Behalf of National Association of Counties.............. 43
Colston, Stephanie, Senior Advisor to the Administrator,
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services............... 14
Heerens, Joseph R., Senior Vice President, Government
Affairs, Marsh Supermarkets, Inc., on Behalf of Food
Marketing Institute........................................ 65
Kamatchus, Ted G., Marshall County Sheriff's Office, on
Behalf of National Sheriffs' Association................... 60
Knapp, Gordon, President, PCH North America, Pfizer, Inc..... 55
Murtha, Peter, Director, Office of Criminal Enforcement,
Forensics and Training, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency..................................................... 30
Rannazzisi, Joseph T., Deputy Chief, Office of Enforcement
Operations, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration........... 24
Wagner, Mary Ann, Senior Vice President for Pharmacy, Policy,
and Regulatory Affairs, National Association of Chain Drug
Stores..................................................... 51
(v)
COMPREHENSIVELY COMBATING
METHAMPHETAMINES: IMPACTS ON
HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Health, joint with the
Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m.,
at 2123 Rayburn House Committee Building, Hon. Nathan Deal
(chairman, Subcommitee on Health) presiding.
Members present, Subcommittee on Health: Representatives
Deal, Shimkus, Walden, Bono, Ferguson, Burgess, Barton (ex
officio), Brown, Gordon, and Dingell (ex officio).
Members present, Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous
Materials: Representatives Gillmor, Wilson, Otter, Sullivan,
Murphy, Barton (ex officio), Solis, Pallone, Capps, Schakowsky,
Inslee, Green, Baldwin, and Dingell (ex officio).
Staff present: Ryan Long, majority counsel; Jerry Couri,
majority counsel; Tom Hassenboehler, majority counsel; Chad
Grant, majority legislative clerk; Chelsea Brown, majority
staff assistant; John Ford, minority counsel; Dick Frandsen,
senior minority counsel; Jessica McNiece, minority research
assistant and Alec Gerlach, minority staff assistant.
Mr. Deal. The committee will come to order. I would first
of all unanimous consent that Mr. Walden be allowed to enter an
opening statement into the record. Without objection, so
ordered.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Deal. I will recognize myself now for an opening
statement and we will proceed with that portion of the hearing
and then hopefully get to the witnesses as soon as possible.
I would like to, first of all, thank our witnesses for
being here today. We recognize that you have expertise and we
are grateful for your cooperation and attendance at this
hearing. Our purpose of this particular hearing is to examine
the impacts that the production and the use of methamphetamines
have had on the health and the environment and how we can
effectively and comprehensively attempt to win this battle
against this devastating substance.
Methamphetamine poses an increasing threat all across the
country. It is true in my home State of Georgia, particularly
in the northern and the central sections of our State. And law
enforcement officials and health care professionals report that
a more diverse group is abusing the drug. In parts of Northern
Georgia that I represent, methamphetamine has emerged as the
primary drug threat. And this drug has destroyed the lives of
individuals, families, and communities throughout my district.
In April of this year, the Governor of the State of Georgia
signed into law methamphetamine legislation which restricts the
sale of products whose primary ingredient is pseudoephedrine to
behind the counter of a retail or pharmacy store and requires
that wholesalers of these products be licensed. Other States
have taken actions similar to Georgia. And I look forward to
discussing with the witnesses how effective these laws have
been.
As Congress decides if Federal legislation action is the
necessary next step, I believe it is important to attempt to
craft policy that keeps products out of the hands of the people
who would use them to cook up this addictive stimulant drug
without--in the same time inhibiting the access of the
overwhelming majority of people who simply want these
medications to help fight colds and allergies.
We do have a problem that must be addressed. And the
adverse health effects of regular methamphetamine uses is well
documented and the long-term effects are evident: irreversible
blood vessel damage, respiratory problems, irregular heartbeat,
extreme anorexia, cardiovascular collapse, and death.
I would like to thank my good friend from Ohio, Mr.
Gillmor, and his staff from the Environment and Hazardous
Materials Subcommittee for joining us in preparing and
conducting today's hearing. Mr. Gillmor is presently attending
another meeting at this moment and will soon resume and will
assume the Chair of the joint subcommittees, which are being
convened for the purpose of this hearing. He will do that
shortly.
Again, I thank all of the witnesses and I look forward to
hearing from you as this hearing proceeds.
I now recognize my friend, Mr. Brown, from Ohio.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am pleased to be
part of this hearing with my friend from California, Ms. Solis,
and both subcommittees, and my neighbor in Ohio, Mr. Gillmor.
Methamphetamine use is a perilous mistake for individuals,
as we know, an onerous challenge for affected communities, a
chronic drain on law enforcement and public health resources.
States like Ohio, where use of this drug was once rare, are
witnessing an alarming rise in production and use and
addiction. Since 2000, the number of labs seized in Ohio has
more than quadrupled. Last year, authorities seized 104 meth
labs in Summit County, Akron, Ohio, alone.
That is not because Summit County has a unique meth
problem. As I will get to later, it is because Summit County
has an aggressive meth eradication strategy. This drug is not
like cocaine or heroin, with foreign cartels dumping dangerous
poison into our neighborhoods.
In a hearing before the Government Reform Committee a
couple months ago, Ohio officials testified that most of the
meth producers feeding the drug line in--drug pipeline in Ohio
were actually in the State cooking up the drug in ``backyard''
labs.
Instructions for cooking meth are available on the
Internet, and the necessary ingredients are available at the
local drug store. And taking even small amounts can result, as
we know, in serious health effects, including hallucinations,
psychotic violent behavior, hypothermia and convulsions. In the
long-term, meth users suffer from significantly higher rates of
Alzheimer's and stroke and epilepsy.
When authorities discover meth labs, they often find
children in the homes exposed to the toxic ingredients and
byproducts. And increasingly, the number of infants born
addicted to meth, suffering from low birth weight and birth
defects, is increasing.
The costs of meth control are real and a growing concern.
In 2004 alone, the DEA and the State of Ohio spent $680,000
cleaning up meth labs. It is easy to get. It is difficult to
control. It is highly addictive. It is extremely harmful. It is
not a public health crisis in the making. It is a public health
crisis now.
In Summit County, as I mentioned, an innovative coalition
of city--between civil officials working in cooperation with
local law enforcement has invested the resources to clean up
nearly 150 meth labs.
Their program is not only an excellent prototype for other
Ohio communities, it sets a standard for the Nation as a whole.
Meth labs pose imminent environmental and public health
dangers, so local officials have no choice but to act. It is
our responsibility at the Federal level to ensure they don't
have to act alone. We need a multi-pronged approach to this
problem.
The primary ingredient used to make meth is available in
many everyday cold medicines. A number of States require stores
to take medicines, as the Chairman said, containing
pseudoephedrine off the shelf and move them behind the pharmacy
counter. Summit County, which I mentioned earlier has taken a
leadership roll, has also taken this common-sense step to
prevent meth production.
In addition to tackling the access issue, we need to--
issue, we need to put resources into prevention and education.
Americans are using meth to lose weight. Workers are using meth
to stay up when they need to work late. We have to put
resources into public awareness efforts to educate communities
about the dangers of any kind of meth use for any kind of
issue.
Today's hearing is an important step in our effort to
reduce the devastating effects of the meth epidemic. I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Deal. Thank you. Mr. Sullivan, do you have an opening
statement?
Mr. Sullivan. No.
Mr. Deal. All right. Ms. Solis, do you have an opening
statement?
Ms. Solis. Yes, I do. Thank you.
Mr. Deal. So recognized.
Ms. Solis. Thank you and good morning. I would like to
thank Chairman Gillmor and Chairman Deal for holding this
hearing on health and environmental impacts of
methamphetamines. And I want also to thank all the witnesses
that are here today.
The issue of methamphetamines and its array of impacts on
our community is one that I am somewhat familiar with.
Methamphetamine, or meth, is one of our Nation's most serious
drug threats, and meth production is a significant problem
throughout the State of California, where I reside. I believe
it is the smaller and more numerous labs, often staffed by
cookers who are themselves meth users, that are public safety
threats because they are concealed in populated communities,
some that we have found in my own district.
Small meth labs can be found in apartments, hotel rooms,
abandoned facilities, and even cars. In my district, in the San
Gabriel Valley of California, we have become plagued with small
meth labs in hotels and homes. Over the past several years,
nearly 200 meth labs were found and nine meth lab related
explosions or fires resulted in injuries to police, firemen,
and children.
The clandestine manufacture and distribution of
methamphetamine has created a public health and safety crisis
in Los Angeles County. Short-term exposures to high
concentrations of chemical vapors that may exit into any
functioning meth lab can cause severe health problems and even
death. The chemicals and fumes that permeate the walls, the
carpets, plaster, wood of meth labs, as well as the surrounding
soil, are known to cause cancer, short-term and permanent brain
damage, immune and respiratory system problems.
Meth not only harms those who use the drug but also harms
anyone who comes in contact with the toxic waste in the meth
lab, such as meth cookers, their families, and first
responders. So often, children are the innocent victims of
meth. More than 80 percent of all meth labs seized are found in
homes, garages, apartments, motels, or mobile units where
children are often present.
These labs, stocked with toxic chemicals and at high risk
for explosion, expose children to highly dangerous living
conditions. And these children may show permanent damage to
their respiratory tracks. Meth labs are often discovered when
firefighters respond to a lab fire. Police and firefighters
have to take safety courses to handle meth situations because
of the likelihood of explosions and invisible poisonous gases
and other dangers.
The meth manufacturing process presents an extremely
dangerous environmental hazard. One pound of meth produces six
pounds of toxic waste. The waste is often dumped down in sinks,
toilets, water wells, corroding pipes, septic systems, and
sewers as well as contaminating our water supplies and
groundwater. The waste can also be dumped into rivers and the
ground near the lab along highways, in parks forests and on
hiking trails.
Even months after meth labs have been closed, chemical
residue still remains. These highly contaminated sites lead to
costly cleanup and remediation. Environmental impacts include
severe indoor contamination, toxic chemical dumps, hazardous
waste disposal, and groundwater contamination.
A few former meth super labs have been--have become
superfund sites, our Nation's most toxic sites. In the State of
California, Region 9 EPA officials have had to engage in
removal action at 15 meth sites. But there are no uniform
Federal guidelines or standards for the cleanup and remediation
of these meth labs. There has also been little research on the
health effects associated with these clandestine meth labs.
Until the early 1990's, methamphetamine was made mostly in
these labs.
While in the State Senate where I served, I addressed some
of these issues by sponsoring legislation that would restrict
the sale of two principal ingredients in making meth. My bill
imposed new requirements on the sales of iodine and red
phosphorous. I also requested funds for two high tech law
enforcement vans quipped to fight and clean up meth labs in the
Los Angeles County basin. And I worked very closely with our
local law enforcement to do that.
The city of Covina in my district has also adopted a city
ordinance limiting the sale of cold and allergy medications
containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine, such as Sudafed,
Nyquil, and other nonprescription decongestants. California has
the Drug Endangered Children Response Team, which specializes
in seizing labs that manufacture methamphetamine and provides a
coordinated response to the crisis that children--that we have
found in the homes of these meth labs. More than 600 children,
by the way, have been rescued from meth labs. All have received
specialized medical and social services to diagnose and treat
the physical and emotional effects of drug exposure.
Today, it is important to remember that meth is not only a
California problem, but it is a problem for our country. All
levels of government, as well as the private sector, need to
work together to fight this growing problem. I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses in coming up with some solutions to
address this very important issue. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Deal. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Brown, your colleague
has made me aware that today is your birthday and the Committee
would join in wishing you a happy birthday. I have used my
Chairman's privilege to deny him the opportunity to sing a
solo. Mr. Murphy, do you have an opening statement? You are
recognized.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that we
are holding this hearing today. We need to deal with the dual
issue of the direct health impact of methamphetamines on
individuals as well as the long-term toxic impact in our
environment. And so it is fitting and proper that this
Committee takes this on.
Certainly we are all concerned and should be highly
concerned of the growing use of methamphetamines. And as small
labs open up around the country whose sole purpose is to make
money and develop more addicts out of our youth and adults,
destroying their own lives, we also need to make sure that we
are covering the long-term effects.
There are so many elements which are dumped and essentially
creating these toxic sites, with substances--as red
phosphorous, iodine, starter fluid, acetone, ammonia, drain
cleaners, lithium. So many different things are a part of what
is created in these meth labs, which then become a secondary
health effect around them.
We have to recognize as one of the health effects of this
is that some of the outcome also involves depression and other
psychological disorders secondary to this. And as such, we have
huge health problems that come out of this.
This is not victimless crimes that occur. And so often I
hear people refer to drug crimes as victimless. But when we
look at those who are caught up in the cycle of abuse of drugs,
caught up in the addictive net, and also then innocent
bystanders effected by the toxic chemicals that are left
behind, it is important that this Committee takes a strong
stand and moves legislation to protect the health of the
citizens of this country. I yield back.
Mr. Deal. Thank the gentleman. I recognize the ranking
member of the full committee, Mr. Dingell, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy
and I thank you for holding this hearing. This is a very
important matter and I am pleased that you are conducting these
affairs.
Methamphetamine, or meth, and its effects are both serious
and devastating. Methamphetamine-making operations have been
uncovered in all 50 States. The total number of meth laboratory
incidents in my home State of Michigan has increased
dramatically.
Last year, 295 clandestine meth labs were discovered in
Michigan, whereas 9 years ago only 10 labs were uncovered.
Federal estimates indicate that more than 12 million Americans
have tried meth and 1.5 millionf are regular users. Police
officers nationwide rank meth as the No. 1 drug they battle
today. In a survey of 500 law enforcement agencies in 45 States
released in July of 2005 by the National Association of
Counties, 58 percent said that meth is their biggest single
drug problem compared with 19 percent for cocaine.
The ravages of meth use have affected our society perhaps
more than any other drug in history. Meth addictions have
dramatically increased the number of children placed in foster
care, strained public health services as well as increased the
number of violent crimes. Viable meth labs assembled in homes
have resulted in explosions which maim and kill not only those
cooking the drug, but also their families and other innocent
persons. Users experience serious physical and mental health
risks. Each pound of meth production produces five pounds of
toxic waste.
Fighting the war on drugs has never been easy, nor are the
solutions always straightforward. Many different proposals have
been put forward with the intended goal of decreasing the
amount of meth that is produced in the United States. Included
in these proposals are recommendations to move certain over-
the-counter drugs containing pseudoephedrine, which is the key
ingredient in making meth, behind the counter. The expectation
is that moving the pseudoephedrine-containing products behind
the counter will allow for better monitoring of who is buying
excessive or frequent amounts of these drugs.
Other proposals include recommendations to limit the number
of pseudoephedrine-containing products that any one individual
can purchase and recommendations to make pseudoephedrine-
containing products available by prescription only.
Many States have already adopted a variety of measures
aimed at curbing meth production and distribution. Congress
should look over these programs, seek guidance from experts in
the field, examine the efficacy of different State laws, and
try to arrange, as best we can, the closest possible
cooperation with State and local units of government and have a
joint effort on these matters. We have to make informed
decisions about how to best move forward with Federal
legislation in this area.
I would like to note this morning that we have a
distinguished citizen from Michigan prepared to present
testimony on behalf of the National Association of Counties,
the Honorable Eric Coleman, who is the Commissioner from
Oakland County and First Vice President of the National
Association of Counties.
I thank all of the witnesses for appearing before us today,
Mr. Chairman. And I thank you for holding this very important
meeting. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Deal. I thank the gentleman. Dr. Burgess, do you have
an opening statement?
Mr. Burgess. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do, but in the interest
of time, I will submit that for the record and we can go on to
the witnesses.
Mr. Deal. All right. Ms. Wilson, do you have an opening
statement?
Ms. Wilson. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Deal. You are recognized.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know a lot of us are
well aware of the problems of methamphetamine in our
communities. It was something that really started predominantly
in the west and is now expanding across the country.
One of the problems with methamphetamine, of course, is its
devastating effect and powerful addictive capacity and its
propensity to cause those who use it toward violence against
those they love and the children who depend upon them.
In addition, methamphetamine is pretty easy to make and
gets compared to a lot of other drugs. And we have seen not
only the explosion in meth labs across the country but the
difficulty of cleaning up the toxic waste that is created in
those meth labs. The cleanup from meth can range from $1,500 to
$250,000. And that falls primarily on local communities who
discover these laboratories in apartment buildings and garages
and mobile homes across our communities. We need to continue to
help local communities with those cleanup problems so they
don't end up just in our sewer system.
Methamphetamine is now second to only marijuana as the most
widely used elicit drug in the world and is particularly
prevalent in the Western United States. The materials to make
it are generally legally sold. And that is one of the reasons
that I think we need to change some of our Federal laws to make
it mandatory to put these drugs behind the counter and to
reduce the amount--the level at which these drugs have to be
controlled substances so that it is much harder for young
people to walk into the local Walgreen's and get a couple of
packs of Sudafed and be able to cook up meth.
It is destroying our families and our communities. And we
see it in the spike in the number of children taken into foster
care and the children found in the midst of the toxic waste of
meth labs. And Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this
hearing today.
Mr. Deal. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Pallone, do you have
an opening statement?
Mr. Pallone. Yes. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know,
meth abuse has spread throughout the country. And in response
over the past decade, the Federal Government has ramped up its
regulation of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, precursors that
are often used in the elicit production of meth. Similarly, a
number of States have enacted their own laws aimed at
curtailing meth abuse. And many of these laws focus on the
supply side of the problem and increase enforcement efforts
aimed at the disruption of illegal drug markets. I am
interested to hear from our witnesses on how effective these
laws have been.
Research suggests that these efforts have had a limited
impact on curtailing meth abuse, primarily because large scale
meth producers have been able to access alternative supplies of
meth inputs. Despite increased enforcement efforts over the
past decade and the significant level of resources dedicated to
reducing drug abuse, the problem of meth use continues to
spread.
Mr. Chairman, I believe producers of elicit drugs must be
held accountable to the fullest extent of the law and that we
should do everything to limit the supply of meth. However, I
think if we are truly going to tackle this problem we need to
develop a comprehensive meth policy that not only reduces meth
availability through precursor regulation but also reduces the
demand for meth through prevention and treatment programs.
It is interesting that last night during special orders a
number of the--on the Democratic side, particularly one from
one of our western States, talked about how there have been
some success in curtailing meth abuse through prevention and
treatment as well as increased enforcement, but that at the
same time, the Republican budget, the reconciliation bill that
we are not dealing with today, are--actually have significant
cuts in some of the programs that would--that have been
successful against meth.
And I was looking at the Republican State budget and it
actually has significant cuts in State grants for safe and
drug-free schools, in the Federal anti-drug advertising, and
also probably most important for meth, eliminating high density
drug traffic area. The program for that is cut significantly.
And when we talk about these superlabs that produce large
quantities of these drugs, the majority of these are located in
Mexico. So when you are talking about eliminating a program
that goes after high density trafficking, you know, that would
go across State lines, you are directly going to impact
enforcement of meth abuse. And so I think that this is another
example where the Republican budget, which thankfully we didn't
vote on today, would have a negative impact on the success that
some of the States, as well as the Federal Government, are
having in basically eliminating or cutting down on meth abuse.
I also would like to see what is said today about the
problems--the environmental impact and the cleanup, as Ms.
Solis said, because I think that is important as well--what we
are doing in that regard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Deal. Mr. Otter, do you have an opening statement?
Mr. Otter. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think, Mr.
Chairman, in the interest of time, I think I will just submit
it for the record.
Mr. Deal. Very well. In any regard, does Chairman Barton of
the Full Committee have an opening statement?
Chairman Barton. That I do. Is it my turn?
Mr. Deal. Yes. You would be recognized at this time.
Chairman Barton. Thank you, Chairman Gillmor and Chairman
Deal for holding this hearing. I think it is important that we
address the health and environmental impacts of
methamphetamine.
In the past decade, methamphetamine abuse has spread across
the nation. It has become an especially severe problem for many
rural areas and small towns. It used to be a city problem but
now it has migrated to the country.
The drug is a highly addictive stimulant that can cause
serious mental and physical health effects. Its primary
ingredient is also the primary ingredient in many over-the-
counter cold and allergy medications. We need to make it more
difficult for criminals to gain access to these drugs, while at
the same time not imposing unnecessary burdens that makes it
more difficult for law-abiding families to obtain the medicines
they need to treat their colds and allergies.
Methamphetamine currently comes from two primary sources.
About two-thirds of the methamphetamines consumed in the United
States come from illegal superlabs that organized crime groups
have established in countries like Mexico. The second is from
small toxic labs. In 2003, my home State of Texas reported 677
incidents associated with these small laboratories. These mini
methamphetamine labs are everywhere: in basements, parks, and
even in the trunks of cars. Even though these labs account for
only a third of the meth, they also breed violent crime.
The cost of finding the labs and prosecuting the operators
is burning a hole in countless county budgets. If that is not
bad enough, the stuff used to produce this stuff is both
explosive and poisonous. It poses a serious health risk and
poses the risk of injury to police and firefighters who enter
these labs. And it has become an environmental nightmare.
Often overlooked in the discussion of the proliferation of
methamphetamine labs across the country is the contamination
they leave behind. Local, State, and Federal enforcement
officials have been struggling with researching and identifying
the toxic byproducts. There are currently no uniform Federal
standards or guidelines governing the process or the endpoint
for cleaning up and remediating these small disaster areas. We
look forward to hearing from the EPA and other agencies on what
Federal authorities are currently using to list and identify
these hazardous byproducts, what progress has been made, if
any, in the remediation process.
We must take a comprehensive approach to addressing
methamphetamine production. We can't focus just on the small
labs and ignore the superlabs, because they account for twice
the amount of the drug consumed. We need to make it more
difficult to obtain the ingredients. We also need to take steps
to choke off the superlabs, both through domestic efforts and
international cooperation.
Methamphetamine is a dangerous drug. It hurts people. And I
want to thank our witnesses for coming to testify, to provide
their insight on how best to address the issue. I look forward
to hearing from all of the witnesses and am particularly
interested in their thoughts, if any, on the legislative
proposals that have been introduced at the Federal level.
I want to thank my subcommittee chairman and the members of
both of these subcommittees for attending this important
hearing. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Deal. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Capps, do you have an
opening statement?
Ms. Capps. Yes, I do.
Mr. Deal. You are recognized.
Ms. Capps. I thank you for holding this hearing and am
pleased that Congress is beginning to take action on what is a
very serious problem. I am also proud of the work that our
senator from California, Senator Feinstein, has done on behalf
of our State.
We all relate to our local communities. And this morning's
sublimes in my local paper are describing some of the latest
research but also illustrating the problem. The numbers are
given for the number of adults seeking treatment, which has
doubled in my community over this--the--from between the last
year and 2000. It is a growing problem in every location and
across this country. And that is because as we have been
describing. It is relatively cheap to acquire, easy to produce.
By now everyone is aware that cold medications provide the
basic elements needed to take--to make meth. And it can be
taken in a variety of ways. It makes it way too convenient. And
for this reason and others, meth amphetamine use is spreading
across the country.
But while easier and cheaper than other drugs, its danger
is no less. Over time, it--as we know, it leads to several
health problems, including bone loss, liver, kidney, lung
damage, and a variety of harmful psychotic behaviors often
leading to violence.
I am especially concerned with the impact meth has on
children. Children services are seeing increased numbers of
abused or neglected children from families torn apart by
methamphetamine use. In the same article I referred to, the
numbers are given for the County of Santa Barbara and the 300
children in foster care. Over 52 percent of them were removed
from their homes because one or more of their parents were
using methamphetamine.
Children who live in homes where meth is produced can often
suffer the same effects as users. Additionally, they are
exposed to significant toxic waste that is harmful to their
health and not easily cleaned up. And that has been noted
already in this hearing as the opening statements. It may be
there for years after that location stops being used as a meth
lab. So families not even aware the home they are moving into
had been contaminated in this way.
The problem cries out for a solution and we need to act.
But as with so many challenges we face, we need to be balanced
in our response. It is clear that we need to increase our
assistance to law enforcement as they fight methamphetamine. We
also need to take steps to make it harder for producers to
acquire pseudoephedrine. But we also need to remember that the
cold and allergy medications based on this chemical are needed
by many Americans.
We need to balance efforts to secure them against law-
abiding citizens who need to have easy access to them. So I
look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how this
balance is best struck. And I yield back.
Mr. Deal. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Shimkus, do you
have----
Mr. Shimkus. No, Chairman. I will waive.
Mr. Deal. Mr. Ferguson, do you have an opening statement?
Ms. Baldwin, do you have an opening statement?
Ms. Baldwin. Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I join my colleagues who have spoken before me in
emphasizing the hazardous consequences of methamphetamine on
both individual health and the environment. And as we have
heard, the use of meth and even just exposure to meth
production can make a person's body and health deteriorate,
just as meth production and its waste can be incredibly harmful
to our environment.
This is clearly a major health and environmental threat.
And I am glad that these subcommittees are taking up the issue.
But Mr. Chairman, I am frustrated. And this frustration stems
from actions taken beyond this Committee's jurisdiction, which
have resulted in decreased funding for the Byrne-Grant Program.
I think the most powerful tool that we have available to
combat meth is our capacity to prevent its initial manufacture.
In able to do that, we will need strong law enforcement
resources. And our law enforcement professionals in turn need
reliable and steady programs to help fund their efforts.
I spent a good deal of time during the recent August recess
meeting with law enforcement professionals in my district in
South-central Wisconsin. Most of the district is rural. And as
we know, the meth epidemic is particularly bad in rural areas.
At every single one of those meetings, the local sheriff or the
local police chief told me about their tremendous need for
Edward Byrne Grant funding to combat the meth epidemic.
As my colleagues know, the Byrne Grant Program is designed
to assist local law enforcement agencies in combating drugs and
violence. And it is an incredibly important for local law
enforcement authorities as they fight drug-related crime.
In Rock County, Wisconsin, the Byrne Grant allocations fund
their drug unit. When this funding is cut, we are cutting the
ability of local law enforcement to effectively carry out their
efforts in the war on drugs. These law enforcement
professionals told me time and time again that the problem is
getting larger while the funding to fight meth and other
illegal drugs is getting smaller.
Instead of increasing funding for the Byrne Grant Program,
it has been on a steady decline. In June of this year, this
House failed to pass an amendment that would have restored
$286,000,000 to the program. So while I am delighted that we
are drawing attention to this very serious and widespread
problem, I am also incredibly frustrated that we are not taking
action to support the most powerful tool that we have available
to prevent the manufacture of meth, a reliable and steady
funding stream for local law enforcement.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Deal. Ms. Schakowsky, do you have an opening statement?
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, the chairmen of both
subcommittees, and ranking members. Much has been, I think,
eloquently stated by many of my colleagues, and I will just
submit my written testimony for the record.
Methamphetamine is perhaps the most destructive and
hazardous drug we have ever had to confront because it is easy
and inexpensive to make, extremely potent, highly addictive,
dangerous to manufacture, and dangerous to use.
Our Attorney General, like many of our local law
enforcement officials around the country, is working very hard
in Illinois to develop a comprehensive plan to address the
serious problem of meth use in our State. Just a week ago
today, she convened a meeting of local legislators and law
enforcement officials from Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri.
She arranged for the summit after hearing reports from law
enforcement authorities indicating that meth makers from
Illinois' border States are coming to Illinois to purchase
pseudoephedrine products, the key ingredient in making
methamphetamines. Those States--many of those neighboring
States--have laws that require virtually all over-the-counter
products containing ephedrine or PSE to be placed behind
pharmacy counters where legitimate customers may still obtain
the drugs after showing State-issued identification and signing
a log.
We have a law in Illinois that went into effect January 1
of this year. At the time that that was done in Illinois, it
was one of the strongest in the country. But since then,
several States have passed more restrictive laws. And
therefore, the Attorney General is going to go back to the veto
session of the Illinois State Legislature and ask for a law
similar to that in Iowa so that we can keep up.
But I think what this says--the struggle of States and
local authorities to deal with it--means that we need a
comprehensive national strategy to deal with meth. We have a
lot of people going from one State to another to find the best
place where they can purchase the products that they seek. We
want to reduce demand for this drug by educating Americans
about its danger. We need to find and fund effective ways to
prevent and treat meth addiction.
We also need to make sure there is a national plan in place
to deal with the environmental impacts of methamphetamines. And
we need more funding for enforcement, as was pointed out by
Representative Baldwin, especially in high activity areas. I
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Deal. Mr. Green, do you have an opening statement?
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have--put an
opening statement in the record and join my colleagues, but
also show that my colleague from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, is a
White Sox fan and hopefully this Astro hat, I will be able to
give it to her next week.
But be that as it may, Mr. Chairman, I will put my full
statement in the record. But getting away from baseball, I want
to thank our panel for being here. We need to provide both the
resources and the tools and--to let you do our job and to work
with our local officials. Because my county officials in
Houston talk about that methamphetamines is much worse than
cocaine, heroin, and everything else that is on the street. So
we need to do that and recognize it is a national issue, to
make sure we empower our local communities and--with whatever
Federal assistance we can do. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Deal. At least it is a National League hat. Mr. Inslee?
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I want to speak of two powerful
addictions. And the first is, of course, methamphetamine, which
really is the King Kong of drugs when it comes to addiction.
And its addictive power is certainly stunning and terrifying
every parent in the country. And it has touched every district
in the country as well, of course.
And because--in light of that addiction that is really
sweeping the country, it is really troubling to me and
surprising that Congress has and is considering more cuts to
the ability of the Federal Government and States and local
police departments and schools to deal with this issue.
Ms. Baldwin spoke eloquently about these reductions in
Byrne grants. I was just looking at a document called the
Republican Study Committee Operation Offset document, September
21, 2005. And among the cuts that they have proposed or at
least considering are an elimination of the State grants for
safe and drug-free schools, a tool used to teach kids how
devastating this drug is, elimination of Federal anti-drug
advertising program, eliminate high density drug trafficking
area. These cuts may be in the Republican budget. We are not
sure. We haven't seen it yet.
And you have to ask yourself why, in the light of the
powerful addictive capability of methamphetamine, the majority
party would want to cut our ability to deal with these
problems. And I think the answer is clear. Or at least the
question should be asked is there a never equally powerful
addiction to giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in
America. And does that addiction prevent us from continuing our
efforts to deal with methamphetamines.
And I very much appreciate the Chairman's holding this
hearing to hear about the first addiction. But if we allow the
second addiction to hobble our abilities to deal with
methamphetamines--and that bill was supposed to be up on the
floor today. And we don't know what the reason for the delay
was, but we do not want to see those Federal efforts hobbled
because of the second addiction. And we will have that debate
later. Thank you.
Mr. Deal. I am pleased to welcome the members of the first
panel here. And I will introduce you at this time. Oh, I am
sorry. Ms. Bono, I did not see you. Do you have an opening
statement you would like to submit?
Ms. Bono. I will submit it, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Deal. All right. I would ask unanimous consent that all
members would be allowed to submit their statements for the
record. Without objection, so ordered. We are pleased to have
three distinguished members of the first panel. And I am going
to introduce you in somewhat reverse order from what we would
normally go, but I have been told that we need to go in this
order, so we will do that. First, Ms. Stephanie Colston, who is
the Senior Advisor to the Administrator of Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration of HHS, Mr. Joseph
Rannazzisi, who is Deputy Chief of the Office of Enforcement
Operations of the Drug Enforcement Administration, and Mr.
Peter Murtha, who is the Director of the Office of Criminal
Enforcement, Forensics and Training, of the Environmental
Protection Agency. Lady and gentlemen, we are pleased to have
all of you here today. And I will start with Ms. Colston. You
are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF STEPHANIE COLSTON, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES;
JOSEPH T. RANNAZZISI, DEPUTY CHIEF, OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
OPERATIONS, U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; AND PETER
MURTHA, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT, FORENSICS AND
TRAINING, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Colston. Thank you. Chairman Deal and Chairman Gillmor
and members of both the Subcommittee on Health and the
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, I am
Stephanie Colston, Senior Advisor to Charles G. Curie. Charles
G. Curie is the Administrator of SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration, within the United
States Department of Health and Human Services.
I am pleased to present SAMHSA's substance abuse prevention
and treatment response to the methamphetamine crisis. Mr.
Curie, unfortunately, had a longstanding commitment for today
and sends his regrets that he is not able to testify this
morning. I ask that my written testimony be entered into the
record.
SAMHSA has a lead role to play in the demand reduction side
of addressing drug abuse in the nation. SAMHSA is structured
around our vision of a life in the community for everyone and
our mission of building resilience and facilitating recovery.
Our collaborative efforts with our Federal partners, States,
local communities, faith-based organizations, consumers,
families, and providers are central to achieving both our
vision and our mission.
While the numbers of those who have used methamphetamine in
their life, in the last year, or even in the last month have
not grown over the past several years, what has changed is the
level of their use. In 2002, 27.5 percent of those who said
they used methamphetamine in the past month met the definition
of being dependent. Two years later, in 2004, the percentage
was 59.3 percent. The average person presenting themselves for
substance abuse treatment today has been using methamphetamine
for over 7 years.
Our first effort at SAMHSA is to try to prevent the use of
methamphetamines. After consulting with prevention
professionals and examining our own experience, SAMHSA believes
that whether we speak about abstinence or rejecting
methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine, alcohol, or preventing
violence, or promoting mental health, we really are all working
toward the same objective, reducing risk factors and promoting
protective factors.
In the past 2 years, SAMHSA has awarded Strategic
Prevention Framework grants to 26 States and territories to
create a statewide prevention system and to advance community-
based programs for substance abuse prevention. We expect to
continue these grants and hope to fund seven new grants in
fiscal year 2006, for a total of 93 million.
These grants are working with our five regional centers for
the application of prevention technology that provide
assistance to States and communities to systematically
implement a risk and protective factor approach to prevention
across the nation. The success of the framework rests in large
part on the tremendous work that comes from grassroots
community anti-drug coalitions. That is why we are so pleased
to be working with the White House Office of National Drug
Control Policy to administer the Drug-Free Communities Program.
This program supports approximately 775 community anti-drug
coalitions across the country.
Unfortunately, there are many who are in need of treatment
for methamphetamine abuse. In the past 10 years, the number of
individuals entering treatment with primary drug of choice
being methamphetamine has risen fivefold.
SAMHSA began working on the problems resulting from
methamphetamine in 1998 by funding eight grants in California,
Hawaii, and Montana to test treatment approaches for
methamphetamine. I will talk more about his later in my
testimony.
The primary way that SAMHSA supports treatment is through
the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant.
Funded at nearly $1.8 billion, these funds are distributed to
the States using a formula dictated by statute. States have
flexibility in the use of those funds, but they are typically
used to maintain an existent system of care.
SAMHSA's Targeted Capacity Expansion Program focuses on
reducing substance abuse treatment needs by supporting
strategic responses to demands for substance abuse treatment
services. Response to treatment capacity problems may include
communities with serious emerging drug problems or communities
struggling with an unmet need.
We are currently funding 20 methamphetamine grants in 11
different States, totally nearly $10,000,000. In his 2003 State
of the Union Address, President Bush resolved to help people
with a drug problem who sought treatment but could not find it.
He proposed Access to Recovery, a new consumer-driven approach
for obtaining treatment and sustaining recovery through a State
run voucher program. State interest in Access to Recovery was
overwhelming. 66 States, territories, and tribal organizations
applied for the $99,000,000 in competitive grants in 2004. We
funded grants to 14 States and one tribal organization in
August of 2004.
Of the States that are now implementing access to recovery,
Tennessee and Wyoming have a particular focus on
methamphetamine. Wyoming and Tennessee are just two examples of
ATR's potential. ATR's use of vouchers coupled with State
flexibility and executive discretion offer an unparalleled
opportunity to create profound positive change in substance
abuse treatment, financing, and service delivery across the
nation.
To help better serve people with substance use disorders, a
true partnership has emerged between SAMHSA and the National
Institute of Health. Our common goal is to more rapidly deliver
research based practices to the communities that provide
services.
To specifically address the needs resulting from
methamphetamine abuse, SAMHSA began working in 1999 to evaluate
and expand on the Matrix model, which was developed in 1996 by
the Matrix Institute with support from the National Institute
on Drug Abuse. It is an outpatient treatment model that is
responsive to the needs of stimulant abusing patients.
In 1999, SAMHSA Center for Substance Abuse Treatment funded
eight grants in California, Hawaii, and Montana to compare the
Matrix model to other cognitive behavioral therapies in the
largest clinical trial network study to date on treatment for
methamphetamine dependence. The result was the development and
release of a scientific intensive outpatient curriculum for the
treatment of methamphetamine addiction that maximizes recovery-
based outcomes.
Information on the Matrix model and other cognitive
behavioral approaches are available in a set of two DVD's
produced by our Pacific Southwest Addiction Technology Transfer
Center and from SAMHSA's Treatment Improvement Protocol #33,
Treatment for Stimulant Use Disorders.
Education and dissemination of knowledge are key to
combating methamphetamine use. SAMHSA's Addiction Technology
Transfer Centers are providing training, workshops, and
conferences to the field regarding methamphetamine.
Additionally, SAMHSA has collaborated with ONDCP, the National
Guard, NIDA, and the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America
on a booklet, videotape, and PowerPoint presentation entitled
``Meth: What's Cooking in Your Neighborhood?'' This package of
products provides useful information on what methamphetamine
is, what it does, why it seems appealing, and what the dangers
of its use are.
SAMHSA has been working in partnership with our colleagues
at the Drug Enforcement Administration to provide funding to
support a series of Governor summits on methamphetamine. These
summits provide communities with opportunities for strategic
planning and collaboration to combat methamphetamine problems
faced in their own communities. And summits, to date, have been
held in 15 States.
Chairman Deal, Chairman Gillmor, and members of the
subcommittees, I appreciate the opportunity to testify here
today and am available to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Stephanie Colston follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4258.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4258.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4258.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4258.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4258.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4258.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4258.007
Mr. Deal. Thank you. Mr. Rannazzisi?
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH T. RANNAZZISI
Mr. Rannazzisi. Good morning. Chairman Deal,
Representatives Brown and Solis, and distinguished members of
the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on
Health, and Subcommittee on the Environment and Hazardous
Materials, on behalf of Drug Enforcement Administration
Administrator Karen B. Tandy, I appreciate your invitation to
testify today regarding the DEA's efforts to combat
methamphetamine trafficking and its abuse across the United
States.
Methamphetamine's devastating consequences are felt across
the country by innocent children, adults, government agencies,
businesses, and communities of all sizes. The DEA is well aware
that combating this drug requires a multi-faceted comprehensive
approach. In addition to enforcement efforts, the DEA is
combating methamphetamine by providing training to our State
and local partners, administering the cleanup of labs,
providing assistance to the victims of methamphetamine, and
educating communities to the drug's dangers.
The methamphetamine consumed in the United States
originates from two general sources. It is estimated that
approximately two-thirds of the methamphetamine consumed in
this country comes from Mexico and California-based Mexican
drug trafficking organizations that control superlabs with
approximately one-third coming from the small toxic labs.
Although these small toxic labs produce a relatively small
amount of methamphetamine, they have spread across much of the
country and present unique challenges for law enforcement.
Successes of the domestic front against superlabs have
increasingly resulted in the movement of these labs to Mexico.
In an effort to combat methamphetamine and its precursor
chemicals before they reach the U.S., the DEA has forged
agreements without international partners to prescreen
shipments of pseudoephedrine in an attempt to ensure that it is
used for legitimate purposes. These international efforts have
resulted in significant seizures of precursor chemicals capable
of producing tons of methamphetamine.
Domestically, small toxic labs continue to overwhelm many
law enforcement agencies, especially those in rural areas. In
an effort to combat these labs, many States have either enacted
or have legislation pending, which places restrictions on the
sale of pseudoephedrine. The Administration is aware of the
various approaches enacted by States and supports the
development of Federal legislation to fight methamphetamine
production, trafficking, and abuse, denying methamphetamine
cooks the availability to gather the ingredients they need
while balancing the need for law-abiding citizens to be able to
access commonly used cold products in an approach that works.
Law enforcement officers involved in these hazardous
investigations require specialized training. And since 1998,
DEA has offered a robust training program for our State and
local law enforcement partners, providing basic and advanced
clandestine laboratory site safety training. Since inception,
the DEA has trained over 9,300 State and local officers and
1,900 DEA employees. Each course is provided at no cost to
qualified State and local law enforcement officers, as is the
equipment needed to safely investigate and work in these
hazardous conditions.
As was said before, the manufacture of a pound of
methamphetamine results in about five to six pounds of toxic
waste, which is often disposes of by lab operators by pouring
it on the ground, down drains, or into sewers and streams,
polluting our environment.
While we can do little once the waste is released, in 1990,
the DEA established a hazardous waste cleanup program to
address environmental concerns from the seizure of clandestine
drug labs. This program promotes the safety of the law
enforcement personnel and the public by using qualified
companies with specialized training and experience to remove
hazardous waste.
Through this program, the DEA administers the cleanup of
the majority of the labs seized in this country. In fiscal year
2004, the cost of administering these cleanups was
approximately $17.8 million.
More than any other controlled substance, methamphetamine
trafficking endangers children through exposure to drug abuse,
neglect, physical and sexual abuse, toxic chemicals, hazardous
waste, fire, and explosions. Each of the DEA field divisions
has a victim/witness coordinator to ensure that all endangered
children are identified and that the child's immediate safety
is addressed by child welfare and health care service
providers.
There are no easy answers to combating the spread of
methamphetamine, but there are tools. The DEA is attacking
methamphetamine on all fronts, focusing not only on the large
scale methamphetamine trafficking organizations, but also those
involved in providing the precursor chemicals to fuel these
labs. This involves efforts both in enforcement, regulation,
and international cooperation.
Additionally, through our office of training we have
trained thousands of our State and local partners who are
involved in these investigations. Our hazardous waste and
victim/witness programs deal with the environmental and
societal impacts of methamphetamine.
I want to thank you for your recognition of this important
issue and the opportunity to testify here today. I look forward
to answering any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Joseph T. Rannazzisi follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Chief, Office of
Enforcement Operations, Drug Enforcement Administration
Chairmen Gillmor and Deal, Representatives Solis and Brown, and
distinguished members of the House on Health and the House Environment
and Hazardous Materials Subcommittees, on behalf of Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) Administrator Karen Tandy, I appreciate your
invitation to testify today regarding the ``Comprehensively Combating
Methamphetamine: Impact on Health and the Environment''. I am pleased
to testify on the DEA's efforts to combat methamphetamine trafficking
and its abuse across the United States.
Methamphetamine's devastating consequences are felt across the
country by innocent children and adults, governmental agencies,
businesses and communities of all sizes. More commonly known as
``meth,'' this highly addictive stimulant can be easily manufactured
using ``recipes'' available over the Internet and ingredients available
at most major retail outlets. While meth used to be associated only
with a few outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMG), the use and manufacturing of
this deadly substance is now a national problem. Today few communities
in the United States have not been impacted by methamphetamine.
Unlike other, better-known drugs of abuse such as heroin, cocaine,
or marijuana, methamphetamine presents some unique challenges. First,
it is synthetic, relying on no harvested crops for its manufacture.
Unfortunately, the ``recipe'' to manufacture this synthetic drug is
relatively straightforward, and easy to find on the Internet. It can be
made using readily available precursor chemicals by anyone who can
follow simple instructions. Second, meth has hit rural areas in the
United States particularly hard, communities where resources to combat
this drug are less available. Third, methamphetamine is a particularly
intense stimulant, highly addictive, and overwhelmingly dangerous. The
combination of these factors requires a multi-faceted response.
In an effort to combat methamphetamine, the DEA aggressively
targets those who traffic in and manufacture this dangerous drug, as
well as those who traffic in the chemicals utilized to produce it. We
have initiated and led successful enforcement efforts focusing on meth
and its precursor chemicals. Everyday the DEA works side by side with
our federal, state and local law enforcement partners to combat the
scourge of meth. Last spring, DEA Administrator Tandy directed DEA's
Mobile Enforcement Teams (MET) to prioritize methamphetamine
trafficking organizations during their deployments. These and other
initiatives have resulted in tremendously successful investigations
that have dismantled and disrupted high-level methamphetamine
trafficking organizations, as well as dramatically reduced the amount
of pseudoephedrine illegally entering our country.
The DEA is well aware that combating this drug requires a multi-
faceted approach by law enforcement. In addition to our enforcement
efforts, the DEA is combating this drug by administering the cleanup of
labs across the country, providing assistance to the victims of
methamphetamine, and educating communities on the dangers of this drug.
The DEA also monitors state legislation aimed at combating
methamphetamine and has noted the success experienced by some states in
reducing the number of small toxic labs within their borders.
Additionally, the Administration supports the development of Federal
legislation to fight methamphetamine production, trafficking, and
abuse. Any such legislation should balance law enforcement needs with
the need for legitimate consumer access to widely-used cold medicines.
METHAMPHETAMINE TRENDS ACROSS THE COUNTRY
The methamphetamine seized and abused in the United States
originates from two general sources, controlled by two distinct groups.
Most of the methamphetamine found in the United States is produced by
Mexico-based and California-based Mexican drug trafficking
organizations. These drug trafficking organizations control ``super
labs'' which produce the majority of methamphetamine available
throughout the United States. Mexican criminal organizations control
most mid-level and retail methamphetamine distribution in the Pacific,
Southwest, and West Central regions of the United States, as well as
much of the distribution in the Great Lakes and Southeast regions.
Mexican midlevel distributors sometimes supply methamphetamine to OMGs
and Hispanic gangs for retail distribution throughout the country.
Asian methamphetamine distributors (Filipino, Japanese, Korean,
Thai, and Vietnamese) are also active in the Pacific region, although
Mexican criminal groups trafficking in ``ice methamphetamine'' have
supplanted Asian criminal groups as the dominant distributors of this
drug type in Hawaii. OMGs distribute methamphetamine throughout the
country, and reports indicate that they are particularly prevalent in
many areas of the Great Lakes region, New England, and the New York/New
Jersey region.
The second source for methamphetamine comes from ``small toxic
laboratories'' (STLs), which supplement the supply of foreign
manufactured methamphetamine in the United States. Initially found only
in the most Western States, there has been a steady increase and
eastward spread in the number of STL's found in the United States. Many
methamphetamine abusers quickly learn that the drug is easily produced
and that it can be manufactured using common household products found
at retail stores. For approximately $100 in ``materials'', a
methamphetamine ``cook'' can produce approximately $1,000 worth of this
poison. Items such as rock salt, battery acid, red phosphorous road
flares, pool acid, and iodine crystals can be used as sources of the
necessary chemicals. Precursor chemicals such as pseudoephedrine can be
extracted from common, over-the-counter cold medications, regardless of
whether it is sold in liquid, gel, or pill form. Using relatively
common items such as mason jars, coffee filters, hot plates, pressure
cookers, pillowcases, plastic tubing, gas cans, etc., a clandestine lab
operator can manufacture meth almost anywhere without the need for
sophisticated laboratory equipment.
Widespread use of the Internet has facilitated the dissemination of
technology used to manufacture methamphetamine in STLs. This form of
information sharing allows wide dissemination of these techniques to
anyone with computer access. Aside from marijuana, methamphetamine is
the only widely abused illegal drug that is capable of easily being
produced by the abuser. Given the relative ease with which
manufacturers ``cooks'' are able to acquire ``recipes'', ingredients,
and the unsophisticated nature of the production process, it is not
difficult to see why this highly addictive drug has spread across
America.
STLs produce relatively small amounts of methamphetamine from a few
grams to several ounces and are generally not affiliated with major
drug trafficking organizations. Despite this, STLs still have an
enormous impact on local communities, especially in rural areas.
A precise breakdown is not available, but current drug and lab
seizure data suggests that roughly two-thirds of the methamphetamine
used in the United States comes from larger labs, increasingly in
Mexico, and that approximately one-third of the methamphetamine
consumed in this country comes from the small, toxic laboratories.
METHAMPHETAMINE AND PRECURSOR CHEMICAL INITIATIVES
The DEA is continuing to investigate, disrupt and dismantle major
methamphetamine trafficking organizations through the Consolidated
Priority Target list (CPOT) and our Priority Target Organization
investigations (PTO). The DEA is significantly involved in the
Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task program (OCDETF) and we continue
to work with state and local law enforcement agencies across the
country to combat methamphetamine. Additionally, in March 2005,
Administrator Tandy directed the DEA's Mobile Enforcement Teams (MET)
to prioritize methamphetamine trafficking organizations during their
deployments.
The DEA is striving to ensure that only legitimate businesses with
adequate chemical controls are licensed to handle bulk pseudoephedrine
and ephedrine in the United States. In the past seven years, over 2,000
chemical registrants have been denied, surrendered, or withdrawn their
registrations or applications as a result of DEA investigations.
Between 2001 and 2004, DEA Diversion Investigators physically inspected
more than half of the 3,000 chemical registrants at their places of
business. We investigated the adequacy of their security safeguards to
prevent the diversion of chemicals to the illicit market, and audited
their recordkeeping to ensure compliance with federal regulations.
The DEA is also working with our global partners to target
international methamphetamine traffickers and to increase chemical
control efforts abroad. The DEA has worked hand in hand with our
foreign law enforcement counterparts, and has forged agreements to pre-
screen pseudoephedrine shipments to ensure that they are being shipped
to legitimate companies for equally legitimate purposes. An example of
our efforts is an operation we worked with our counterparts from Hong
Kong, Mexico and Panama, to prevent approximately 68 million
pseudoephedrine tablets from reaching ``meth cartels''. This
pseudoephedrine could have produced more than two metric tons of
methamphetamine.
As a result of these efforts and those of our law enforcement
partners, we have seen a dramatic decline in methamphetamine ``super
labs'' in the U.S. In 2004, 55 ``super labs'' were seized in the United
States, the majority of which were in California. This is a dramatic
decrease from the 246 ``super labs'' seized in 2001. This decrease in
``super labs'' is largely a result of DEA's enforcement successes
against suppliers of bulk shipments of precursor chemicals, notably
ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. Law enforcement has also seen a huge
reduction in the amount of pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and other
precursor chemicals seized at the Canadian border.
In October 2004, the Administration released the National Synthetic
Drugs Action Plan. In this plan, the Department of Justice, the DEA and
ONDCP proclaimed the seriousness of the challenges posed by
methamphetamine-along with other synthetic drugs and diverted
pharmaceuticals-as well as our resolve to confront those challenges.
Part of the National Synthetic Drugs Action Plan (NSDAP) specifically
recognized that the move of large labs to Mexico requires that we offer
assistance to help Mexico strengthen its anti-methamphetamine
activities. This, in turn, requires us to work with other countries
known to supply Mexican methamphetamine producers with illicit
pseudoephedrine. A Synthetic Drugs Interagency Working Group (SD-IWG),
co-chaired by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy
(ONDCP) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), was directed to oversee
implementation of the Action Plan. The working group was tasked with
reporting their findings to the Director of National Drug Control
Policy, Attorney General, and Secretary for Health and Human Services
six months after the document's release. In the May 2, 2005 Interim
Report the SD-IWG has responded to this portion of the Action Plan:
<Bullet> China (particularly Hong Kong) has been a significant source of
pseudoephedrine tablets that have been diverted to
methamphetamine labs in Mexico. The United States and Mexico
have obtained a commitment by Hong Kong not to ship chemicals
to the United States, Mexico, or Panama until receiving an
import permit or equivalent documentation and to pre-notify the
receiving country before shipment.
<Bullet> The United States has made significant progress in assisting Mexican
authorities to improve their ability to respond to
methamphetamine laboratories. The DEA has played a role by
providing diversion and clandestine lab cleanup training
courses for Mexican officials (both Mexican Federal and State
levels).
<Bullet> In conjunction with our joint efforts, Mexico this year began to
impose stricter import quotas for pseudoephedrine, tied to
estimates of national needs and based on extrapolations from a
large population sample. Additionally, distributors have agreed
to limit sales of pseudoephedrine to pharmacies, which in turn
will sell no more than approximately nine grams per transaction
to customers.
OTHER APPROACHES TO CONTROLLING METHAMPHETAMINE
Methamphetamine is a synthetic central nervous system stimulant
that is classified as a Schedule II controlled substance. It is widely
abused throughout the United States and is distributed under the names
``crank'', ``meth'', ``crystal'' and ``speed''. Methamphetamine is
commonly sold in powder form, but has been distributed in tablets or as
crystals (``glass'' or ``ice''). Methamphetamine can be smoked,
snorted, injected or taken orally. The clandestine manufacture of
methamphetamine has been a concern of law enforcement officials since
the 1960's, when outlaw motorcycle gangs produced their own
methamphetamine in labs, and dominated distribution in the United
States. While clandestine labs can produce other types of illicit drugs
such as PCP, MDMA, and LSD, methamphetamine has always been the primary
drug manufactured in the vast majority of drug labs seized by law
enforcement officers throughout the nation.
A number of states have recently pursued legislation to curtail
access to pseudoephedrine products and similar meth precursors.
Different states have taken very different approaches to this challenge
based upon their understanding of their own unique situation, and of
the balance appropriate for their circumstances between law enforcement
needs and consumer assess to cold medications.
In April 2004 Oklahoma enacted the first and the most far-reaching
state law restricting the sale of pseudoephedrine products. This law
made pseudoephedrine a Schedule V Controlled Substance. Provisions of
this law included the following: limiting sales of both single-entity
and combination pseudoephedrine products to pharmacies; requiring
pseudoephedrine products to be kept behind the pharmacy counter; and
requiring the purchaser to show identification and sign a log sheet.
Oklahoma's law was noted in the National Synthetic Drugs Action
Plan, and was the first of many similar proposals introduced in State
legislatures last year. The Interim Report again noted Oklahoma's law,
as well as the State of Oregon's approach to restrict the sale of
pseudoephedrine products. In October 2004, Oregon adopted a similar
approach to Oklahoma's model through a temporary administrative rule.
However, unlike Oklahoma, Oregon allowed combination pseudoephedrine
products--those containing pseudoephedrine plus other active medical
ingredients--to be sold at stores other than pharmacies, provided that
the products were kept in a secure location. At the time of the Interim
Report's release, only four months of data were available for review.
This review showed an approximate 42 percent reduction in the number of
labs seized from the same months in the prior year. A review of 12
month's worth of data from Oklahoma showed a 51 percent reduction in
lab seizures (April 2004 through March 2005).
The Interim Report noted that even with the stabilization in
methamphetamine laboratory numbers observed nationally, no states with
consistently significant numbers of methamphetamine labs have seen the
reductions in lab numbers that took place in Oklahoma and to a lesser
but still significant extent in Oregon. The Interim Report stated that
the available data (--a year's worth of data from Oklahoma, four months
of data from Oregon, and several years worth of national data)--
strongly suggested that Oklahoma's and Oregon's state-level approaches
were likely the primary reasons for the dramatic reduction in the
number of STLs found in Oklahoma, as well as smaller reductions found
in Oregon. Since the release of the Interim Report, the State of Oregon
has enacted legislation which made pseudoephedrine a Schedule III
Controlled Substance.
Since the release of the Interim Report, the seizure of meth labs
in Oklahoma has continued to remain at low levels, with a total of 115
meth labs being seized from April through July 2005. The seizure of
these 115 labs is significantly less than the seizures reported in
Oklahoma during this same time period in 2004 (261) and 2003 (423).
Furthermore, the State of Oregon has recently enacted legislation
that classifies pseudoephedrine as a Schedule III Controlled Substance.
This law will not go into full effect until July of 2006, and we cannot
draw any conclusions about this new measure's effectiveness.
Other states have since passed laws as well, some taking the
Oklahoma approach and others taking a variety of less stringent
approaches. As data from these states become available, it will be
possible to assess the effectiveness of their efforts.
COMBATING METHAMPHETAMINE AND ITS EFFECTS
Pseudoephedrine and ephedrine are List I chemicals which are more
correctly known as ``listed precursor chemicals'' under the Controlled
Substances Act. These are chemicals needed and used to manufacture a
controlled substance. Any importer of a List I chemical must notify the
DEA in advance of importation. However, once the shipment arrives, its
ultimate pre-production consumer may not be the recipient identified
initially by the importer. The company who placed the order may
determine its needs were less than originally anticipated. For the
chemical importer this means any excess not sold to the ordering
company may then, legitimately, be placed on the ``spot'' market and
sold. Unlike Schedule I and II controlled substances, List I chemicals
are not subject to the same stringent record keeping requirements which
track the substance from production to consumption, so neither the
seller nor buyer on the ``spot'' market is mandated to report the sale.
The only requirement is that the seller maintains a record of the
transaction. Tighter regulation of the ``spot'' market could reduce the
amount of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine diverted from legitimate
production needs.
Additionally, legislation that would deal with the blister pack
exemption and transaction limits would be useful. Elimination of the
blister pack exemption would require all products containing ephedrine
or pseudoephedrine, regardless of how it is packaged or the form the
dosage unit takes, to be subject to Federal law. The enactment of
legislation closing this loop-hole will make it more difficult for meth
traffickers and ``cooks'' to get the amount of ephedrine or
pseudoephedrine they need for a cook. In addition, effective Federal
legislation should include an individual purchase limit of 3.6 grams
per transaction for retail sales of over-the-counter products
containing pseudoephedrine. Such limits would directly impact the
production of methamphetamine in STLs.
TRAINING
In response to the spread of labs across the country, more and more
state and local law enforcement officers require training to
investigate and safely dismantle these labs. Since 1998, the DEA has
offered a robust training program for our state and local law
enforcement partners. The DEA, through our Office of Training, provides
basic and advanced clandestine laboratory safety training for state and
local law enforcement officers and Special Agents at the DEA
Clandestine Laboratory Training Facility. DEA instruction includes the
Basic Clandestine Laboratory Certification School, the Advanced Site
Safety School, and the Clandestine Laboratory Tactical School. Each
course exceeds Occupational Safety Health Administration (OSHA)-
mandated minimum safety requirements and is provided at no cost to
qualified state and local law enforcement officers. As part of this
training, approximately $2,200 worth of personal protective equipment
is issued to each student, allowing them to safely investigate and work
in this hazardous environment.
The DEA has trained more than 9,300 State and local law enforcement
personnel (plus 1,900 DEA employees), since 1998, to conduct
investigations and dismantle seized methamphetamine labs and protect
the public from its toxic waste.
The Office of Training also provides clandestine laboratory
awareness and ``train the trainer'' programs that can be tailored for a
specific agency's needs, with classes ranging in length from one to
eight hours. We provide in-service training and seminars for law
enforcement groups, such as the Clandestine Laboratory Investigator's
Association and the International Association of Chief's of Police. DEA
also has provided training to our counterparts overseas regarding
precursor chemical control, investigation and prosecution. This DEA
training is pivotal to ensuring safe and efficient cleanup of
methamphetamine lab hazardous waste and the arrest and prosecution of
violators.
HAZARDOUS WASTE CLEANUP
When a federal, state or local agency seizes a clandestine
methamphetamine laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency regulations
require the agency ensure that all hazardous waste materials are safely
removed from the site. In 1990, the DEA established a Hazardous Waste
Cleanup Program to address environmental concerns from the seizure of
clandestine drug laboratories. This program promotes the safety of law
enforcement personnel and the public by using qualified companies with
specialized training and equipment to remove hazardous waste. Private
contractors provide hazardous waste removal and disposal services to
the DEA, as well as to state and local law enforcement agencies.
VICTIM WITNESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
More than any other controlled substance, methamphetamine
trafficking endangers children through exposure to drug abuse, neglect,
physical and sexual abuse, toxic chemicals, hazardous waste, fire, and
explosions. In response to these tragic phenomena, the DEA has enhanced
its Victim Witness Program to identify, refer, and report these
incidents to the proper state agencies. Each of the DEA's Field
Divisions has a Victim/Witness Coordinator to ensure that all
endangered children are identified and that the child's immediate
safety is addressed at the scene by appropriate child welfare and
health care service providers. Assistance has also been provided to
vulnerable adults, individuals of domestic violence, and to customers
and employees of businesses such as hotels and motels where
methamphetamine has been produced or seized.
CONCLUSION
Methamphetamine continues to take a terrible toll on this country.
To combat this poison, the DEA is attacking methamphetamine on all
fronts. Our enforcement efforts are focused not only on the large-scale
methamphetamine trafficking organizations distributing this drug in the
U.S., but also on those involved in providing the precursor chemicals
necessary to manufacture this poison. The DEA is well aware of the
importance of controlling the precursor chemicals necessary to produce
methamphetamine and is working with our international counterparts to
forge agreements to control the flow of these chemicals.
We are also working closely with our state and local law
enforcement partners to assist in the elimination of the small toxic
labs that have spread across the country. The DEA's Hazardous Waste
Program, with the assistance of grants to state and local law
enforcement, supports and funds the cleanup of a majority of the
laboratories seized in the United States. The DEA has also taken an
active role in the Victim Witness Assistance Program to assist
methamphetamine's victims educating communities about the dangers of
meth and other illicit drugs.
There are no easy answers to combating the spread of
methamphetamine, but there are tools. The best weapon in our collective
arsenal is knowledge. We must continue to make our youth better
understand how methamphetamine can devastate their lives and harm their
bodies. We must help law enforcement officers increase their tactical
knowledge of how to effectively identify and attack meth traffickers,
and thereby remove incentives for people to manufacture and sell
methamphetamine. We must also improve public awareness of how
methamphetamine tears apart communities, friendships, and families.
Thank you for your recognition of this important issue and the
opportunity to testify here today. I will be happy to answer any
questions.
Mr. Deal. Thank you. And Mr. Murtha?
STATEMENT OF PETER MURTHA
Mr. Murtha. Chairmen Deal and Gillmor, my name is Peter
Murtha. I am the Director of the Office of Criminal
Enforcement, Forensics and Training, of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency. In that capacity, I direct
EPA's criminal enforcement role in responding to human health
and environmental threats, including those posed by
methamphetamine production.
Thank you for inviting me to appear today to discuss the
agency's efforts regarding enforcement issues associated with
methamphetamine production, in particular H.R. 3888, the
Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act. We commend the
Committee for proposing steps to eliminate methamphetamine
labs.
My testimony today will describe in general EPA's criminal
enforcement experience with methamphetamine labs. I will
summarize my statement but ask that my entire written statement
be submitted to the record.
EPA's criminal enforcement program investigates those
violations of environmental laws that pose both a significant
threat to human health and the environment, and manifest the
requisite criminal intent.
EPA Criminal Investigation Division offices throughout 15
Area Offices and 29 Resident Offices are spread across the
country. EPA participates nationwide in dozens of environmental
crime taskforces in nearly every judicial district. Our
partners in these taskforces consist of other Federal law
enforcement agencies, including the DEA, Offices of the U.S.
Attorney, as well as State and local law enforcement and
regulatory agencies. EPA works with many of these partners in
their efforts to arrest and prosecute producers of
methamphetamine who not only violate State and Federal
narcotics laws but also Federal hazardous waste laws.
As a law enforcement matter, regulation of methamphetamine
labs falls primarily within the jurisdiction of other Federal,
State, and local law enforcement agencies. EPA, however, does
have authority to investigate environmental crime, usually un-
permitted disposal of RCRA hazardous waste associated with such
labs.
It is our experience that in cases involving
methamphetamine laboratories, the drug, racketeering and
conspiracy charges generally brought are typically easier to
prosecute and yield far greater sentences than environmental
crimes. Thus, in many instances EPA's investigation of
methamphetamine laboratories would have limited incremental
value, especially in light of resource constraints.
However, EPA continues to coordinate with our Federal,
State, and local law enforcement partners to assist in such
cases. And EPA stands ready to assist our law enforcement
partners by investigating these crimes.
Identifying and cleaning up the vast majority of
methamphetamine labs is done by local and State governments.
EPA does respond in a small percentage of cases, when local or
State resources cannot address the problem. In addition to EPA
cleanup response, the agency provides training for thousands of
State and local responders each year. EPA offers a wide range
of technical and management courses designed to aid responders
in identifying and implementing appropriate actions to
eliminate the threats from hazardous substances.
The Agency also provides financial support to State,
tribal, and local governments and nonprofit organizations that
can be used to eradicate and clean up meth labs. Local
governments can receive help paying for emergency response
actions through EPA's Local Governments Reimbursement Program.
EPA also makes funding available to State and local governments
for the assessment and cleanup of meth lab sites through the
Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment.
EPA's regulations established two ways of identifying solid
waste as hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. A waste is hazardous if it exhibits certain characteristic
properties, known as characteristics. RCRA regulations define
four hazardous waste characteristics: ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity.
The second approach used by EPA is to conduct a specific
assessment of a waste or category of wastes and list them as
hazardous if the wastes pose substantial hazards. It is very
unusual, though not unprecedented, in EPA's experience for an
investigation of a methamphetamine lab to reveal neither
characteristics nor listed hazardous wastes. Nearly every
investigation of methamphetamine labs reveals either
characteristic or listed waste.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my oral statement. We look
forward to working with the Committee and its members as it
continues to consider this legislation and provide the
Committee with any needed technical assistance. Thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today.
[The prepared statement of Peter Murtha follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter Murtha, Director, Office of Criminal
Enforcement, Forensics and Training, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Peter
Murtha. I am the Director of the Office of Criminal Enforcement,
Forensics and Training in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In that
capacity, I direct EPA's criminal enforcement role in responding to
human health and environmental threats, including those posed by
methamphetamine production. Thank you for inviting me to appear today
to discuss the Agency's efforts regarding enforcement issues associated
with methamphetamine production, in particular HR 3889, the
Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act. We commend the Committee for
proposing steps to eliminate methamphetamine labs. My testimony today
will describe in general EPA's criminal enforcement experience with
methamphetamine labs.
EPA'S CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
EPA's criminal enforcement program investigates those violations of
environmental laws that both pose a significant threat to human health
and the environment, and manifest the required criminal intent. The
program provides stateoftheart training to our employees and our
partners in international, federal, tribal, state, local law
enforcement, regulatory and intelligence agencies. EPA's Office of
Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training administers this program
through its Criminal Investigation Division.
EPA Criminal Investigation Division offices are located in 15 Area
Offices and 29 Resident Offices throughout the country. EPA
participates nationwide in dozens of environmental crime task forces.
Our partners in these task forces consist of other federal law
enforcement agencies, Offices of the U.S. Attorney, as well as state
and local law enforcement and regulatory agencies. EPA works with many
of these partners in their efforts to arrest and prosecute producers of
methamphetamine who not only violate state and federal narcotics laws
but also federal hazardous waste laws.
As a law enforcement matter, regulation of methamphetamine labs
fall primarily within the jurisdiction of other federal, state and
local law enforcement agencies. EPA does, however, have authority to
investigate environmental crimes relating to such labs (e.g., the
unpermitted disposal of RCRA hazardous waste).
It is our experience that in cases involving methamphetamine
laboratories, the drug, racketeering and conspiracy charges generally
brought are typically easier to prosecute and yield far greater
sentences than environmental crimes. Thus, in many instances EPA's
investigation of a methamphetamine laboratory would have limited
incremental value.
EPA continues to coordinate with our federal, state and local law
enforcement partners to assist in such cases, while ensuring that they
are investigated and prosecuted in the most appropriate manner, which
is often not as federal criminal environmental crime cases. At the same
time, however, in those unusual cases in which the environmental
crimes, rather than the traditional drug prosecution, is the best
prosecutive option, EPA stands ready to assist our law enforcement
partners by investigating these crimes.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Each year, more than 20,000 emergencies involving the release, or
threatened release, of oil and hazardous substances are reported in the
United States, potentially affecting both large and small communities
and the surrounding natural environment. Reports in the local news
often report the timely, effective response of local firefighters and
other emergency officials. Behind the scenes, however, an integrated
National Response System (NRS) involving federal, state, and local
officials is at work supporting the men and women on the front lines.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plays a leadership role in
this national system, chairing the National Response Team and directing
its own Emergency Response Program. In the instances when EPA has had
to respond to the risks posed by meth labs, it has been through EPA's
Emergency Response Program. The Program's primary objectives are taking
reasonable steps to prevent emergencies involving hazardous substances
and oil; preparing emergency response personnel at the federal, state,
and local levels for such emergencies; and responding quickly and
decisively to such emergencies wherever and whenever they occur within
our national borders.
METHAMPHETAMINE LABS--EPA'S ROLE
Identifying and cleaning up the vast majority of methamphetamine
labs is done by local and state governments, and methamphetamine labs
do not generally involve scenarios that would trigger response under
the Superfund law. EPA does respond in that small percentage of cases
when local or state resources cannot address the problem. In addition
to EPA cleanup response, the Agency provides training for thousands of
state and local responders each year. EPA offers a wide range of
technical and management courses designed to aid responders in
identifying and implementing appropriate actions to eliminate the
threats from hazardous substances.
The Agency also provides financial support to state, tribal and
local governments and nonprofit organizations that can be used to
eradicate and clean up meth labs. Local governments can receive help
paying for emergency response actions through EPA's Local Governments
Reimbursement Program. To date, EPA has provided local governments more
than $3 million through this program. EPA also makes funding available
to state and local governments for the assessment and cleanup of meth
lab sites through the Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment
via grants of up to $200,000 per site. State and local governments can
receive grants up to $1 million to be used for the capitalization of
revolving loan funds; they can then make loans and subgrants for the
cleanup of methamphetamine labs sites. State and tribal grants provided
under CERCLA Section 128 for the development and enhancement of state
and tribal response programs can also be used in this regard. And,
nonprofit organizations are also eligible for cleanup grants to
remediate meth lab sites, also up to $200,000 per site.
WASTES RESULTING FROM THE PRODUCTION OF METHAMPHETAMINE
EPA's regulations establish two ways of identifying solid wastes as
hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). A
waste is hazardous if it exhibits certain hazardous properties (known
as ``Characteristics''). RCRA regulations define four hazardous waste
Characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity.
Waste generators are responsible for determining if their wastes
exhibit any of the Characteristics through specific tests or general
knowledge of the wastes. The second approach used by EPA is to conduct
a specific assessment of a waste or category of wastes and ``list''
them as hazardous if the wastes pose substantial hazards. The listings
include wastes generated from various industrial processes, as well as
lists of commercial chemical products and other materials.
There are a variety of methods for making methamphetamine. In
general many of the chemicals and wastes likely to be associated with
methamphetamine production may be addressed as hazardous waste under
RCRA, typically as ``characteristic'' (e.g., ignitable) hazardous
waste. A relatively smaller number of the wastes associated with
methamphetamine production, including solvents and other chemicals used
in the purification of crude methamphetamine products would also be
considered hazardous waste based upon a listing as discarded commercial
chemical products. Nearly every investigation of a methamphetamine lab
reveals either characteristic or listed hazardous waste.
CONCLUSION
While the response to methamphetamine labs is led principally by
local and state efforts, EPA's criminal enforcement program works with
local, state, and other federal law enforcement agencies in limited,
appropriate cases to investigate and prosecute criminals involved in
the production of methamphetamine. EPA will continue to help local,
state and other federal agencies address the problems associated with
methamphetamine production, ensuring an appropriate law enforcement
response. While we anticipate having few such cases in the future, we
are ready to assist in those cases that require our participation, such
as those with significant environmental impacts or no better
prosecutorial option.
We look forward to working with the Committee and its Members as it
continues to consider this legislation and provide the Committee with
any needed technical assistance. Thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today.
Mr. Shimkus [presiding]. Thank you. Now we will begin our
opening round of questions and I will start with myself, since
I didn't do an opening statement. And we want again welcome
you. This is, as has been heard from many of my colleagues, a
very difficult problem. I am interested, though--I represent
rural Illinois. And of course, we are--our effect is all of the
above of what was stated. There is mostly small labs of common
household products that are produced anywhere from inside a
cornfield to inside a national forest to anywhere where they
can be out of sight, out of mind. And the first question would
be for the individuals from EPA. What, if any, assistance is
there for the local communities once they find a site--a
small--not a superlab, but a small site that might be on a--you
know, I have seen photos of--Shawnee National Forest is in my
district. So there are some picnic areas that are isolated that
are used during the good seasons and then pretty much not in
the off season. And then you have on this picnic table and this
village around there all the, you know, pseudoephedrine and you
have the gasoline and all this other, you know, nasty chemicals
that are getting kicked around and dropped. What, if any,
assistance to local authorities is there from the EPA on the
cleanup of this?
Mr. Murtha. Thank you for the question. Ordinarily, the
State and local authorities, being the first line of response,
are able to deal effectively with those types of situations.
However----
Mr. Shimkus. Well, in essence, they are not. In essence--
you are talking about HazMat. I have got one rural county that
has 5,000 residents in it. So you are really talking about a
HazMat team that has to be deployed. Now what we have been able
to do in the State of Illinois is, you know, work through the
Illinois State Police to provide that and provide some
assistance because I am sure if you follow the sheriff's
testimony, it is the local rural sheriffs, and I have 30 of
them, that are screaming because they can't do it. They don't
have the equipment. They don't have--now I think we are all--we
are being helped on some training. But it is that challenge. So
I am not being combative, it is just a frustration that in
Rural America you hear that these are identified as a, you
know, chemically polluted site, which again, in very small
rural counties there is just not the resources to meet that. So
that is probably something that hopefully we--I am on the
taskforce to deal with the methamphetamine in the caucus, those
things that we are trying to raise at the legislative level for
some assistance. The--I am also concerned about the supersites,
these--the testimony talked about, I don't know, two-thirds of
the product being in supersites, mostly from Mexico. What is
the--I shudder to ask this question, because I think I know the
answer. But what is the transportation route, the entry route
to the United States?
Mr. Rannazzisi. Sir, it is all across the Southwest border.
For instance, we know that there is one transportation route
that goes up through Arizona. It is interesting. Arizona has
shown a decrease in clandestine labs over the last 2 or 3
years. The reason we believe the decrease is there is because
the market is flooded because that is where that transportation
route is. And wherever there is a transportation route, there
is going to be a market of methamphetamine. So it is basically
along the Southwest border. It is coming across. We still have
superlabs in the U.S. We just don't have the amount we had back
in 2001. I think we seized about 246 superlabs in 2001. Those
are labs that were producing more than 10 pounds of
methamphetamine in a 24-hour period. In 2004, we only seized
55. So obviously the population of superlabs has gone down. It
has been moved across the border, basically.
Mr. Shimkus. And one of the follow-up questions I am going
to ask for the next panel is the challenges of the different
State laws and application, and probably the same thing with
the law enforcement concerns. As we heard earlier in some
opening statements, there is obviously a very positive signal
of trying to get the handle around--trying to restrict
appropriately the purchase of some of the supplies so that it
makes it more difficult. But then there is a race and there is
disarray in nature and everyone lives, for the most part,
unless you are from the State of Hawaii, bordering some other
State. And so there is this challenge. In the State of
Illinois, they have placed restrictions on the sale of some of
these products in flea markets and the like. I bring that to
your attention because I know in some States that may not be
the case. And is that a venue by which the DEA, working with
local law enforcement, are looking at? Obviously that is
challenging because the DEA, like any other agency, is a small
agency, and--smaller, and we could always use more people and
more money. So what about this aspect of purchasing some of
these products in the quantities that raise alarm bells that
the purchaser is using it for other purposes than just their
own personal cold?
Mr. Rannazzisi. Well, to start, obviously pseudoephedrine
products, the cold preparations, could be purchased just about
anywhere. We have seen them in, of course, pharmacies, retail
outlets, gas stations, liquor stores. It runs a gamut. Now I
heard about the flea market sales not but a couple of days ago.
And we are starting to look into that to find out about flea
market sales. You could purchase it over the Internet. It is
readily available. And that is the problem. Now the small
traffickers are generally smart. They are not going to go in
and buy five or six packages at one store. They----
Mr. Shimkus. Well, they are not anymore because of
legislation or the requirement by States to identify them. I
mean, you go through a major chain store and you swipe the bar
scan and all of the sudden bells and whistles go off and local
law enforcement is there. So that has occurred because of an
action taken by actually individual States and local law
enforcement and really the companies that are, you know, in the
basis of selling and--these products, too, legally.
Mr. Rannazzisi. That is exactly correct, sir. But they are
still smurfing. They might not buy more than two packages, but
they are going to 20 different retail outlets to get the two
packages. Okay? They are slipping under the, you know, they are
slipping under the radar screen, basically. The fact is that if
the States that are requiring, you know, some kind of
identification, the States that are actually keeping the
product in a restricted--in some type of restriction, some type
of point-of-sale restriction, those are the States that, you
know, are seeing a decrease. Yet they are crossing the border
to States that don't have those legal restrictions and they are
getting the product anyway.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. And I just want to end. And I will
then yield to my colleague from California. As I said, it is an
important hearing. It is a scourge, again, in Rural America.
And I look forward to the sheriff's testimony. The other
challenge that small communities have is the health care costs
once they apprehend these individuals, they put them into
incarceration. And the physical effects of meth addiction is
just--peoples' teeth fall out and there is no bleeding. It is
amazing. It is a poison. And local governments have to incur
that cost of the health care for the folks in their jails. So
we have great challenges and I think that is why all my
colleagues are here and very interested in this testimony. And
with that, I want to thank you. And I yield to my colleague
from California.
Ms. Solis. Thank you very much. Before I begin, I would
like to ask Mr. Murtha, as a side note, members of our
committee sent a letter to Administrator Johnson seeking
answers to some refinery issues and we were hopeful to get a
response back September 27. I would like to know if you have
any information about that or if you could please take that
message back, that we would like to get a response.
Mr. Murtha. I would be delighted to take that message back.
I don't know anything about it, regrettably.
Ms. Solis. Regarding some refinery issues that we had. So
very quickly, I would like to ask you, if you can tell me, Mr.
Murtha, what criteria EPA currently uses to determine if a
substance is hazardous. You mentioned four--I think four or
five items or criteria. But how--can you explain that? And then
also tell me how that differs or if there is any difference
between the bill that we are discussing, the Souder Bill.
Mr. Murtha. Well, we primarily have two main approaches,
one of which is called characteristic waste, the second of
which is called listed waste. All of these are set forth in a
great deal of specificity in 40 CFR Part 261, et sec. But
basically, the characteristics that I spoke of before,
ignitability, corrosivity----
Ms. Solis. Yes.
Mr. Murtha. [continuing] reactivity----
Ms. Solis. Um-hum.
Mr. Murtha. [continuing] those types of things are done by
virtue of a testing method--a standardized testing methodology.
And if you have a particular substance, any trained laboratory
scientist can make the determination whether or not that
criteria fits the particular substance being analyzed. What we
have found is that in the substantial majority of our
investigations of methamphetamine labs, one or more of the
substances we find at those labs can be characterized as
hazardous waste. For example, often times solvents are found on
the sites. Those are very, very frequently going to be
ignitable hazardous wastes. So they come within the universe of
RCRA and are regulated as such. And therefore, for example, if
they are improperly disposed of or improperly stored, and that
is done knowingly, we are in a position where we can actually
bring felony charges against that particular individual. The
second basic approach is the listing approach. And there is a
very--there are several, actually, lengthy tables in the CFR
specifying under two different approaches. One approach takes a
look at a particular industry and says that all of the waste
from this particular industry in connection with this
particular process will be deemed hazardous waste. A second
approach is to take a look at a particular chemical and
indicate that if this chemical product is abandoned or
discarded, then that is considered hazardous waste.
Ms. Solis. Okay.
Mr. Murtha. Now, getting back to your original question,
what would this do under the provisions suggested in 3888----
Ms. Solis. Right. 401(b).
Mr. Murtha. --89.
Ms. Solis. Section 401(b). How would----
Mr. Murtha. Right.
Ms. Solis. How would that differ?
Mr. Murtha. There may be a rather small segment of cases
where for whatever reason neither hazardous waste nor
characteristic waste will be found at a methamphetamine lab. I
actually asked my staff to take a 10-year retrospective look to
see the extent that that has actually happened. And I was
actually only able to find a single case where we went in,
investigated a lab, took samples, did the things we would
ordinarily do in the course of a criminal investigation, yet
did not yield any hazardous waste. It is possible that the
approach suggested in the bill might allow us to sweep that odd
case under the rubric of RCRA. But again, in what we have seen,
it has not been a frequent occurrence that we would need that
type of additional authority.
Ms. Solis. And just to note, I guess in that section it
says that all byproducts shall be designated as a hazardous
waste, where the Administration determines they are likely to
cause long-term harm to the environment in the event of
improper disposal and inadequate remediation.
Mr. Murtha. I am not sure I completely understand the
question, ma'am.
Ms. Solis. Well, that is part of the section in the bill,
H.R. 3889, Section 401(b). And I am wondering how that differed
from what you are currently doing.
Mr. Murtha. Well, once again, it would broaden our
authority and would essentially give us the ability in certain
but unusual cases where we are unable under our current manner
of characterizing and listing hazardous waste to be able to
attribute those characteristics or listings to something we
would find at a meth lab site. So it clearly is broader. It
could fill in some very occasional gaps that we experience.
Ms. Solis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know I
took more time.
Mr. Gillmor. I thank the ranking member and wish her a
happy birthday. I have a couple questions for Mr. Murtha. Does
EPA or any other Federal agency employ voluntary guidelines or
mandatory standards in governing the cleanup or remediation of
meth contaminationsites?
Mr. Murtha. My understanding, sir, and bearing in mind that
my background and position is a bit different, being involved
in the Criminal Enforcement Office, is that the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, or OSWER, works in conjunction
with the DEA in terms of formulating those types of guidelines.
Mr. Gillmor. Based on your answer then, if EPA were to
issue guidelines on methamphetamines, would that fall under the
purview of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response?
Mr. Murtha. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Gillmor. All right. Title 4 of H.R. 3889, Section 402,
creates a new criteria for cleanup costs under the Controlled
Substances Act. It says passage of H.R. 3889 would constitute a
later in time enactment. Would these new provisions hamper or
amend EPA's efforts at cost recovery for cleanup or remediation
of sites under Federal environmental statutes?
Mr. Murtha. Sir, I think that is a little beyond my
immediate expertise. And I would like to have an opportunity to
supplement the record with a written response.
Mr. Gillmor. We would very much appreciate it if you would
do that. Thank you. The gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Pallone. I wanted to ask Mrs. Colston, following up on
my opening statement. In your testimony you cite that the rates
of I guess meth use amongst youth age, 12 to 17, declined from
0.9 percent in 2002 to 0.76 percent in 2003, and dropped again
to 0.6 percent in 2004. I mean, I know those numbers are not,
you know--they are still pretty close. But I made the point in
my opening statement that the Republican Study Committee Budget
would seek to eliminate funding for the Drug-Free School Zone
Program as well as funding for the Office of the National Drug
Control Policy. And that is an office that your agency is
working with to develop grassroots community anti-drug
coalition. I mean, the Republicans claim that these are
programs that are ineffective in preventing and reducing drug
use. Can you comment on the efficacy of those programs--these
prevention programs and what impact budget cuts might have on
them? I know it is a very partisan question, but if you could
answer it.
Ms. Colston. How about if I answer it within the context of
the approach that SAMHSA has taken to address substance abuse
prevention, which is very much tailored, allowing communities
to tailor prevention interventions based on the needs in the
community, rural, urban, whether they are--no matter where they
are located. The beauty of our Strategic Prevention Framework
is that community prevention, almost by definition, means
working across systems to stop drug use. And our Strategic
Prevention Framework requires that communities, working with
States, actually assess needs, develop a plan, mobilize
resources based on these needs, methamphetamine abuse----
Mr. Pallone. But, I mean, you would certainly not advocate
cutting these grants that----
Ms. Colston. We have no position on that, sir.
Mr. Pallone. Okay. Let me ask I guess Mr. Rannazzisi. You
know, a number of the State laws that are--have been passed or
end up reducing meth abuse. And a lot of them basically limit
the supply of either meth or precursors used to manufacture it.
And despite these efforts, the meth problem continues to spread
as manufacturers and, you know, basically look for alternative
methods of obtaining the ingredients that produce meth. And
many of the policies introduced in this Congress--many of the
bills seek to curb meth abuse once again by focusing on
precursor regulation. You know, placing cough medicines behind
the shelf, drug stores, you know, trying to get them off the
shelf. Have these kinds of efforts that--have they been
successful in curbing meth abusers or do those producers look
and find other ways to access precursors?
Mr. Rannazzisi. Well, we can look at two States that were
mentioned in the report for the National Synthetic Drug Action
Plan. Oklahoma basically passed Schedule 5 legislation, reduced
their lab seizures by 52 percent. Oregon--and that was a full
year data set, so we had a full year data set. Oregon, in the
first 4 or 6 months of their law, which was similar to Schedule
5, with the exception of combination pseudoephedrine products
could be sold behind the counter at other retail outlets, had
about a 42 percent reduction. So obviously in those States they
have showed a significant reduction in clandestine labs.
However, you could go to the neighboring States to make your
purchases of pseudoephedrine and bring them back across the
border. And in Oklahoma they were seeing that pretty regularly.
Mr. Pallone. So you would argue that we need to do things
federally so that we can't have, you know, shopping at
different States or neighboring States because the one State
passed a certain law. Is that--you think the most important
thing is to have Federal action?
Mr. Rannazzisi. What we need to--well, the Attorney
General, Secretary Levin, and Director Walters I think laid out
what they feel--what the Administration feels is a good
response legislatively, a 3.6 gram limit on the number of--on
the amount of purchase for at retail level. The removal of the
blister pack exemption, the so-called Safe Harbor Provision, so
you could purchase unlimited amounts of pseudoephedrine blister
packs without any kind of record of a transaction. And finally,
the spot market removal. There is a loophole in the law that
allows importers to--if an importer brings in an amount of
pseudoephedrine for a company and that company decides they
don't want it, the importer could basically sell it to anybody,
whereas that importer is granted the right to import based upon
who the downstream purchaser of that product is. So the
Administration laid out those three specific provisions that
would help in the--combating methamphetamine manufacturing.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Gillmor. The gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Burgess. Yes, Mr. Chairman. With your indulgence, I did
have a few questions. Ms. Colston, why is methamphetamine so
bad?
Ms. Colston. That is a good question, sir. I think
methamphetamine is so bad because it is so highly addictive.
The people that we are seeing in our treatment system now are
dependent. They have been abusing methamphetamine for over 7\1/
2\ years. But----
Mr. Burgess. Let me interrupt for just a moment. Mr.
Chairman, I waived the right to an opening statement and I
wonder if I might be given the----
Mr. Gillmor. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you. But I wonder if I might be
recognized for the 8 minutes rather than 5.
Mr. Gillmor. The gentleman is recognized for the 8 minutes.
I would point out to the members, we are going to have a
problem here with the----
Mr. Burgess. I understand.
Mr. Gillmor. [continuing] but the gentleman did waive, so--
--
Mr. Burgess. Thank you.
Mr. Gillmor. [continuing] the gentleman is entitled to his
8 minutes.
Ms. Colston. Methamphetamine has profound cognitive impact.
That is why when people present for treatment it is very
important to take a cognitive behavioral approach. That is, a
very comprehensive approach and work on just the fact that
someone doesn't have the ability to make a decision.
Mr. Burgess. Well, if I may interrupt----
Ms. Colston. Sure.
Mr. Burgess. [continuing] what are some of the treatments
for someone who is addicted to methamphetamine? Do we have a--
--
Ms. Colston. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burgess. [continuing] like a Methadone for heroin?
What----
Ms. Colston. We----
Mr. Burgess. [continuing] are some of the things----
Ms. Colston. [continuing] we have an approach that has
positive outcomes, called the Matrix model, which I referred to
earlier. And it has cognitive behavioral aspects, family
education, daily living skill, initially work on the more
intensive end--when they first come in, more intensive
treatment and then clinical treatment and then move through the
recovery support services, because it is a long-term issues.
Mr. Burgess. So this requires primarily psychotherapy.
There is no pharmacological therapy, such as Antabuse or
Methadone----
Ms. Colston. Correct.
Mr. Burgess. [continuing] that would be useful in the
treatment of----
Ms. Colston. Correct. At this point, yes.
Mr. Burgess. [continuing] addiction. Well, how effective is
that regiment of psychotherapy and family therapy that you
have?
Ms. Colston. We have had very good results, between 57 and
68 percent of the Matrix model system reported no
methamphetamine use at discharge and at follow-up points
after----
Mr. Burgess. 57 percent?
Ms. Colston. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burgess. Over what period of time?
Ms. Colston. At discharge and at certain points after
discharge.
Mr. Burgess. How long is that----
Ms. Colston. It is likely to get better.
Mr. Burgess. How long--okay. What sort of time----
Ms. Colston. Six points, 1 year.
Mr. Burgess. Okay.
Ms. Colston. Six months.
Mr. Burgess. What----
Ms. Colston. And they also have improvement in their
employment status, family relations, legal status.
Mr. Burgess. Sure. And I understand that. I mean, I have
personally witnessed in my own medical practice----
Ms. Colston. Yes.
Mr. Burgess. [continuing] how disruptive this is to a
family. Well, how expensive is the treatment then, the
psychotherapy, family therapy that you have outlined?
Ms. Colston. I would have to get that information to you. I
do not have the exact cost information with me today.
Mr. Burgess. If you could. And I don't----
Ms. Colston. I will absolutely do that.
Mr. Burgess. [continuing] I don't know if it is even
available to break it down as cost per patient or cost per
month.
Ms. Colston. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burgess. And then do you have--does SAMHSA keep any
sort of record as far as oversight for who is doing the best
job with this, who has got the best rates, so we try to capture
some best practices? Because being of a more practical sort----
Ms. Colston. Yes.
Mr. Burgess. [continuing] when I hear about things that are
treated with psychotherapy and family therapy, I get a little
concerned that there is going to be--the definitions may not be
as precise as I might like.
Ms. Colston. Yes, sir. We do. We have had a number of years
trying to identify evidence-based practices and disseminating
that knowledge and information.
Mr. Burgess. If you would share that with the Committee----
Ms. Colston. I absolutely----
Mr. Burgess. [continuing] I think that would be----
Ms. Colston. I absolutely will.
Mr. Burgess. [continuing] useful information for us----
Ms. Colston. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burgess. [continuing] to have. Let me just ask you
this. You said it is--one of its problems is it is so terribly
addictive. Would you regard methamphetamine as a gateway drug?
Is it one of the things that if someone said you know, today is
the day I am going to start my career in drug abuse. I will go
out and buy some meth. Is that what is likely to happen?
Ms. Colston. I don't think I would characterize it that
way, sir. It is such a serious drug in and of itself. And we
are doing our best. We actually--I am trying to think about our
surveillance data. It--the domestic amphetamine----
Mr. Burgess. Well, let me ask the question in another way--
--
Ms. Colston. Okay.
Mr. Burgess. [continuing] then. Would it be more likely
that someone would come to the decision to use meth because
they were with a group of people who found that they liked it
and said you ought to try this?
Ms. Colston. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burgess. Well, would those be people that you might--a
younger person or young adult might go out and drink beer with?
Ms. Colston. It is possible.
Mr. Burgess. Is beer perhaps a gateway drug for
methamphetamine?
Ms. Colston. I am not aware.
Mr. Burgess. Is marijuana a gateway drug?
Ms. Colston. I am not aware of that.
Mr. Burgess. Has anyone does those studies? Do you think
anyone is aware of that?
Ms. Colston. Yes, sir. I believe we do have studies and I
will be happy to provide them.
Mr. Burgess. Does the DEA have an opinion on that?
Mr. Rannazzisi. No, sir.
Mr. Burgess. The reason I am asking is because all the time
we are asked to liberalize our marijuana laws for medical
treatment and, you know, you are describing a problem here that
is maybe not as horrific as avian flu, but it is pretty
horrific in its effect on families. And I think we need to be
incumbent upon us as lawmakers to do everything at our
disposal, to make certain we have gathered all the tools that
are available to ourselves to keep this epidemic from
spreading. And Mr. Chairman, I am sensitive to the time. I do
want to ask the gentleman from the DEA, I think the technical
term that was given by Mr. Shimkus was smurfing. Is that right?
Mr. Rannazzisi. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burgess. And you said that to be a successful smurf you
can buy no more than 3.5 grams of a precursor agent at a time.
Is that correct?
Mr. Rannazzisi. Depending on the package sizes. Most of
them are--most of the people who are smurfing are going in and
buying a couple--two or three packages at a time.
Mr. Burgess. Are you utilizing any of the available
pharmaceutical programs for data mining to sort of isolate or
identify the person who may be out there buying small
quantities to gather enough to make a shipment or a batch?
Mr. Rannazzisi. Well, the buying in such small quantities
and the fact is there are no records----
Mr. Burgess. I guess that is really the question I am----
Mr. Rannazzisi. Yeah.
Mr. Burgess. [continuing] trying to ask. Do we need to ask
that those types of records be kept, even for someone coming in
and buying a 12-capsule blister pack of pseudoephedrine?
Mr. Rannazzisi. I believe that record keeping is a useful
tool. And----
Mr. Burgess. Yeah, and I do, too. Of course, one of the
difficulties is if we capture all the smurfs and round them up
we can drive the problem offshore. And Republicans are always
accused of outsourcing our jobs. And maybe we outsource this to
some place else. And what about the border interdiction? How do
you think we are doing there?
Mr. Rannazzisi. The border is--it is very--miles. Hundreds
of miles, thousands of miles of border. I--we are doing the
best we can at the----
Mr. Burgess. That--1,200 miles of that 2,000 mile southern
border is in my State of Texas.
Mr. Rannazzisi. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burgess. All right. I am very familiar with how much is
there. Perhaps, again, in the interest of time, you could
provide to the Committee what the DEA's opinion is as to how
you are doing with interdiction and what you think needs to be
increased and what you think needs to be decreased as far as
what we are doing, as far as making an effective border
control. Because the more we clamp down domestically, I have
the feeling we are going to encourage the production outside
the country. Certainly that has been the case with some other
drugs. And Mr. Chairman, with that, I will yield back.
Mr. Gillmor. I thank the gentleman. We have a series of
votes which has begun on the House floor. And so we are going
to have to go over and vote. I would propose that we recess
until 1, which will give us time to complete those votes.
People can have lunch and we will try to reconvene then. Also,
before I recess, I wanted to ask the panel, some members are
not here but may have questions. Would you be willing to
respond to written questions in writing?
Ms. Colston. Of course.
Mr. Rannazzisi. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gillmor. I thank you very much.
Mr. Murtha. Sure thing.
Mr. Gillmor. And we stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Gillmor. I am calling the subcommittee to order. And we
will proceed with the first panel. And first of all, let me
express my appreciation to all of you for coming. And also, my
apologies for the delay in getting to this panel because of the
road schedule. But we will proceed with Mr. Eric Coleman,
Commissioner of Oakland County, Michigan.
STATEMENTS OF HON. ERIC COLEMAN, COMMISSIONER, OAKLAND COUNTY,
MICHIGAN, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES; MARY
ANN WAGNER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR PHARMACY, POLICY, AND
REGULATORY AFFAIRS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHAIN DRUG STORES;
GORDON KNAPP, PRESIDENT, PCH NORTH AMERICA, PFIZER, INC.; TED
G. KAMATCHUS, MARSHALL COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, ON BEHALF OF
NATIONAL SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION; AND JOSEPH R. HEERENS, SENIOR
VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, MARSH SUPERMARKETS, INC.,
ON BEHALF OF FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE
Mr. Coleman. Thank you, Chairman Gillmor. My name is Eric
Coleman. I am a county commissioner from Oakland County,
Michigan. In addition, I currently serve as First Vice
President of the National Association of Counties.
The National Association of Counties, or NACo as it is
sometimes known, is the only national organization that
represents county government. With over 2,000 member counties,
we represent over 85 percent of the Nation's population.
A growing issue for counties across the Nation is
methamphetamine abuse. Methamphetamine, or meth, is consuming a
greater share of county resources because of its devastating
and addictive nature. In many parts of the nation, county jails
are becoming overwhelmed with inmates on meth related charges
who often need greater medical and dental attention.
Investigating and busting meth labs is requiring longer hours
for county law enforcement personnel. Along with these law
enforcement consequences, mass treatment, cleanup, removing
children from meth houses are all painful reminders of a
community with meth.
To illustrate the severity of the meth crisis, NACo
commissioned two surveys on the impact to county government.
And I would like to make two points on these surveys and NACo's
policy on meth.
First, our survey confirmed meth amphetamine abuse is a
national drug crisis that requires national leadership. Second,
a comprehensive and governmental approach is needed to combat
the meth epidemic. Necessary components must include law
enforcement, treatment, child protective services, prevention,
education, public health, environmental cleanup, and research
and precursor control.
To elaborate, I will briefly touch on NACo's survey on the
law enforcement. In the 500 responding State sheriff
departments, 87 percent reported increase in meth related
arrests starting 3 years ago. 17 States reported 100 percent
increase in meth related arrests during the last 3 years,
including Ohio and California. In addition, 7 States, including
Georgia and Mississippi report a 90 percent increase.
Additionally, 58 percent of the county law enforcement
agencies reported that meth is their largest drug problem. Meth
outpays cocaine by 19 percent, marijuana by 17 percent, and
heroin by 3 percent.
Meth related arrests represent a higher proportion of crime
requiring incarceration. 50 percent of the counties surveyed
estimated that 1 in 5 in their current jail population are
related to meth related crimes. The numbers are increasing so
rapidly counties are having a difficult time in wrapping up
their services to address the problem.
We also surveyed child welfare officials from 13 States
where services are provided by county government. Children
living in houses where meth is produced or used are considered
drug endangered due to toxin, neglect, and abuse.
40 percent of all children welfare officials surveyed
reported increase in out of home placement because of meth in
the last year. In addition, 59 percent of county officials
reported meth has increased the difficulties of reuniting
families.
NACo believes that these figures confirm the need for a
comprehensive and intergovernmental strategy to fight this
insidious drug. One piece of this puzzle must be precursor
control. States such as Iowa and Oklahoma have seen dramatic
reductions in meth labs since implementation of their State
legislation. NACo is a supporter for the Combat Meth Act,
Senate Bill 103, which was incorporated in the Senate
Conference Justice Science Spending Bill. NACo urges the
members of the House to accept the Senate's position during the
Conference negotiations and enact that legislation.
Additionally, NACo strongly supports House Bill 798, the
Methamphetamine Remediation Act. This legislation would direct
the EPA to establish standards for cleaning up a former meth
lab. Currently, local government and private land owners lack
scientifically based standards to clean up former meth labs. We
believe that this bill represents a significant step toward
understanding the true nature of methamphetamine production and
use.
Additionally, NACo has endorsed House Bill 2335, the Meth
Endangered Children Protection Act. This legislation would
authorize $10 million annually to assist States and local
governments in developing Drug Endangered Children teams. DEC
teams are specially trained local law enforcement officials,
child protective service workers, medical professionals, and
prosecutors that comprehensively respond to the needs of
children found in meth labs.
Additional issues that must be addressed by our
Congressional Committees include increasing funding for local
law enforcement, particular the Justice Assistance Grant
Program, mostly prevention funding aided at educating today's
youth on the dangers of meth and increasing funding for meth
treatment.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of NACo. We
will be conducting future surveys on meth abuse and look
forward to reporting our findings and working with you to
resolve the meth crisis in this country. Thank you and I will
be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Eric Coleman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eric Coleman, Commissioner, Oakland County,
Michigan and First Vice President, National Association of Counties
Thank you Chairman Gillmor, Chairman Deal, Ranking Member Solis and
Ranking Member Brown and Members of the Subcommittees. My name is Eric
Coleman, I am a County Commissioner from Oakland County, Michigan, and
I currently serve as the First Vice President of the National
Association of Counties. I have served as a County Commissioner in
Oakland County since 1996.
About the National Association of Counties
Established in 1935, the National Association of Counties (NACo) is
the only national organization representing county governments in
Washington, DC. Over 2,000 of the 3,066 counties in the United States
are members of NACo, representing over 85 percent of the population.
NACo provides an extensive line of services including legislative,
research, technical, and public affairs assistance, as well as
enterprise services to its members. The association acts as a liaison
with other levels of government, works to improve public understanding
of counties, serves as a national advocate for counties and provides
them with resources to help them find innovative methods to meet the
challenges they face. In addition, NACo is involved in a number of
special projects that deal with such issues as the environment,
sustainable communities, volunteerism and intergenerational studies.
NACo's membership drives the policymaking process in the
association through 11 policy steering committees that focus on a
variety of issues including agriculture, human services, health,
justice and public safety and transportation. Complementing these
committees are two bi-partisan caucuses--the Large Urban County Caucus
and the Rural Action Caucus--to articulate the positions of the
association. The Large Urban County Caucus represents the 100 largest
populated counties across the nation, which is approximately 49 percent
of the nation's population. Similarly, the Rural Action Caucus (RAC)
represents rural county commissioners from any of the 2,187 non-
metropolitan or rural counties. Since its inception in 1997, RAC has
grown substantially and now includes approximately 1,000 rural county
officials.
Methamphetamine
Methamphetamine or meth is a highly addictive homemade amphetamine
that can be made from commonly found chemicals, such as
pseudoephedrine, anhydrous ammonia, lye, phosphorous and antifreeze.
Meth is an insidious drug that is cheap to produce that can be easily
manufactured in virtually any setting; a car, house or deserted area.
The drug can be smoked, snorted, injected or swallowed and releases an
intense high for hours. Harmful long-term health risks from meth abuse
include tooth and bone loss, damage to the user's brain, liver and
kidneys, heart attack and stroke. Children who are exposed to the toxic
chemicals during production of methamphetamine can also develop these
conditions. In addition, the prolonged use of the drug, called
``tweaking'', can keep users up for days or weeks at a time.
Consequently, the psychological side effects of meth use include
paranoia, anger, panic, hallucinations, confusion, incessant talking
and convulsions. Many of these lead to violent aggressive acts and
suicide.
According to the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health 12.3
million Americans had tried methamphetamine at least once--up nearly
40% over 2000 and 156% over 1996. In 2004, the survey notes that an
estimated 1.3 million Americans regularly smoked, snorted or injected
the drug.
Historically, meth abuse was confined to the Western United States
and to rural areas. However, the drug has quickly spread East and is
having disastrous consequences in rural, urban and suburban communities
nationwide.
Impacts of Methamphetamine Abuse on County Governments
County governments are on the front-line in dealing with the
painful and costly consequences of methamphetamine abuse and
production. The United States Drug Enforcement Agency estimates that 65
percent of methamphetamine is produced in ``superlabs'' in Mexico and
California with the remaining 35 percent produced in ``small toxic
labs''. These labs pose a significant risk to their community and
represent the largest problem for local law enforcement. Investigating
and busting small toxic labs, incarcerating and adjudicating meth users
and cleaning up former meth labs are searing a hole in county budgets.
County correction facilities are being overwhelmed by the increase in
the number of meth related crimes and associated incarceration costs
including mental health treatment, dental and other treatment costs.
The need for and cost of county public defender services are also
increasing at alarming rates because of the meth epidemic.
There are also many societal effects caused by meth abuse. In an
alarming number of meth arrests, there is a child living in the home.
These children often times suffer from neglect and physical and sexual
abuse.
Meth labs pose a significant danger in the community because they
contain highly flammable and explosive materials. Local first
responders must be trained on how to identify and respond to meth labs
in their communities. Additionally, for each pound of methamphetamine
produced, five to seven pounds of toxic waste remain, which is often
introduced into the environment via streams, septic systems and surface
water run-off.
Meth abuse is a complex, difficult, growing problem that must be
solved by cooperation among all levels of government and involvement by
our citizenry. NACo is in the early stages of a national campaign to
fight methamphetamine abuse. The primary objective of this initiative
is to promote action by Congress and the Administration to control and
reduce the production, distribution and abuse of methamphetamine,
including assistance to counties in responding comprehensively to the
problem locally. We look forward to working with this committee and
your colleagues on this undertaking.
As part of this initiative, NACo President and Umatilla County,
Oregon Commissioner Bill Hansell has appointed a cross-cutting work
group that has county representatives from all perspectives of the
issue. The charge of our Methamphetamine Action Group is to further
assess the impacts of meth abuse on county governments, educate county
officials and the public on the dangers of the drug and identify best
practices and local approaches that address education, prevention,
enforcement, cleanup and treatment of meth challenges.
In addition, NACo will be conducting further surveys on other
aspects of the methamphetamine crisis. Currently, we just received the
raw data for a survey on the impacts of meth abuse on the treatment
delivery system and public health system. We would welcome the
opportunity to appear before this committee at a later date to discuss
these findings.
This morning, I would like to make two key points:
<Bullet> First, as NACo's two recent surveys confirmed, methamphetamine abuse
is a national drug crisis that requires national leadership.
<Bullet> Second, a comprehensive and intergovernmental approach is needed to
combat the methamphetamine epidemic. Necessary components must
include law enforcement, treatment, child protective services,
prevention, education, public health, cleanup, research and
precursor control. NACo urges Congress to adopt several
targeted measures and increase funding to address aspects of
the meth crisis--including HR 798, S 103 and HR 2335.
First, as NACo's two recent surveys confirmed, methamphetamine
abuse is a national drug crisis that requires national leadership.
On July 5, 2005, NACo released two surveys on the methamphetamine
crisis that has swept the nation. In the first survey, entitled, The
Criminal Effect of Meth on Communities, is based on results from 500
county law enforcement agencies from 45 states. The counties that
participated in the survey are representative of all counties
nationally based on population and regional representation.
Meth is a growing problem that is now national in scope. Of the 500
responding law enforcement agencies, 87 percent report increases in
meth related arrests starting three years ago. The states reporting a
100 percent increase in meth related arrests during the last three
years include Indiana, California, Minnesota, Florida and Ohio.
Furthermore, Iowa and Mississippi reported a 95 percent increase and
Illinois and North Dakota reported a 91 percent increase.
Additionally, 58 percent of county law enforcement agencies
reported that meth is their largest drug problem. Meth outpaced cocaine
at 19 percent, marijuana at 17 percent and heroin at 3 percent. In
certain regions of the country, the percentages are even higher. In the
Southwest, 76 percent of the counties said that meth is the biggest
drug problem. In the Northwest, 75 percent said it was the top problem
and by 67 percent of the counties in the Upper Midwest.
Meth related arrests represent a high proportion of crimes
requiring incarceration. Fifty percent of the counties estimated that 1
in 5 of their current jail inmates are there because of meth related
crimes. The problem is even worse in the other half of the counties
surveyed. Seventeen percent of the counties report that more than half
of their populations are incarcerated because of meth related crimes.
Stopping the small meth lab operations continues to be a problem.
Concerning lab seizures, 62 percent said that meth lab seizures
increased in their counties in the last three years.
Other crimes are increasing because of meth. Seventy percent of the
responding officials say that robberies or burglaries have increased
because of meth use, while 62 percent report increases in domestic
violence. In addition, simple assaults at 53 percent and identity
thefts 27 percent have also increased because of meth use.
The increased presence of meth in many counties across the nation
has increased the workload of 82 percent of the responding counties.
These increased law enforcement activities from meth abuse are
straining law enforcement budgets. Fifty-two percent of counties stated
that they are paying more overtime, while 13 percent have changed work
assignments to accommodate the increase need for policing.
Methamphetamine abuse is beginning to reach my home county, Oakland
County, Michigan. The Oakland County Prosecuting Attorney's office
reports that since October 2001, their office has processed
approximately 30 cases involving either possession or possession with
the intent to deliver methamphetamine.
The Impact of Meth on Children
As law enforcement officials are clamping down on the manufacture
and use of meth, they are finding a disturbing side effect. Many
children are being grossly neglected by their addicted parents and
these same children are being exposed to the harmful side effects of
the production of the drug if they live in close proximity to a lab.
To assess this problem, NACo surveyed 303 counties from all 13
states where child welfare activities are performed at the county level
to assess the danger to children and families from meth abuse.
Forty percent of all the child welfare officials in the survey
report increased out of home placements because of meth in the last
year. During the past five years, 71 percent of the responding counties
in my home state of California reported an increase in out of home
placements because of meth and 70 percent of Colorado counties reported
an increase. The results in the Midwest are frighteningly similar. More
than 69 percent of counties in Minnesota reported a growth in out of
home placements because of meth during the last year, as did 54 percent
of the responding counties in North Dakota. In addition, 59 percent of
county officials reported meth has increased the difficulty of re-
uniting families.
Meth use is not limited to rural counties, nor is it limited to the
West and Midwest. As a follow-up to the NACo report, one of our
affiliate associations, the National Association of County Human
Services Administrators, conducted an informal survey. Sacramento
County, California, a large urban county, discovered that meth was
involved in 70 percent of the family cases referred to court services
due to substance abuse. Wilkes County, North Carolina Child Protective
Services reported that methamphetamine abuse has been the most damaging
drug to families that they have ever encountered.
Second, a comprehensive and intergovernmental approach is needed to
combat the methamphetamine epidemic. Necessary components must include
law enforcement, treatment, child protective services, prevention,
education, public health, cleanup, research and precursor control. NACo
urges Congress to adopt several targeted measures and increase funding
to address aspects of the meth crisis--including HR 798, S 103 and HR
2335.
Precursor Control
In April 2004, Oklahoma was the first state in the nation to
restrict the sale of products containing pseudoephedrine. Since the law
was enacted, a number of states have followed Oklahoma's lead in
restricting pseudoephedrine products. Oklahoma has seen a significant
drop--80 percent--in small toxic meth labs as a result of the
legislation.
NACo is in support of the Combat Meth Act (S. 103/HR 314) that
would replicate the Oklahoma legislation on the national level. By
limiting individuals to 7.5 grams (250 pills) of pseudoephedrine per
month, the measure would seriously impair the access of meth cooks to
obtain this essential component to meth production. The legislation was
unanimously adopted in the Senate Judiciary committee and was
incorporated into the Senate FY2006 Commerce-Justice-Science
appropriations bill. NACo urges members of the House of Representatives
to cede to the Senate position and include the Combat Meth Act in the
final version of the FY2006 Science-State-Justice-Commerce
appropriation bill.
Another option to restrict pseudoephedrine sales is to repeal the
federal blister pack exemption. Blister packs are small plastic-and-
foil packages that force a consumer to remove cold pills one or two at
a time. Currently, federal law allows individuals to purchase an
unlimited quantity of pseudoephedrine, as long as the pills are in
blister packs. When the blister pack exemption was established, it was
believed that the difficulty in accessing these pills would preclude
meth cooks from using pseudoephedrine pills. However, it has not proven
to be an effective deterrent and meth cooks have exploited this
weakness in federal law. NACo supports efforts to repeal the current
blister pack exemption, including HR 1350, the Methamphetamine Blister
Pack Loophole Elimination Act of 2005.
Additionally, a repeal of the blister pack exemption is contained
in the Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act of 2005 (HR 3889). NACo
supports this provision in the bill and the provisions that increase
international regulation of pseudoephedrine, however NACo respectfully
differs with the overall strategy to control domestic sales of
pseudoephedrine and increasing mandatory sentencing. Essentially, this
legislation lowers the threshold put on retailers to report purchases
of pseudoephedrine from 9 grams to 3.6 grams for each transaction.
While this may reduce the access that currently exists, NACo believes
that the restrictions will fall short in the long-term. Under this
provision, meth cookers could go to multiple stores in one day or
consecutive days and purchase 3.6 grams (120 pills) of pseudoephedrine.
Therefore, NACo believes that the approach laid out in the Combat Meth
Act, which has proven successful in several states, represents the most
effective attempt to limit access to pseudoephedrine.
Environmental Cleanup
One of the major issues facing communities and property owners is
the issue of remediating former clandestine methamphetamine labs. As I
noted earlier, the US Drug Enforcement Administration estimates that
only 35 percent of all methamphetamine is produced in these small toxic
labs. However, these labs pose a significant risk to the community and
individuals present at the manufacturing or use of the drug. The labs
are highly toxic and the residual contamination from the production of
methamphetamine can lead to health risks and threaten the health of
children and individuals who may unsuspectingly live in a former lab.
Currently, there are no guidelines for local governments or private
landowners to follow for remediating former clandestine meth labs.
Additionally, several studies by Dr. John Martyny at the National
Jewish Medical Center have shown that airborne and surface
contamination from methamphetamine production or use can be far-
reaching. Dr. Martyny found that residual contamination could last for
long periods and cause serious health concerns for those individuals
and children who are exposed knowingly or unknowingly. NACo supports
the bi-partisan Methamphetamine Remediation Act of 2005 (HR 798), which
would require the Environmental Protection Agency to establish
voluntary guidelines on the clean-up of former meth lab sites. This
legislation has passed the House Science Committee and is awaiting
action on the House floor.
Drug Endangered Children
Across the nation, alarming rates of children are found present at
clandestine meth labs. In 2003, approximately 3,000 children were found
during meth lab seizures. In the Western United States, the numbers are
more frightening, as Assistant United States Attorney Laura Birkmeyer
noted in testimony to the House Government Reform Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice and Drug Policy. Birkmeyer stated, that in San Diego,
``Drug Endangered Children teams have taken more than 400 children into
protective custody in the past 12 months. Significantly, more than 95
percent of these children came from environments where there was
methamphetamine use and trafficking but where manufacturing was not
occurring. Approximately 1 in 10 of these children tested positive for
methamphetamine and of those the children ages 0-6 were twice as likely
to test positive for methamphetamine as children aged 7-14.''
To better coordinate and respond to the needs of these innocent
victims, a Drug Endangered Children pilot program was started in 1997
in California. Drug Endangered Children are those children who suffer
physical or psychological harm or neglect resulting from exposure to
illegal drugs or to dangerous environments where drugs are being
manufactured or chemicals used to make drugs are accessible. These
harms may include injury from explosion, fire or exposure to toxic
chemicals found at clandestine lab sites; physical abuse; sexual abuse;
medical neglect and; lack of basic care including failure to provide
meals, sanitary and safe living conditions or schooling.
A Drug Endangered Children (DEC) program is a multi-disciplinary
team made up of law enforcement, medical professionals, prosecutors and
child welfare workers. Team members are trained to view children found
at narcotics crime scenes as crime victims. A typical scenario involves
law enforcement breaking up a meth lab and contacting local child
welfare officials if a child is present. The child welfare professional
assesses the crime scene with law enforcement and determines if the
child should be placed in protective custody. An at-risk child would
then be given a medical exam, toxicology screen and developmental
evaluation. The child would then be placed in a safe foster care
environment. The prosecutor would then determine if child endangerment
charges are appropriate. This concept bridges the gaps that often exist
between these agencies. Furthermore, it represents a comprehensive
approach to responding to the health risks of meth posed to children.
NACo supports the bi-partisan Meth-Endangered Children Protection
Act of 2005. This legislation would authorize $10 million annually for
the development of Drug Endangered Children rapid response teams. The
legislation has been referred to the Health Subcommittee of this
committee and we would respectfully ask that this legislation be
considered.
Public Health Risks
The National Institute of Drug Abuse notes that methamphetamine
users, especially those that inject the drug and share needles, are at
increased risk to contract HIV and Hepatitis C. In addition, NIDA
reports that methamphetamine can increase the libido in users, which
may lead them to practice unsafe sex and lead to transmitting HIV and
Hepatitis C. In addition, research and news accounts have shown that
this is particularly the case in urban areas with the gay population.
To date, NACo has not yet examined the impacts of an increase in these
and other sexually transmitted diseases on the county public health
system but initial evidence shows that there is a correlation between
methamphetamine use and infection.
Prevention/Education
Additionally, NACo believes that education and prevention efforts
must be increased to inform children and youth about the dangers of
methamphetamine abuse. Many former meth users indicate that they did
not know of the ingredients and dangerous consequences of the drug
before their first use.
Current funding for the White House Office of National Drug Control
Policy's (ONDCP's) National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is set at
$120 million. Out of this funding, $1 million is targeted for anti-meth
educational ads during the current year. Reps. Mark Souder (R-IN) and
Rick Larsen (D-WA) succeeded in adding $25 million to the campaign
during consideration of the FY2006 Transportation-Treasury-HUD
appropriations bill, for a total of $145 million. The sponsors of the
amendment specifically targeted the new funding for anti-meth ads. NACo
supports increased funding for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign targeted at producing and disseminating an anti-meth
educational campaign.
Treatment
Despite a pervasive myth that treatment is ineffective for meth
users, meth addiction can be treated similar to other forms of
substance abuse. Treatment has been proven effective when it is
available and the individual is willing to accept it. The Matrix Model,
for example, consists of a 16-week intervention that includes intensive
group and individual therapy to promote behavioral changes needed to
remain off drugs.
According to the National Association of County Behavioral Health
and Developmental Disabilities Directors, a NACo affiliate, there are
22 states with county sponsored substance abuse treatment authorities.
These states account for 75 percent of the nation's population. The S
BtfNl
Research
Iowa State University researchers have developed an additive to
anhydrous ammonia that can reduce the production value of meth, while
still being a useful fertilizer. The additive is currently undergoing
further testing, however if proven successful at limiting
methamphetamine production it would be a major break-through for many
rural farming communities that have been affected the methamphetamine
epidemic.
Law Enforcement
NACo is a strong supporter of the Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)
program within the Department of Justice. JAG funding can be used for a
variety of purposes including law enforcement, prosecution, prevention,
education, drug treatment, planning, corrections and technology
improvements. Many counties across the nation use JAG funding for
multi-jurisdictional or regional drug taskforces.
Additionally, many counties receive Edward Byrne discretionary
funding through congressional earmarks for similar programs. Funding
for JAG and Byrne discretionary in FY2005 was $804 million, however the
Bush administration recommended eliminating funding for FY2006. The
House of Representatives set funding for JAG at $478 million. During
consideration of the FY2006 Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations
bill the Senate added $275 million to their recommended level of $802
million to the Justice Assistance Grant for a total of $1.077 billion.
NACo supports the Senate funding level of $1.077 billion or at least
level funding of $804 million as a minimum for Justice Assistance Grant
program funding and urges members of the House of Representatives to
cede to the Senate position during conference negotiations.
Conclusion
On behalf of NACo, I would like to thank Chairman Gillmor, Chairman
Deal and Ranking Member Solis and Ranking Member Brown for holding this
hearing today. Methamphetamine abuse is a scourge on our society that
must be addressed in a comprehensive manner by all forms of government.
NACo looks forward to working with Congress and the Administration to
craft and implement such legislation.
Additionally, NACo is encouraged by the attention that
methamphetamine abuse has received recently by the media and
policymakers in Congress and the Administration. Newspapers across the
country, national magazines and television newscasts have raised
awareness of methamphetamine by showing the devastating consequences
that meth abuse can bring to families and communities. In Congress, the
bi-partisan House Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine has shown
leadership in bringing the issue to the forefront. In July 2005,
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stated that, ``in terms of damage to
children and to our society, meth is now the most dangerous drug in
America--a problem that has surpassed marijuana.''
Lastly, NACo will be conducting several additional surveys on other
aspects of the methamphetamine epidemic. As I mentioned earlier, the
next round of surveys will be on the impacts to the treatment delivery
system and public health system. We would welcome the opportunity to
come before this committee and present our findings at the appropriate
time. Again, we thank the Chairmen, the Ranking Members and members of
the subcommittees for the opportunity to submit testimony on the
methamphetamine crisis facing this nation.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Mary Ann
Wagner, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores.
STATEMENT OF MARY ANN WAGNER
Ms. Wagner. Thank you, Chairman Gillmor, Chairman Deal,
Ranking Member Brown, Ranking Member Solis, and other
distinguished members of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittees
on Health and Environment and Hazardous Materials. We certainly
appreciate the opportunity to be here today and the opportunity
to view our concerns to you regarding Federal legislation in
the methamphetamine problem.
The National Association of Chain Drug Stores, or NACDS,
represents over 200 chain drug companies. The diversity of our
membership includes traditional chain drug stores, supermarket
pharmacies, and mass merchants. We operate--our membership
operates over 35,000 pharmacies, employs 108,000 pharmacists,
and fills over 2.3 billion prescriptions a year.
NACDS and our member companies have been very involved with
the methamphetamine problem for 10 years now, since 1995. A
number of members have done voluntary programs within their
stores and have taken a number of measures voluntarily,
including sales limits that they imposed upon their stores
sometimes as many as 7 or 8 years ago, training for their
employees, signage in their stores. Some of them have removed
products voluntarily and put it behind the counters when there
was evidence of theft or shop sweeping.
They have been involved with Meth Watch programs in their
communities, working hand-in-hand with law enforcement to
report suspicious activity within their stores. In the past
year, a number of them have voluntarily taken products off
their shelves and put them behind the counter. Some of them
have even removed products from their stores that don't contain
pharmacies. Two of our member companies have implemented
electronic tracking programs.
And we have been involved, of course, with Federal
legislation this past year, both on the Senate side and on the
House side. We have had a number of calls, conference calls and
meetings on methamphetamine. Our members are extremely engaged
in this and want to do what they can to help law enforcement.
We do have a great deal of empathy for what the local law
enforcement officials are going through in cleaning up these
labs and the fact that it is draining their resources, both
financially and human resources. So we do want to help and work
with them to do what we can.
There is a very delicate balance that we have been sure to
try to follow through, and that is keeping the product
available for legitimate customers who have legitimate needs
for cough and cold products, as well as restricting access to
those who might illicitly manufacture meth.
We support a stringent comprehensive and standardized
approach to solving the methamphetamine problem. Specifically,
we believe that the Federal Government should play a vital role
in helping to address the growing problem of methamphetamine
production and addiction.
In addition to addressing enforcement, education,
treatment, and cleanup issues, we strongly believe that any
comprehensive approach should include a national standard for
limiting consumer access to products that can be used to
manufacture methamphetamine.
One national standard for retail availability is important
because the current patchwork of more than three dozen
different State requirements in addition to scores of local
ordinances in cities, towns, and counties throughout the
country is confusing to consumers and to law enforcement.
The key to a national standard would be to preempt only
retail requirements for pseudoephedrine sales in State laws.
And by that I mean we wouldn't want to touch the law
enforcement provisions that States may choose to enact, but
definitely on retailer requirements.
We do not believe it is necessary for consumers to have to
obtain a prescription in order to purchase pseudoephedrine
products. This is why we support keeping the sale of
pseudoephedrine products available without a prescription. We
support maintaining a written or electronic log of
pseudoephedrine purchases to assist law enforcement efforts. We
support limiting retail and distribution reporting, record
keeping, storage, and dispensing requirements. We support
funding for law enforcement as far as education, prevention,
treatment, cleanup, and all of those items as well.
So in conclusion, NACDS is committed to work with the
Committee and other Federal policymakers, the Administration,
local law enforcement to find a comprehensive solution to this
problem. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mary Ann Wagner follows:]
Prepared Statement of National Association of Chain Drug Stores
NACDS appreciates the opportunity to testify before the House
Subcommittees on Health and Environment and Hazardous Materials to
address the methamphetamine problem.
The National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS) represents
the nation's leading retail chain pharmacies and suppliers, helping
them better meet the changing needs of their patients and customers.
NACDS members operate more than 35,000 pharmacies, employ 108,000
pharmacists, fill more than 2.3 billion prescriptions yearly, and have
annual sales of over $700 billion. Other members include almost 1000
suppliers of products and services to the chain drug industry. NACDS
international membership has grown to include 90 members from 30
countries. For more information about NACDS, visit www.nacds.org.
Our membership is deeply concerned about the problems of
methamphetamine production and abuse. NACDS continues to have ongoing
calls and meetings to discuss this issue and to develop solutions to
this devastating problem in our country. The majority of the chain
community pharmacy industry has taken voluntary, proactive steps that
go beyond what is required by law to reduce the theft and illegitimate
use of pseudoephedrine products. They:
<Bullet> have placed these products behind pharmacy and/or sales counters
voluntarily, or have otherwise limited access to these products
in their stores,
<Bullet> have initiated voluntary sales limits of these products,
<Bullet> participate in voluntary education and theft-deterrent programs such
as Meth Watch,
<Bullet> voluntarily eliminate consumer self-access to pseudoephedrine
products in their stores in geographic areas where
methamphetamine is a problem,
<Bullet> participate in youth anti-methamphetamine education efforts,
<Bullet> educate their employees about methamphetamine abuse to raise
awareness and prevent questionable sales of these products, and
<Bullet> work with law enforcement by reporting suspicious activity in their
stores.
Moreover, chain pharmacy has worked closely with the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) and state and local law enforcement
officials since 1995 to stem the tide of methamphetamine production in
communities across the U.S.
INTRODUCTION
Almost one year ago, on November 18, 2004, NACDS testified before
the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug
Policy, and Human Resources about law enforcement and the fight against
methamphetamine. At that time, NACDS commented on various solutions we
believe would help reduce the methamphetamine problem. These solutions
include:
<Bullet> Encourage states to pass necessary restrictions and penalties upon
those arrested for and/or convicted of methamphetamine-related
offenses;
<Bullet> Federalize methamphetamine-related offenses;
<Bullet> License non-pharmacy retailers that sell pseudoephedrine products;
<Bullet> Significantly increase funding for methamphetamine abuse prevention
programs;
<Bullet> Work in concert with the State Department and officials in chemical
producing countries (e.g., India, China, the Czech Republic and
Germany) to more closely track every sale of pseudoephedrine
into the United States;
<Bullet> Provide incentives for drug companies to develop an effective
decongestant that cannot be converted into methamphetamine;
<Bullet> Provide more funding and resources to DEA for enforcement activities;
<Bullet> Enact import controls on bulk pseudoephedrine and ephedrine similar
to Schedule II controlled substances; and limiting imports to
those necessary for legitimate commercial needs;
<Bullet> Provide funding resources to local law enforcement for
methamphetamine lab cleanup;
<Bullet> Provide additional funding for treatment of methamphetamine addicts
so that they can eventually become productive members of our
communities; and
<Bullet> Continue to coordinate with Canada and Mexico on distribution
tracking and control of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine.
METH EPIDEMIC ELIMINATION ACT
We are pleased that both the U.S. House of Representatives and
Senate have introduced legislation that reflects solutions identified
by NACDS. We applaud Representatives Mark Souder (R-IN) and Jim
Sensenbrenner (R-WI) for their leadership in introducing the Meth
Epidemic Elimination Act (H.R. 3889) to address the methamphetamine
problem. Many of the provisions in the Meth Epidemic Elimination Act
are similar to provisions that we have advocated, including the
recommendations we provided in our testimony on November 18, 2004. We
advocated for import and export controls for pseudoephedrine, and this
is exactly what has been proposed by Sections 102, 103, 104, 105, 106,
201 and 202. DEA admits that there exists a very large discrepancy
between U.S. bulk pseudoephedrine import records and the records of
legitimate U.S. manufacturers of pseudoephedrine-based products. No one
is sure where the unaccounted bulk pseudoephedrine goes--most likely
into criminal hands. We believe that import and export controls are
necessary to reduce diversion of bulk pseudoephedrine.
We have advocated for enhanced penalties for methamphetamine
related offenses. This has been proposed under Title III of the Meth
Epidemic Elimination Act. We have advocated for funding for
methamphetamine lab cleanup costs. This has been addressed in Title IV
of the Meth Epidemic Elimination Act. We believe these provisions will
assist local law enforcement officials as they struggle to handle the
methamphetamine problem throughout the country. Local law enforcement
officials in communities all across the country have indicated that
their most severe problem continues to be with the small
methamphetamine labs, which are draining all their time and resources.
Once we help them resolve the problems associated with methamphetamine
production by the small labs, they can better prepare themselves to
focus on the larger problem of methamphetamine abuse.
COMBAT METH ACT
The Combat Meth Act, introduced by Senators Jim Talent (R-MO) and
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), would provide numerous tools to law
enforcement and includes numerous provisions that would provide
treatment and education resources. For example, the Combat Meth Act
would:
<Bullet> expand the Methamphetamine Hot Spots Program to include personnel for
enforcement, prosecution, and cleanup;
<Bullet> provide funding for the Attorney General for training and cross-
designating of local prosecutors as Assistant Attorneys
General;
<Bullet> provide grant funding for Drug Endangered Children rapid response
teams to assist children that have been affected by the
production of methamphetamine;
<Bullet> authorize the creation of Methamphetamine Research, Training and
Technical Assistance Centers to research effective treatments
for methamphetamine abuse and disseminate information and
technical assistance to states and private entities on how to
improve current treatment methods; and,
<Bullet> Provide local grants for treatment of methamphetamine abuse and
related conditions.
We commend Senators Talent and Feinstein for their leadership in
pursuing a role for the federal government to assist with stopping
methamphetamine production and addiction. We support these provisions
because we believe that these provisions would address the problems of
both methamphetamine production and abuse through a comprehensive
approach.
The Combat Meth Act provides a comprehensive solution by giving
local law enforcement the necessary tools and resources to pursue
methamphetamine offenders, and state prosecutors the power to
effectively prosecute methamphetamine cases. NACDS has encouraged
states to impose necessary restrictions and penalties upon those
arrested for and/or convicted of methamphetamine-related offenses. We
are pleased that the federal government is assisting states in these
matters.
The Combat Meth Act also provides critical funding for
methamphetamine education, training, research, treatment, and child
endangerment programs. The Combat Meth Act's comprehensive approach
seeks to reduce methamphetamine demand by educating consumers about the
life-threatening dangers of methamphetamine abuse and by providing
treatment to free methamphetamine addicts from their addiction.
A NATIONAL STANDARD AS PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH
Just as we believe that a comprehensive approach is necessary to
combat the methamphetamine problem, we believe that a comprehensive
approach should include a national standard for limiting consumer
access to products that can be used to manufacture methamphetamine. One
national standard for retail availability is important because the
current patchwork of more than three dozen different state
requirements, in addition to scores of local ordinances in cities,
towns, and counties throughout the country, is confusing to consumers
and law enforcement. For chain pharmacies, which operate in practically
every state, city, town, and county in the country, it is complex and
costly to have to create different policies, procedures, and employee
training programs for every different pharmacy outlet. A national
standard for retail availability will streamline our members'
operations and allow for better and quicker compliance nationwide. With
respect to the Combat Meth Act, we have supported the following
principles for selling products containing pseudoephedrine:
<Bullet> Preempting retailer requirements in state laws;
<Bullet> Keeping the sale of pseudoephedrine products available without a
prescription;
<Bullet> Requiring sales of single entity products from behind the pharmacy
counter and sold by a licensed pharmacist or pharmacy
personnel;
<Bullet> Requiring sales of combination products from behind the pharmacy
counter by January 1, 2007 and sold by a licensed pharmacist or
pharmacy personnel;
<Bullet> Maintaining a written or electronic log of pseudoephedrine purchases
to assist law enforcement efforts;
<Bullet> Limiting purchases to 9 grams within a 30-day period; and,
<Bullet> Limiting distribution center storage requirements.
Key to a national standard is the preemption of state laws. A
national standard could exist only if states are preempted from
imposing different requirements upon retailers.
Many of the principles we have supported closely mirror the
provisions of the Combat Meth Act. However, the Combat Meth Act would
designate pseudoephedrine products as Schedule V controlled substances.
We did not include ``Schedule V'' in our principles because we have
concerns about such a designation. These concerns include the fact that
in nineteen states, pseudoephedrine products could be sold only upon
the order of a prescribing practitioner if they were designated a
Schedule V product. We do not believe that a consumer should have to
visit a practitioner to obtain a prescription in order to purchase
pseudoephedrine products.
Moreover, designating pseudoephedrine as a Schedule V controlled
substance would impose undue burdens upon pharmacies. For example, DEA
prescribes certain forms, procedures and recordkeeping requirements for
controlled substances that would be extended to pseudoephedrine if
pseudoephedrine were designated a Schedule V controlled substance.
Pseudoephedrine products would have to be stored in a locked cabinet or
dispersed throughout the pharmacy. These products could only be ordered
from wholesalers by pharmacists. Specific forms and procedures would
have to be used for the destruction of such products. Additionally, for
a theft or loss of pseudoephedrine, specific forms and procedures would
have to be used. Pseudoephedrine invoices would have to be signed and
dated and saved separate from other invoices. Dispensing records would
have to be maintained separately from other dispensing records and
pharmacists would have to review the dispensing records on a daily
basis and sign and date the dispensing records on a daily basis.
Finally, a detailed inventory of all pseudoephedrine products would
have to be performed on a biennial basis. We believe that the goal of
federal legislation is to limit access, and not place recordkeeping,
storage, and other procedural burdens on pharmacies. We believe that
the goal of limiting access can be achieved without designating
pseudoephedrine as a controlled substance.
TRANSIENT VENDORS
In addition to limiting access to pseudoephedrine products by
traditional retailers and pharmacies, we believe that a comprehensive
federal solution should address the problem of pseudoephedrine sales by
transient or limited vendors, such as at flea markets. Many of the
products sold at flea markets were originally acquired from
questionable sources, often they were stolen from legitimate retailers.
As such, we would support legislation that would address all retail
theft, including the theft of pseudoephedrine products. We believe that
such legislation should prohibit the sales of nonprescription products,
as defined in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and regulations
issued under that Act, and infant formula manufactured and packaged for
sale for consumption by children under 2 years of age, by a transient
or limited vendor, unless the vendor maintains for public inspection
written documentation including invoices and other appropriate business
records identifying the vendor as an authorized representative of the
manufacturer or distributor of that product.
CONCLUSION
A comprehensive approach is necessary to effectively address the
methamphetamine problem. A comprehensive approach includes reducing
demand for methamphetamine. Experience with the drug abuse problem has
shown that these problems are not eliminated by merely erecting
barriers to the drug supply, but we also must focus resources on drug
abuse prevention and treatment; we must eliminate the demand for drugs.
So long as people are addicted to drugs, they will find ways to get
them.
We believe that both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives
have introduced legislation that represents comprehensive approaches to
address the methamphetamine problem. Both the Meth Epidemic Elimination
Act and the Combat Meth Act will further assist law enforcement by
providing more funding and resources for methamphetamine abuse
prevention, treatment, and cleanup. These provisions should reduce the
demand for methamphetamine, which will have long-lasting benefits.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you very much. Gordon Knapp of Pfizer?
STATEMENT OF GORDON KNAPP
Mr. Knapp. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good
afternoon. And thank you for this opportunity to testify before
your combined subcommittees and for your attention to this
crucial issue of methamphetamine abuse in America.
Of the manufacturer of Sudafed, the largest pseudoephedrine
based brand in the U.S., Pfizer has long been involved in the
fight against meth abuse. We have supported Federal and State
sales limits and packaging guidelines for PSE. We have funded
Meth Watch programs in over a dozen affected States. And this
year we introduced the first major PSE-free cold medicine,
Sudafed PE, to American consumers.
Over time, despite the valiant efforts of law enforcement,
we have seen America's meth crisis continue to deepen. We at
Pfizer have concluded that tough comprehensive action,
including Federal legislation to place all PSE products behind
the counter, is necessary to combat this meth abuse and the
proliferation of small toxic meth labs.
We view the different bills now under consideration by the
House, with some modifications, as being fully compatible and
complimentary approaches to addressing this multi-faceted
problem.
My submitted testimony focuses on the principals that we
believe should guide the legislation. I will speak briefly to
three of those now. First, PSE needs to go behind the counter,
whether a pharmacy counter or perhaps other secure locations.
States that have done so have seen a sharp drop in small toxic
labs. Many who were initially skeptical of those laws, and to
be fair, that included many of us in the industry, now accept
that putting PSE behind the counter is an effective part of a
comprehensive anti-meth strategy.
Second, Pfizer believes that designating PSE a Schedule V
controlled substance is the wrong way to move PSE behind the
counter. Schedule V has unintended side effects that would
burden consumers, medical practitioners, the industry, and do
little to keep PSE out of the hands of criminals.
Schedule V can trigger by prescription only provisions in
up to 19 States, which would make it necessary for consumers to
bear the added time and expense of seeing or contacting a
doctor, paying an Rx dispensing fee. Prescription medicines
containing PSE, like Pfizer's own Zyrtec D also would be caught
up in the nationwide Schedule V net. In some States, this would
mean that mid-level medical practitioners, such as qualified
RN's, could no longer prescribe these medicines and doctors
could no longer sample them.
By moving PSE behind the counter nationally, Congress can
have the same impact on small toxic labs as Schedule V without
these unintended side effects. If Congress nonetheless decides
to designate PSE a Schedule V controlled substance, these side
effects of the law could and should be dealt with by amendment.
Finally, with PSE moved behind the counter nationally,
Pfizer believes the entire category should be included, for the
simple reason that our formulations of PSE can be converted
into meth. Pfizer sells liquids and liquid-filled capsules or
cells. If we believe that these or any other form of PSE
resisted conversion into methamphetamine, we would ask you to
exempt it, but we know different.
We have tested these products, State criminal labs have
tested them, and the DEA has tested them, all with the same
result. They can be readily converted using common street
methods. The ONDCP reports that word is out on the street in
Oregon and that liquids and gel caps can be converted into
meth, and both have now been found in local labs there. Unlike
State laws that exempt these products, as some do, a Federal
exemption would create a perverse incentive for the entire
industry to reformulate the products that we know can be made
into meth.
Last January, Pfizer introduced our first PE product,
Sudafed PE. We did so after investing years and millions of
dollars trying to develop a form of PSE, which we called Lock
II, that could not be converted to meth. We have continued to
reformulate the PE products and our competitors have quickly
followed suit. An implementation date of January 2007 would
give other companies time to catch up and retailers the time
they need to prepare.
It is clear that the U.S. is moving toward a new paradigm
in the cold and sinus category, PSE behind the counter and PS-
Free in front of the counter. By 2007, we expect that up to 75
percent of our cold and sinus sales will be PE products.
At latest count, more than 30 States have passed some form
of PSE restrictions, creating a patchwork quilt of legislation.
Ideally, Federal legislation will preempt State laws, leaving a
predictable legislative environment that allows retailers,
manufacturers, and consumers to plan and engage in commerce
without undue burden.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittees, strong
bipartisan coalitions in the House and Senate have endorsed
tough action to fight meth abuse. Law enforcement, the drug
control community and industry stand behind you. We at Pfizer
are pledged to do all that we can to assist your efforts. We
look forward to working with you and to answering your
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Gordon Knapp follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gordon Knapp, President, North America Region,
Pfizer Consumer Healthcare
Good morning. Thank you for this opportunity to testify before your
combined subcommittees, and for your attention to the crucial issue of
methamphetamine abuse in America.
As the manufacturer of Sudafed, the largest pseudoephedrine (PSE)
brand in the U.S., Pfizer has long been involved in the fight against
meth abuse. In the 1990s, we supported federal sales regulation and
packaging guidelines for PSE. In 2002, we were the first in our
industry to support even tougher state-level limits on the amount of
PSE that consumers could purchase per sale. We have funded and been
engaged in developing ``meth watch'' programs in over a dozen affected
states. And this year, we introduced the first major PSE-free cold
medicine--Sudafed PE--to American consumers.
Over time, despite the valiant efforts of law enforcement, the work
of manufacturers and retailers, and the efforts of state legislators,
we have seen America's meth crisis continue to deepen. In the face of
this challenge, we at Pfizer have concluded that comprehensive action,
including federal legislation to place all PSE products behind-the-
counter, is a necessary part of any comprehensive strategy to combat
meth abuse and the proliferation of small toxic meth labs.
Setting aside the details of implementation for a moment, we seem
to be approaching a national consensus on how best to address America's
methamphetamine problem. Taken together, bipartisan bills introduced in
the House and the Senate point to the need for a comprehensive approach
that will restrict access to PSE at the point of sale, control the
importation of PSE into the United States, and adequately fund law
enforcement, treatment, and education efforts. Pfizer supports all
these approaches. We view the different bills now under consideration
by the House, with some modifications, as fully compatible and
complementary approaches to addressing the multi-faceted problem of
meth abuse.
Pfizer has long taken the position that we need to strike the right
balance between making medicines available to legitimate consumers and
restricting access to criminals who would use our medicines for illicit
purposes. Today, I would like to focus my comments on the principles
that we believe should guide legislation, particularly regarding limits
on the sale of PSE to consumers:
<Bullet> Establish a single national standard restricting PSE sales to
``behind the counter'' in pharmacies, and perhaps certain other
retailers;
<Bullet> Oppose the classification of PSE as a Schedule V controlled
substance;
<Bullet> Regulate all forms of PSE equally--including solid-ingredient
tablets, combination products, liquid gel caps and liquids--
since the DEA confirms that all can and are being used by
criminals to make meth;
<Bullet> Impose national gram or package limits on the amount of PSE that can
be purchased by an individual;
<Bullet> Allow for a phase-in period, until January 2007, to give retailers
adequate time to adjust to new restrictions;
<Bullet> Fully fund anti-meth enforcement, education and treatment programs,
including tough criminal statutes and import controls;
<Bullet> Pre-empt divergent state and local laws and apply a single national
standard.
Behind the counter . . . but not Schedule V
Theft of PSE from store shelves has been a source of supply for
criminals. Where PSE has moved behind the counter, criminals have found
it much tougher to get their hands on it, and local meth lab busts have
dropped. Many who initially were skeptical of these laws, and to be
fair that included many of us in industry, now accept that putting PSE
behind the counter is an effective part of a comprehensive anti-meth
strategy.
Pfizer believes that Congress should mandate that PSE be sold from
``behind the counter,'' either the pharmacy counter or more broadly,
but that designating PSE a Schedule V controlled substance is the wrong
way to achieve this end. The reason is that Schedule V has unintended
side effects that would impose unnecessary restrictions on consumers,
medical practitioners, and industry, while doing little or nothing to
keep PSE out of the hands of determined criminals.
For example, Schedule V can trigger ``by prescription only''
provisions in up to 19 states, which would make it necessary for
consumers to visit or contact a doctor every time they feel a cold
coming on and want to buy a medicine containing the decongestant they
have relied on for years. The added inconvenience and expense of
requiring a prescription for PSE is unreasonable in an environment in
which PSE already is behind the counter. The same can be said of
security and storage requirements that pertain to Schedule V drugs
only.
Another unintended side effect of ``Schedule V'' is that
prescription medicines containing PSE as an active ingredient (such as
the ``D'' formulations of Rx allergy medicines) would be caught up in
the nationwide Schedule V net. In some states, this would mean that
mid-level medical practitioners, such as qualified RNs, could no longer
prescribe these medicines, and doctors could no longer give them as
samples to patients. Since, by definition, prescription medicines
already can be dispensed only by a licensed pharmacist, the additional
burdens of imposing Schedule V restrictions on Rx medicines are
entirely unnecessary.
Moreover, under Schedule V, PSE sales would be limited to behind
the pharmacy counter only. If Congress decides to allow sales somewhat
more broadly, Schedule V does not offer that flexibility.
If, however, Congress nonetheless decides to designate PSE a
Schedule V controlled substance, provision should be made in the
legislation to limit the unintended side effects of the law by: (1)
exempting Rx products, (2) including clarifying language that avoids
triggering state ``Rx only'' statutes for Schedule V drugs, and (3)
exempting PSE from Schedule V security and storage requirements.
Regulate the entire category equally
If Congress decides to put PSE products behind the counter, as we
believe you should, then the entire category should be included for the
simple reason that all formulations of PSE now on the market can be
converted into meth. The only possible exception might be certain
pediatric products that simply do not contain enough PSE to make theft
worthwhile.
Pfizer manufactures or sells all forms of pseudoephedrine: single
ingredient tablets, combination ingredient tablets, liquid-filled
capsules, and liquids. If we believed that any one of these were
particularly resistant to conversion into methamphetamine, we would
request that you exempt it. Unfortunately, we know differently.
The June issue of the DEA Microgram Bulletin reports the results of
two studies, one by the Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory, and
one by an independent forensic laboratory on behalf of McNeil Consumer
and Specialty Pharmaceuticals. Both studies produced methamphetamine
from liquid filled capsules and liquids using approaches similar to
small toxic labs. These findings accord with a study prepared by
another outside laboratory for Pfizer, which extracted PSE from liquid-
filled capsules and liquids using a recipe found in a book available
through a popular on-line store. A study by the DEA's North Central
Regional Laboratory in Chicago had a similar result.
According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, word
already is out ``on the street'' in Oregon that liquids and gel caps
can be converted into meth, and both have now been found in local labs.
Criminals will use the products and methods they are familiar with, and
switch to others if those no longer are available.
It is true that most--though not all--states have exempted liquids
and gel caps from their anti-meth legislation. Were Congress to do so,
however, there would be wide ranging consequences. A national exemption
for liquids and gel caps would create an incentive for the entire
industry to switch its manufacturing to those products--products that
we know can be made relatively easily into meth. Inevitably, criminals
everywhere would catch on, and we all would have wasted even more time
in getting a handle on the problem of local toxic meth labs.
If, however, Congress includes all forms of PSE in legislation, you
instead will create incentives for companies to develop and switch to
non-PSE alternatives, an effort in which Pfizer has been engaged for
many years. An implementation date of January 2007 would give these
companies and retailers the time they need to prepare.
The search for solutions
Mr. Chairman, I have a story to share that we rarely have discussed
publicly, the story of our ultimately unsuccessful efforts to develop a
form of PSE that could not be converted into meth. What we called
``Lock II'' technology was an attempt to bind PSE with other chemicals
that would prevent extraction and conversion. Over a period of years
and an investment of millions of dollars, we developed a product that
we believed could not be converted by local labs into methamphetamine.
To be sure of what we had, we asked the DEA to give it their best shot
to break the formula using street methods. What they told us came as a
surprise: Lock II could be broken using a chemical increasingly
employed by local meth cooks. While our Lock II technology would have
been tough to crack (many times harder than liquids or gel caps), it
was vulnerable. We understood that to switch our own line--and
potentially an entire industry--to the new technology would succeed
only in pushing the problem down the road. We were and are interested
in permanent solutions.
As it became clear that the technical solutions we developed were
impractical, Pfizer set about pursuing another plan. We decided to
replace, and in some cases supplement, our PSE containing medicines
with a new line of products containing phenylephrine (PE) as the
decongestant ingredient. While PE is FDA approved, American consumers
had limited exposure to it. To get a better idea of acceptability, we
ran consumer tests in the U.S. that showed no statistical difference
between PSE and PE in terms of consumers' perceptions of symptom
relief.
Last January, we introduced our first PE product, Sudafed PE. We
have since switched other Sudafed, Actifed and Benadryl products from
PSE to PE, and by early next year we expect to have most of our brand
lines switched over. As we hoped and expected, we have started a trend.
Private label (store brands) quickly followed our lead. And we are
pleased to see that one of our major competitors has just replaced its
popular day and night cold medicines with ``pseudoephedrine-free''
formulas, one of which contains PE. We understand that another
competitor may be about to follow suit.
Even without legislation, a number of major retailers including
Wal*Mart and Target have voluntarily moved some or all PSE behind the
counter. It is clear that the U.S. is moving toward a new paradigm in
the cold and sinus category: PSE behind the counter, ``PSE-free'' in
front of the counter. The argument that moving PSE behind the counter
will unduly restrict access to cold medicines may have been true two
years ago. It is no longer true today, and will be less so moving
forward. The fact is, between the efforts of Pfizer and our
competitors, and America's forward-thinking retailers, consumers soon
will have a plethora of ``PSE-free'' medicines available on the store
shelf. For those who still prefer PSE, as some consumers undoubtedly
will, all they will have to do is ask for help in getting the medicine
they need.
Why federal action makes sense
At latest count, more than thirty states have passed some form of
PSE restrictions, and over half the remaining states have legislation
pending. Restrictions range from Schedule V, which is interpreted
differently in different states, to gram or package limits, to menus of
options for display and sale of PSE containing medicines. This
patchwork quilt of state regulations is precisely why federal
legislation is necessary. Ideally, federal legislation will pre-empt
state laws, leaving a predictable legislative environment that allows
retailers, manufacturers, and consumers to plan and engage in commerce
without undue burden. Legislation in the absence of preemption might
have the salutary effect of dampening down legislative activity in the
states for awhile, but it would leave in place many divergent laws, and
the prospect of more changes to come. It would be preferable, from our
point of view, to solve the problem once.
The opportunity before us
There are a number of other issues that undoubtedly will be
addressed today by my fellow panel members. How many grams or packages
of PSE should be allowed per sale or per month? Should non-pharmacies
be allowed to carry PSE products behind the counter, and what specific
security arrangements might be needed? Should single-dose packets be
sold in airports and other transit locations? These are all important
issues, and I will be happy to comment on them during questioning.
Whatever differences may exist over details, however, we should not
lose sight of the fact that a historic opportunity is at hand. Strong
bi-partisan coalitions in the House and Senate have endorsed action.
Law enforcement, the drug control community and industry stand behind
you. We at Pfizer are pledged to do all we can to assist your efforts
to take meaningful, comprehensive action to fight meth abuse. We look
forward to working with you and to answering your questions.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you very much. And we will now go to
Sheriff Ted. And I hope I pronounce this right, Ted. Is it
Kamatchus?
Mr. Kamatchus. It is Kamatchus, sir.
Mr. Gillmor. Very good. Representing the National Sheriffs'
Association.
STATEMENT OF TED G. KAMATCHUS
Mr. Kamatchus. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
my name is Ted Kamatchus and I am the sheriff of Marshall
County, Iowa. I would like to thank the members of this
distinguished panel for inviting me to Washington and allowing
me to share my experience with you regarding the national
methamphetamine problem.
I am a 29-year veteran of law enforcement and I am in my
eighteenth year as serving my county as its sheriff. I
currently serve as the First Vice President of the National
Sheriffs' Association. You will find my professional bio in
your packets.
On March 24, 1999, I was honored to speak before a
Congressional subcommittee on methamphetamine use. My message
then was much the same as the one I bring to you today. In
1999, the Midwestern States were experiencing a rapid rise in
the use of methamphetamine. Officers were finding labs popping
up all across the Heartland.
At that time, the flow of meth from its traditional
suppliers in Mexico was being attacked by law enforcement.
Larger seizures were common. And eventually, two of the four
main meth supplying drug cartels were severely damaged. To feed
the need for methamphetamine, the users discovered a process of
manufacturing the drug that was easy and gave them
accessibility to a product that was often times stronger than
they could find from across the border.
Meth has no stereotypical user. From the rich and famous to
the runaway on the street, once it grabs you, few people become
successful at breaking away from the clutches of its addiction.
In 1994, law enforcement, excuse me, officers in Iowa found
two meth labs. At the end of 2004, just 10 years later, 1,472
labs were seized and destroyed in the State. When considering
major impact issues that come before Congress on a daily basis,
I would imagine that few statistical indicators have ever shown
such an alarming increase.
What does this mean? What is the true impact on our
society? The physical impact on America is devastating. Last
year, nearly $3 million was spent in Iowa for lab disposal and
cleanup. During that same period, an Oklahoma Department of
Public Safety study attributed an expense of $350,000 for each
lab that was in existence. This amount was determined by the
study, having considered all of the various social economic
factors that were touched by meth addiction. Multiply that
amount by the 1,100-plus labs in Oklahoma or the 1,400-plus
labs in the State of Iowa, and you can see the burden carried
by the American taxpayer.
The State of Iowa saw this and we enacted a very strict
pseudoephedrine law. It should be noted that since this law
took effect in April of 2005, we have found a 78 percent
reduction in meth labs in our State. And this problem no longer
is just a Midwestern issue.
Methamphetamine is flowing across America. The increase of
the drug's availability is enhanced by its ease of
manufacturing and inexpensive cost. Once this poison begins to
expand into the major metropolitan areas, the cost to the
American public will devastate our economy.
Like you, I am elected by the public. Ninety-eight percent
of the over 3,000 sheriffs in this country are elected. And the
Office of Sheriff possesses a unique view of the total impact
that drug addiction has on our society. We are the only full
lined law enforcement entity in our country.
Like our brothers and sisters in police agencies, the
majority of the Sheriffs' Offices also perform full criminal
investigative enforcement. But as sheriffs, we also are active
in the civil and court aspects of law enforcement. We serve
civil process, committals, and forfeitures. I myself personally
have seized homes, vehicles, and children from families as a
direct result of the court action brought upon them due to
their drug abuse.
And the sheriffs operate the jails in this country. No
individual is accepted into the prison system without first
having gone through jail at some time in this process. Due to
the toxicity of meth, we find that users need far more medical
treatment. Kidney dialysis and anti-psychotic medications are
the norm for the meth addicts that we incarcerate.
Ladies and gentlemen of this committee, I come before you
today to ask your support and assistance. With all the trying
times facing this nation, we can ill-afford to open the door to
more catastrophic and disruption. While our enemies are at our
gate knocking on the door and waiting for us to weaken, we
cannot allow our nation to destroy itself.
This is more than a group of weak individuals using the
substance for self pleasure. It is a major part of our society
that is destroying itself and the country's future. I ask that
you give full consideration to supporting efforts currently
being submitted to Congress to fully fund the fight against
drugs in America, to take on the war on drugs that so many of
your colleagues and yourselves have mentioned in years past.
Legislation is needed to secure pseudoephedrine from over
purchase potential and shoplifting cooks. We must not turn our
back to those individuals who have dedicated their lives to
protecting and serving. To cut funding from the JAG/Byrne or
HIDTA programs will eliminate drug taskforces in 38 of the 50
States in this country. I shudder to think of the ramifications
of that occurring with inadequate monitoring and enforcement.
I want to thank you again for this opportunity to come
before you today. I have great faith in our system of
government and know that through your hard efforts our country
will have a stronger and more resilient future. I want to thank
you very much for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ted G. Kamatchus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ted G. Kamatchus, Sheriff, Marshall County, Iowa
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Ted Kamatchus
and I am the Sheriff of Marshall County, Iowa. I would like to thank
the members of this distinguished panel for inviting me to Washington
and allowing me to share my experience with you regarding the National
Methamphetamine problem. I am a 29-year veteran of law enforcement and
am in my 18th year serving my county as its sheriff. I currently serve
as the 1st Vice-President of the National Sheriffs' Association. You
will find my professional bio in your packets.
If you would indulge me, I would like to read briefly from the
testimony I presented to Congress in 1999.
``Make no mistake about it. We are facing one of the worst drug
problems America has ever confronted. In the 1980's, the drug of choice
was cocaine. In the early 1990's, we faced a heroin epidemic and now at
the close of the century with the dawn of a new millennium, we confront
efforts to legalize marijuana as we face an international invasion of
methamphetamine.
Meth (or crank) is one of the greatest challenges we face as law
enforcement officers. Meth labs are highly toxic, environmental
disasters. The chemicals used in the production of crank are volatile
and enforcement activity at a lab must be handled with extreme caution.
One wrong move could touch off an explosion. As sheriff, a locally
elected law enforcement official, I have a unique perspective on this
new epidemic. I have been to meth labs. I have been on drug raids and I
have purchased crank by the pound in undercover operations. I have seen
first hand how this highly addictive drug destroys our kids and I have
had to visit too many homes to try and explain to parents that their
teenager just died of an overdose. We must do something to stem the
tide of illegal drugs, especially meth.''
That is how I began testimony before a similar committee in
Congress on March 24, 1999. Just prior to that testimony, my community
had received national attention through an article published in U.S.
News and World Report magazine. The article had discussed the
trafficking of Methamphetamine into the heartland of America and how
Marshall County was the epicenter of that process. The writer had
actually infiltrated Mexican Drug Cartels and found direct links of two
cartels to our area.
As a result of efforts by the National Sheriffs' Association and
other national law enforcement associations, we were able to convince
the Congress of the United States to maximize funding for our efforts
in fighting drugs in America. Emphasis was placed on the infiltration
of Methamphetamine from abroad. As a result, huge seizures of product
occurred and 2 of the 4 primary drug cartels involved sustained major
set-backs. These setbacks greatly decreased the availability of
Methamphetamine to the users in our area.
There is no a-typical user of Meth in our country. From the rich
and famous to individuals on the street, all have seemed to find a
purpose in selecting Meth as their drug of choice. As major suppliers
were slowed or eliminated, addicted users turned to other means of
supplying their habits. It was these addicts who were driven to find
fuel for their addictions by developing small local ``user'' labs for
the product. The majority of these labs utilized the Nazi ``cold cook''
method of manufacturing the drug. Primarily using the internet as a
reference book, home grown ``chemists'' or ``cooks'' began sprouting up
throughout the country.
You will note in your packets the growth of labs in the State of
Iowa. The total number of Meth labs seized during the year 1994 was 2.
The total number of labs seized in 2004 was 1,472. When considering
issues of major impact brought before the Congress, I would imagine
that few statistical indicators have ever jumped at such an alarming
pace.
But what does this mean? What is the true impact on our society?
Over the past 10 years, I have grown to learn more about this issue
than I would have ever cared to learn. Let me take a few moments to
discuss with you some figures compiled by the Iowa Office of Drug
Control Policy. Please understand this is an issue that is rapidly
spreading across our country. It no longer resides solely in the
Midwest! The fingers of its use and abuse are seen reaching throughout
the East coast. As I read you the numbers we have found in Iowa, you
only have to pause a moment to consider the huge long term economic and
environmental impact it will have on the rest of our country.
What is Meth?
Although I am sure you have a better understanding than the average
citizen, I want to do all I can to give a complete overview of
Methamphetamine so that anyone who may monitor or read this testimony
will possess as complete an understanding of the problem as possible.
Meth is made with common chemicals such as; ether; sodium hydroxide
(lye); drain cleaner; lithium (from Batteries); red phosphorus (from
matchbooks and flares); camping fuel; and pseudoephedrine. While there
are many different recipes for making methamphetamine all mixtures
include one common and essential ingredient: pseudoephedrine. If you
aren't aware of pseudoephedrine, it also is one of the primary
ingredients in cold, sinus and allergy medications. The molecular
structure of it is only 1 step away from methamphetamine. The mixture
of the aforementioned precursors causes the transformation of that
structure into the poison we call Meth.
But it is more than the drug itself that is of concern. The
remaining byproducts from the process of ``cooking'' meth are equally
as dangerous. The impact this refuse has on the environment and fiscal
budgets of those agencies taxed to clean it up is enormous. Latest
studies have shown that the direct cost to Iowa law enforcement
officials for cleanup and disposal of the labs during FY-2004 was
$2,923,144. And the impact that meth abuse has had on the substance
abuse treatment process in Iowa exceeded $7 million dollars during that
same period.
Methamphetamine has been shown to serve as the primary drug of
choice of 15.8% of those in non-criminal drug and mental health
treatment in Iowa during FY-2004. That same study clearly indicated
that Meth users are ``poly'' drug users involved in a wide array of
drug use and abuse. However, keep in mind, that methamphetamine use is
NOT just an Iowa problem.
Socio-economic impact study
A study conducted by the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety
clearly showed the grand scale of this problem. The study conducted
this past year was developed through a survey of known Meth users and
manufacturers. It took into consideration the Socio-Economic impact of
Meth labs in the state. Consideration was given to mental health, child
welfare, treatment, court and correctional costs, investigation and
apprehension costs, job retention, property damage and Meth lab clean
up.
The average attributed impact of cost on the system for each Meth
lab seized was $350,000 annually. In addition, impacts on the family
structure, unborn children, educational system and sustaining health
care were NOT figured into the equation.
When you multiply this amount by the 1,200+ labs seized by Oklahoma
authorities or the 1,400+ seized by Iowa authorities the fiscal impact
becomes evident. It should be noted, that since the inception of Iowa's
strict pseudoephedrine purchasing law, we have experienced a 78%
reduction in Meth labs as compared to the same period in 2004.
Impact on our families
In addition, the emotional impact on the citizens of our country is
extreme. Family breakdowns and the loss of loved ones who poison
themselves through addiction are greater with Methamphetamine than any
other illegal drug.
<Bullet> In Burlington, Iowa a 14-year old girl died from meth overdose after
mixing meth lab residue given to her by her mom's boyfriend
with a bottle of pop and than drinking it.
<Bullet> In Rural Carroll County Iowa an infant nearly died from a baby bottle
filled with pseudoephedrine and other meth-making chemicals.
They were placed there to hide from authorities.
<Bullet> In Rural Clay County Iowa a 3-month old was removed from her home
where her mother and grandmother and grandmothers' boyfriend
cooked and used meth. The meth was cooked in a hidden area next
to the baby's room. So toxic was the environment in the room,
that all the metal items were corroded due to the acid in the
air.
<Bullet> A Mason City, Iowa little girl was discovered in a family car seated
next to a bubbling meth ``generator''. The vapors of anhydrous
ammonia used in the process overwhelmed the interior of the
vehicle.
<Bullet> And then there is the case of Angela Fatino. In your packets you will
find a copy of the story printed in the Des Moines Register. It
discusses how within one year a bright, involved, beautiful 12
year old girl could fall so low; she would end up in a juvenile
detention center and eventually take her own life.
I ask that you take a moment to study the photos so you can more
clearly gain an understanding of this cold reality called Meth abuse.
Effects on the user
The drug is unique. It has a higher addiction potential than Heroin
with symptoms of paranoia similar to those caused by Cocaine. It
possesses the hallucinogenic properties of LSD and individuals on Meth
gain adrenal strength much like the PCP addicts of the 70's.
It is less expensive and more addictive than Crack Cocaine and
easier to get than marijuana. Methamphetamine can be smoked, eaten,
injected, snorted or absorbed. Few, if any other, substances can be
abused as easily or are as easy to get as Meth. If you can't buy it,
you can make it. All you need is the right over the counter chemicals
and an empty 2-liter pop bottle.
Sheriffs see full impact
As a Sheriff, I have a unique chance to be involved in all aspects
of law enforcement. Of the over 3,000 Sheriff's Offices in our country
the overwhelming majority are full-line agencies. We have community
action programs, teach DARE, and enforce motor vehicle and criminal
laws while participating in the full gamut of protective services.
But from that point we separate ourselves from the majority of
other law enforcement agencies. 98% of the Nations' Sheriffs are
elected by the people. We are directly charged by those citizens who
elected us, those same citizens who elected you, to protect and serve
the counties and parishes of this nation.
As Sheriffs we are also active in the Civil and Court aspects of
law enforcement. We serve civil papers and court actions on individuals
who have incurred judgments against them. I have seized homes, vehicles
and children from families as a direct result of court action brought
upon the defendant due to their drug use. Not just through the
forfeiture process but directly resulting from the users spending every
last cent to maintain their habit. In addition, the Office of Sheriff
is charged with the transporting of mental health and substance abuse
committals through court order often originating from illicit drug use.
And, we operate the nations' jails. No individual is accepted into
the prison system without first going through a jail at some time in
their process. Due to the large national increase in drug users, we
find our cost of in-house health care skyrocketing. In my facility,
nearly 60% of the inmates are on some form of prescribed medication.
With the high toxicity level of Meth, we find that users need far more
medical treatment. More and more users must be taken to kidney dialysis
or are on anti-psychotic medications so that they can remain stable and
capable of fitting into the facility.
A need to band together in support
Ladies and Gentlemen of this Committee, I come before you today to
ask your support and assistance. With all the trying times facing this
nation, we can ill afford to open the door to more catastrophe and
disruption. While our enemies are at our gate, knocking on the door and
waiting for us to weaken, we can not allow our nation to destroy
itself. This is more than a group of weak individuals using a substance
for self pleasure. It is a major part of our society destroying itself
and the country's future.
I ask that you give full supporting for efforts currently being
considered by Congress that would better fund the fight against Meth
and other illicit drugs in America. To take the ``War on Drugs'' more
seriously now than ever before! Legislation is needed to secure
pseudoephedrine from over-purchase potential and shoplifting cooks.
We must not turn our backs on those individuals who have dedicated
their lives to protecting and serving our citizens. To cut funding of
the JAG/Byrne or HIDTA programs will eliminate drug taskforces in 38 of
the 50 states in this country. I shudder to think of the ramifications
of that occurring with inadequate monitoring and enforcement.
Again, I want thank you for the opportunity to come before you and
express my concerns. I have the greatest faith in our system of
government and know that through your efforts our country will be
stronger and more resilient well into the future.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you very much. And we go to Joseph
Heerens----
Mr. Heerens. Very good.
Mr. Gillmor. [continuing] representing the Food Marketing
Institute.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH R. HEERENS
Mr. Heerens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my
name is Joseph R. Heerens and I am a Senior Vice President with
Marsh Supermarkets, based in Indianapolis. My statement today
is on behalf of Marsh, the Food Marketing Institute, and its
members nationwide. Thank you for holding this important
hearing.
Methamphetamine is a serious problem. Our industry believes
that to effectively address it we need a comprehensive strategy
and partnership between law enforcement, regulatory agencies,
manufacturers, and retailers. Our industry has serious concerns
over recent initiatives enacted into law that would impose
stringent controls on precursor chemicals at the retail level.
I am referring specifically to the Oklahoma model that
relegates pseudoephedrine products to Schedule V status.
Under Schedule V, only retail pharmacies or retail stores
that have a pharmacy department would be allowed to sell cough
and cold products and they would have to be kept behind the
pharmacy counter. Schedule V is troublesome because an
overwhelming majority of grocery stores in our country do not
have a pharmacy department and would be prohibited from selling
these products.
For example, my company has 121 stores in the Midwest, but
only 47 have a pharmacy. Sixty percent of our stores would be
prohibited from selling pseudoephedrine cough and cold
products. Accordingly, Schedule V poses significant barriers
for consumers, as most neighborhood grocery stores would not be
allowed to sell these products.
In terms of pending Federal legislation, the Combat Meth
Act of 2005, approved by the Senate last month, our industry
firmly believes that this bill in the House version are flawed
and in need of significant revisions for the following 10
reasons.
First, these bills failed to provide for a national
standard. They allow States to establish different
restrictions, making compliance by retailers more difficult.
Second, because these bills do not include strong Federal
preemption language. The requirement for a logbook seems
superfluous. States and localities could have different
restrictions than what might be set forth in a Federal law.
Third, the Combat Meth Act does not exempt liquids and gel
caps, even though every State Schedule V law regulating
pseudoephedrine products exempts them.
Fourth, the Combat Meth Act would trigger a by prescription
only requirement in up to 19 States, meaning consumers would
need a prescription from their doctor to purchase
pseudoephedrine products, adding significantly to their cost.
Fifth, the Schedule V provisions in these bills will force
grocery warehouses to apply for a controlled substances license
from the DEA, entailing higher licensing fees and new
regulatory burdens, even though these facilities are not a
source of supply for the meth cooks.
Sixth, these bills are too narrow in their focus, as they
address only 20 percent of the meth production problem. They do
nothing to address to lion's share of the problem, which is the
estimated 80 percent of meth coming from the superlabs, such as
those in Mexico.
Seventh, the Combat Meth Act reduces consumer access to
cough and cold products by limiting their sale to pharmacies or
pharmacy departments, many of which have space limitations that
will reduce the number of products carried.
Eighth, the Combat Meth Act limits purchasers to no more
than 7.5 grams in a 30-day period, which may be unfair to large
families with allergy sufferers or sick children who need a
greater supply.
Ninth, the Combat Meth Act does not adequately address the
issue of Internet sales and flea markets, both of which have
been problem areas.
And last, the Combat Meth Act allows stores without a
pharmacy department to sell pseudoephedrine products under very
limited circumstances, but the exemption process is complicated
and very few exemptions will likely be granted or granted
timely.
As I stated at the beginning of my testimony, the
supermarket industry supports a comprehensive solution, as
reflected in FMI's recent endorsement of the Methamphetamine
Epidemic Elimination Act, introduced by Representatives Mark
Souder, James Sensenbrenner, and Howard Coble, along with more
than 45 cosponsors. Unlike the narrow focus of the Combat Meth
Act, House Bill 3889 seeks to address the problem in a
comprehensive manner. And we support it for the following
reasons.
We support the elimination of the blister pack exemption
and our industry supports reasonable sales restrictions on
pseudoephedrine cough and cold products. FMI has recommended a
6-gram limit per transaction. We support the adoption of strong
Federal preemption language in order to facilitate retailer
compliance. Our industry supports limiting consumer access to
pseudoephedrine products by placing them behind a counter that
is not accessible to consumers, such as a service counter where
cigarettes are kept. FMI members support a Federal exemption
for pediatric products, as meth cooks generally do not use them
to make meth. We support a ban on Internet sales of precursor
chemicals as well as strict limits on mail order sales of
pseudoephedrine products. Our industry supports strict quotas
and import restrictions on both chemicals of ephedrine and
pseudoephedrine. We support a ban on the sale of
pseudoephedrine products in infant formula at flea markets
unless they have written authorization from the manufacturer or
proper business records. Flea markets routinely sell
pseudoephedrine products that in many cases have been stolen
from retail stores. We support stronger penalties and fines and
tough enforcement from the manufacture, possession, or sale of
meth. And we support making Federal funds available to the
States to help clean up meth labs.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittees, this concludes
my statement. On behalf of FMI and the supermarket members
across this country, we very much appreciate the opportunity to
present our views today on solutions to the meth problem. And I
would be glad to take any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Joseph R. Heerens follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph R. Heerens, Senior Vice President,
Government Affairs, Marsh Supermarkets, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Deal and Chairman Gillmor. My name is Joseph R. Heerens,
and I am Senior Vice President of Government Affairs for Marsh
Supermarkets, Inc., headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. My
statement today is on behalf of Marsh Supermarkets and the Food
Marketing Institute (FMI). FMI is our national trade association,
representing food retailers and wholesalers. While my company has no
stores in Georgia, we do have thirteen (13) supermarkets in western and
southwestern Ohio.
Thank you for holding this important hearing on the impact of
methamphetamine on health and the environment, and solutions to address
this very serious problem. The supermarket industry fully understands
the magnitude of the problem, and we also know that legitimate cough
and cold products containing pseudoephedrine (PSE) are used to
manufacture meth.
According to law enforcement sources, legitimate PSE products,
which are purchased or stolen from retail stores, account for
approximately 20 percent of the methamphetamine that is domestically
manufactured by so-called ``mom and pop'' meth cooks, whereas the
lion's share of meth in our country (approximately 80 percent) comes
from super labs, many of which are located in other countries, such as
Mexico. Regrettably, when domestic meth production is curtailed in a
state because of enactment of a retail sales restriction law, Mexican
drug gangs quickly fill the void with cheaper and more potent ``crystal
meth''. In other words, the problem does not go away; sometimes it gets
worse. Thus, it is the supermarket industry's position that to
effectively address the methamphetamine problem, we need a
comprehensive strategy and partnership between law enforcement,
regulatory agencies, over-the-counter (OTC) manufacturers, and the
retail community.
Of our 47 stores that have a pharmacy department, general store
hours are quite different from the pharmacy department's hours of
operation. Most of our supermarkets are open 24-hours. In comparison,
however, our pharmacy departments are typically open less than 12-hours
on weekdays, and even more limited hours on weekends. Therefore, even
if the store is open for business, if the pharmacy department is not
open or if the pharmacist is not on duty, sales of PSE cough and cold
products would not be permitted and our customers would have to shop
elsewhere to meet their medication needs. That causes us great concern.
SCHEDULE V--IMPACT ON CONSUMERS
The bottom line result under a rigid Schedule V approach is a
dramatic reduction in consumer access to cough and cold medications
depending upon whether their local grocery store has a pharmacy
department and the pharmacy department's hours of operation. For
consumers living in rural areas or in the inner city, Schedule V can
create major hardships if the nearest pharmacy is 15 to 20 miles from
their home or if the person is elderly or poor and would have to rely
on public transportation in order to get to a pharmacy to purchase a
PSE medication.
FMI, along with the National Consumers League (NCL), gauged
consumer opinion on sales restrictions of PSE products in a national
survey released in April of 2005. What the FMI-NCL survey found is
revealing. Forty-four (44%) percent of the 2,900 adult survey
respondents felt that Schedule V would create a hardship for them,
while 62 percent said they did not believe that restricting sales of
PSE products to pharmacies is a reasonable measure for controlling meth
production. In contrast, survey respondents were far more receptive to
less severe restrictions than Schedule V, such as placing cough, cold
and allergy products behind a counter, but not a pharmacy counter, or
placing these items in a locked display case on the sales floor.
Additionally, more than 80 percent of the survey respondents expressed
support for limiting the quantity of such products that individuals can
purchase, and 74 percent said it would be reasonable to restrict the
age of purchasers.
For all of these reasons, the supermarket industry cannot support a
Schedule V classification for cough and cold products containing
pseudoephedrine. Schedule V poses significant problems for consumers
who have legitimate needs for these medications, including reduced
consumer access and hardship because their nearby neighborhood grocery
store, which they visit 2.2 times each week, would not be allowed to
sell these medicines. In addition, Schedule V may likely mean higher
prices, as PSE products move from self-service to behind the pharmacy
counter where the pharmacist, who is a highly salaried professional,
will be required to ask for photo identification and have the customer
sign a log book. Schedule V just isn't the right solution to this
terrible problem.
COMBAT METH ACT OF 2005 IS FLAWED
In terms of pending federal legislation, the Combat Meth Act of
2005 (S. 103) approved by the Senate on September 9, 2005, as part of
the FY 2006 Commerce Justice Appropriations bill, our industry firmly
believes that this bill, and the House version (H. R. 314), are
deficient, flawed, and in need of significant revisions. The following
are the deficiencies and shortcomings we see in this legislation:
<Bullet> S. 103 and H. R. 314 fail to provide for a national standard
governing the sale of PSE products. Methamphetamine is a
nationwide problem that needs a national solution. Regrettably,
this legislation allows states and localities to establish
different restrictions on these products, making compliance by
retailers more difficult and complicated.
<Bullet> Because these bills do not include strong federal pre-emption
language, the requirement for a log book seems superfluous.
That's because states and localities could have different
transaction restrictions than what might be set forth in a
federal law. Moreover, a log book raises significant privacy
issues for many consumers.
<Bullet> The Combat Meth Act of 2005 does not exempt liquids and gel caps even
though every state Schedule V law regulating the sale of PSE
products exempts these products.
<Bullet> Unless the Combat Meth Act of 2005 is amended, the Schedule V
provisions will trigger a ``by prescription only'' requirement
in as many as 19 states. This would mean consumers would have
to get a prescription from their doctor in order to purchase
PSE products. As a result, a cough and cold product that
normally sells for about $6 at retail could now cost $60 or
more when you factor in the physician office visit charge.
<Bullet> Moreover, the Schedule V provisions in S. 103 and H. R. 314 will
force grocery warehouses and distribution centers that handle
PSE products to apply for a Controlled Substances Registrant
license from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). This
will entail higher licensing fees and new regulatory burdens
for these facilities. Imposing Schedule V requirements and
higher regulatory costs on warehouses and distribution centers
makes no sense since these facilities are not a source of
supply for the meth cooks.
<Bullet> S. 103 and H. R. 314 are too narrow in their focus. These bills
address only 20 percent of the problem in terms of domestic
meth production. S. 103 and H. R. 314 do nothing to address the
lion's share of the problem, which is the estimated 80 percent
of methamphetamine coming from the super labs, such as those
located in Mexico.
<Bullet> The Combat Meth Act of 2005 dramatically reduces consumer access to
cough and cold products by limiting their sale to stores that
have a pharmacy or a pharmacy department. PSE products would
have to be placed behind a pharmacy counter, and, due to space
limitations in the pharmacy department, many retailers will not
be able to carry and offer for sale the wide variety of PSE
medications that their customers need. Moreover, because these
products will be behind the pharmacy counter, consumers will no
longer have the opportunity to read and compare products and
product labels, and to otherwise engage in comparison shopping.
<Bullet> S. 103, as passed by the Senate, limits purchasers to no more than
7.5 grams within a 30-day period. This arbitrary limit may be
unfair to a large family with allergy problems or to a mother
with several sick children at home who has a legitimate need
for more than 7.5 grams within a 30-day period.
<Bullet> The Combat Meth Act of 2005 does not adequately address the issue of
Internet sales and flea markets. S. 103, as passed by the
Senate, allows, but does not require, the Attorney General to
promulgate regulations governing the sale of PSE products over
the Internet. Furthermore, S. 103 and H. R. 314 have no
provisions relating to flea markets which routinely sell PSE
products that in many cases have been stolen from retail stores
by organized theft gangs. Flea markets should be prohibited
from selling PSE products unless these transient vendors have
written authorization or appropriate business records from the
manufacturer.
<Bullet> The Combat Meth Act of 2005 allows stores without a pharmacy
department to sell PSE products under very limited
circumstances. Indeed, the exemption process is complicated and
convoluted, involving both state and federal agencies, and very
few exemptions will likely be granted and they probably will
not be granted in a timely fashion. Individuals living in rural
areas that do not have a pharmacy nearby will obviously be
adversely affected by the Combat Meth Act and Schedule V.
<Bullet> The implementation dates for Schedule V, as specified in S. 103, are
unrealistic. For example, single ingredient PSE products would
be placed in Schedule V ninety (90) days after enactment, and
retailers would be required to maintain a log book. It is
unlikely that the Department of Justice (DOJ) would be able to
promulgate necessary regulations in 90 days to advise retailers
on how to comply with the law.
solutions to the meth problem methamphetamine epidemic elimination act
As I stated at the beginning of my testimony, the supermarket
industry supports a comprehensive solution to the methamphetamine
problem. This is reflected in FMI's recent endorsement of the
Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act (H. R. 3889) introduced by
Representatives Mark Souder (R-IN), James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and
Howard Coble (R-NC), along with more than 45 co-sponsors. Unlike the
narrow focus of the Combat Meth Act, H. R. 3889 seeks to address the
methamphetamine problem in a comprehensive manner. This bill is multi-
pronged, with provisions that would establish domestic and
international controls over precursor chemicals, while providing for
more severe penalties for methamphetamine production, possession and
trafficking.
In expressing our support for H. R. 3889 and a comprehensive
approach for combating methamphetamine availability and abuse here in
the United States, FMI members support the following:
<Bullet> We support the elimination of the so-called ``blister pack
exemption'', and our industry also supports reasonable sales
restrictions on PSE cough and cold products. In testimony to
the House Judiciary Committee, FMI recommended a 6 gram limit
per transaction.
<Bullet> We support the adoption of strong federal pre-emption language
governing the sale of PSE products in order to facilitate
retailer compliance. Federal legislation should include
language prohibiting local communities from implementing
restrictions that are different from sales restrictions that
have been established by a state.
<Bullet> Our industry supports limiting consumer access to PSE products by
placing these medications behind a counter that is not
accessible to consumers, such as a service counter where
cigarettes are kept. Current Georgia state law requires PSE
products be kept behind a counter or in a locked display case.
FMI and its members do not support a Schedule V designation for
PSE products.
<Bullet> FMI members support a federal exemption for pediatric products so
they can remain on store shelves. All indications are that meth
cooks do not use pediatrics to make methamphetamine.
<Bullet> We support a ban on Internet sales of precursor chemicals, as well as
strict limits on mail order sales of PSE products.
<Bullet> Our industry supports strict quotas and import restrictions on bulk
chemicals of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine.
<Bullet> We support a ban on the sale of PSE products and infant formula by
flea markets, unless they have written authorization from the
manufacturer or other appropriate business records. Flea
markets are notorious for being major conduits for stolen
merchandise in these two product categories.
<Bullet> We support stronger penalties and fines, and tough enforcement,
including ``no bail'' for individuals involved in the
manufacturing, possession or sale of meth.
<Bullet> We support making federal funds available to the states to help
clean-up the aftermath of hazardous materials found at meth
labs.
Chairman Deal, Chairman Gillmor, and Subcommittee Members, this
concludes my statement. On behalf of FMI and its supermarket members,
we very much appreciate the opportunity to present our views today on
solutions to the meth problem.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you very much. And let me start with a
couple of questions. I will direct the first one to the
National Association of Counties and also the Sheriffs'
Association. Do you support designating pseudoephedrine as a
Schedule V drug under the Controlled Substances Act?
Mr. Coleman. Yes, we do.
Mr. Kamatchus. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gillmor. The designation, I think in some cases, could
lead to undesired consequences. In 18 States, the designation
would mandate that the patients receive a prescription before
they could obtain what is typically an over-the-counter
medication. And there are other unintended consequences. I
guess the question is what policy objection or objectives would
you seek to achieve by Schedule V designation and if those
objectives could be achieved without a Schedule V designation,
would you support that. Yeah, I am the Chairman.
Mr. Kamatchus. Okay.
Mr. Gillmor. The Chairman of both.
Mr. Kamatchus. I think right now the reason we support the
Schedule V is because of its restriction and obviously it takes
it of the street. Pseudoephedrine is the primary additive in
making methamphetamine in the local labs. And as law
enforcement officers and having seen the result, that is why we
support it. It is the most strict as possible. I would mention
it, yes that if in fact we could have as strict of a
restriction on it along with a verification process that is
necessary to ensure that the companies, if you will--the
stores, if you will, are in fact doing that, and also a penalty
process so that the individual who is selling it from behind
the counter has to face the penalty, if you will, for sneaking
them out and selling them.
Mr. Gillmor. Um-hum.
Mr. Kamatchus. And then that would be something we would
look at. But right now we don't see anything that has exacted
that. So that said, with what we see before us, we are in
support of the Schedule V.
Mr. Gillmor. Okay. Thank you, Sheriff. Did you want to jump
in----
Mr. Coleman. Yes. We----
Mr. Gillmor. --Commissioner?
Mr. Coleman. We support that on the basis of seeing the
success that we have had already in Oklahoma and Iowa. And we
believe that the policy is in its strength in itself.
Mr. Gillmor. Okay. Now if we may go to Mr. Heerens, Food
Marketing. Do your member companies, even those without
pharmacies, have experience in restricting sales of certain
products?
Mr. Heerens. Yes. I can speak on behalf of my company.
Mr. Gillmor. Um-hum.
Mr. Heerens. In Indiana this year, we adopted a restrictive
meth law that went into effect in July 1 of this year, so it
has been in effect for about 3\1/2\ months. It is not a
Schedule V law. It allows all retailers--it maintains a level
playing field for everybody, but allows all retailers to put
the product behind, say, the front service desk in the
supermarket, and that is not accessible to consumers, or in a
locked case on the sales floor. We have done that. We moved--we
did carry 213 products with ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. We
could not move all of those behind the front service desk.
There is just not room. So we cut that down to 40, the top 40,
and we stopped carrying 173 products. Since that law went into
effect, and the Governor's Office just announced this in
Indiana a few weeks ago, we have already seen in the first 3
months a 41 percent reduction in meth lab seizures. So I think
you can achieve substantial results. And that number continues
to increase. I am convinced by the end of the year we will be
above 50 percent. So you can achieve a significant reduction of
meth labs with all the--without all the inconveniences and
hardships that it causes to consumers and to retailers. We are
in the business to take care of customers' needs. It is very
difficult for us to say sorry, we can't carry the product. You
can go down the street to a competitor and buy it. That is
simply not acceptable. And so we think that the Indiana law is
working well and it is not Schedule V. And we would hope that
something like that could be crafted at the Federal level.
Mr. Gillmor. Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Knapp, in your
statement you suggested that OTC products should be put behind
pharmacy counters. Could you explain why you support
restricting sales to behind the pharmacy counters? And do you
believe that consumers need the professional training of
pharmacists to properly take those medications that are now
over-the-counter?
Mr. Knapp. Mr. Chairman, maybe if I could address the
second part of your question first.
Mr. Gillmor. Sure.
Mr. Knapp. It is not our point of view that in fact
pharmacists or pharmacists technicians need to provide a lot of
counseling or education to consumers, particularly around
pseudoephedrine. It has been an OTC product widely available in
cold and allergy products for almost 30 years at this point in
time. And so we believe consumers are quite capable of
selecting the product on their own. The reasons we believe that
it makes most sense to move all pseudoephedrine based products
behind the counter at this point are really twofold. No. 1, and
as some of the other witnesses have correctly pointed out,
legislation that has restricted access to pseudoephedrine
products has made a significant difference in terms of
accessibility and in terms of the number of illegal labs. And
the second is the availability of other alternatives. We
believe we have played a leadership position in introducing
Sudafed PE, which is a phenylephedrine based decongestant. It
cannot be converted into methamphetamine. And that provides
consumers with an alternative in front of the counter. And so
we think we can strike the right balance between maintaining
access to important medication and still make a major
contribution to the fight against methamphetamine.
Mr. Gillmor. Okay. Thank you. And Mrs. Wagner, representing
the chain drug stores, in States that limit the sale of over-
the-counter cold products to pharmacies, does the pharmacist
routinely provide any clinical diagnosis or apply any
professional expertise to dispensing the product or are they
simply acting as a gatekeeper to the product?
Ms. Wagner. I would imagine that occasionally they provide
some clinical advice, if the customer asks a question or
whatever. But on a routine basis, I would say no. They are just
restricting the product. And that is why we on the Senate Bill
have advocated they not call it Schedule V for that reason. If
the policy is to restrict access to the product, that is one
thing. But to call it a controlled substance--you mentioned
earlier about the unintended consequences. There are many. By
calling it a Schedule V controlled substance, we have now
record keeping requirements. We have storage requirements,
distribution center requirements, thefts and loss reports. I
mean, it is unbelievable the number of requirements on a retail
store if it is a controlled substance. So if the purpose is to
restrict access, that is one thing. But I don't think it is
necessary to call it a Schedule V.
Mr. Gillmor. Okay. Is there technology currently available
that makes it feasible for all drug stores to be interconnected
to ensure that individuals are not purchasing over a set
monthly limit?
Ms. Wagner. There is currently not a system like that.
However, we would envision that would be the solution that we
would be looking for to be effective. If there is going to be a
sales limit, and especially if it is over a period of time, in
order to have law enforcement there has to be a mechanism for
the seller to be able to know how much of the product the
customer has bought, not only in their store but in other
stores as well. So you know, we have two members who have on
their own developed an electronic tracking system within their
stores in a couple of different States. That is working quite
well. And they get a message back and the point of sale that
the person has already exceeded their limit. So we see that as
certainly a solution.
Mr. Gillmor. Okay. Are you sure it is better to restrict
sales based on monthly per customer limits or based on the per
transaction limit?
Ms. Wagner. Well, it depends on what, again, what the
policy is you are trying to achieve. Certainly a transaction
limit would be far easier to implement in a retail store. In
fact, many of our members have been doing that voluntarily for
years, not necessarily at 3.6 grams, but at 9 grams or 6 grams
or something like that. So that is fairly easy to implement. On
the other hand, we advocate for a standardized solution. And so
many of the States now have a limit of so many grams in so many
days. Therefore, we would like to see a consistent approach on
a Federal solution.
Mr. Gillmor. Okay. This is a joint hearing of the Health
Subcommittee and the Environment and Hazardous Materials
Subcommittee. Most of those questions have been going out of
the Health Subcommittee's side. So in fairness, we are going to
throw you a couple out of the Environment and Hazardous
Materials side. And in that respect, Commissioner Coleman, what
do you consider the average amount of money necessary to clean
up, for criminal prosecution, and then to fully remediate a
meth site? And are those costs increasing or decreasing?
Mr. Coleman. We have heard that it takes $3,000 to $4,000
to clean up a former meth lab. If you multiply it by the number
of meth labs that have been crashed or taken at this--at the
rate that we are doing now in Oakland County as well as in
Iowa, that can run into quite a few millions of dollars.
Mr. Gillmor. Okay. Thank you. And Sheriff, one method of
cleanup at a meth lab is to have the local or the State
government notify DEA, who then in turn takes responsibility
for the cleanup of the site. Who has jurisdiction over the
environmental determinations and the cleanup? And do you
coordinate with DEA concerning these sites to ensure that
proper cleanup standards are met?
Mr. Kamatchus. In the State of Iowa, we have DEA funded
cleanup teams that work for us statewide. They respond--they
come in with their kits and their outfits and their--and
everything and they secure the lab. It is our understanding
that it also runs, because it is a negotiated cleanup cost,
around $2,000 a lab. As far as the standards go, if in fact
there are precursor chemicals onsite or indications of
precursor chemicals or any apparatus with any residual left in
them, we call those teams. Now the big problem for a local
standpoint is that it is great to have that disposal paid for
by DEA, but we end up putting the manpower out there waiting.
Those teams have to come from a long distance. It ties up
manpower in a small agency like myself where I only have 19
sworn officers total. We sit on them. And then ultimately that
cost comes back to the taxpayer.
I am going to be up front with you on some things. It takes
my officers, my taskforce, our full county taskforce off of the
real problem, as you have heard mentioned here before. The
majority of the meth still comes through that Southwest
corridor. No doubt about that. But the amount of man-hours that
we put on these little labs takes good investigative staff away
from the main problem. It ties them up. So the cost is even
more than just dollars and cents. It is what we feel is an
unnecessary shift in that cost. I might add my county lost its
HIDTA funding. We had been--received notoriety, actually, in
the mid-90's about the amount of meth going through our area by
some national publications. Well, that secured HIDTA funding
for us. But what was happening was our direct taskforce was
spending so much time concentrating on these little labs that
we began losing touch with that big group that is out there.
Along the line I began telling my staff--I said if there is no
sign of residual effect, no residue left, then I said we need
to determine whether or not we are going to consider that a
cleanup project. Now does that meet EPA standards? I don't
know. We--probably I shouldn't even be saying that before you,
but that is the reality of it all. Maybe EPA needs to look at
also what it can do to help us have a better understanding of
what we should and what we shouldn't clean up. Because it is
expensive and it is a big detriment to the counties out there.
Mr. Gillmor. Okay. Thank you. That concludes my questions.
I would like to ask the members of the panel that may have
members who want to submit any questions in writing if you
would be willing to respond to those.
Mr. Kamatchus. By all means.
Mr. Gillmor. And I thank you. If you don't mind, before I
adjourn, we are going to wait just a couple minutes. We have
been informed that Mr. Walden may have a couple questions and
is on his way down. Now I don't know if that means he is on his
way down from the second floor or from Oregon. If he is coming
from the second floor, we will wait a couple minutes. Mr.
Walden has arrived--his highly anticipated arrival. Everything
in place? I do have one question before we go to the gentleman
from Oregon. I represent a rural area, as do a number of
members. If legislation--restricting sales only to pharmacies,
do you believe that could have an impact on patients' access to
cold and allergy medicines? Any thoughts?
Mr. Heerens. That is one of the issues we discussed in
Indiana quite extensively when we adopted our meth law. And the
answer to that is yes. We have parts of our State where there
just aren't pharmacies. But there is a little grocery store in
the county seat. We have got a situation in downtown
Indianapolis where people come in for conventions and there is
no pharmacies down there except those that are found in a
couple of grocery stores. So access is an issue. And I think in
some rural parts--Indiana is a farming community for the most
part--farming State for the most part. There are some
communities where people may have to drive 15 miles if we adopt
a Schedule V approach.
Mr. Gillmor. Um-hum.
Mr. Heerens. And again, that seems to be overly restrictive
considering the success we are having in our State with a non-
Schedule V law.
Mr. Gillmor. Okay. Thank you. The gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
your indulgence and courtesy in allowing me not only to sit in
on the hearing to the extent I have been able to today, which
isn't much, but also to participate. And I want to thank our
witnesses, too. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I represent one of
the most rural districts in the Congress, two-thirds of the
State of Oregon, 72,000 square miles. But our State has moved
ahead with I think the Nation's most aggressive attempt to try
and deal with methamphetamine. By July of next year I think
they require prescriptions for all pseudoephedrine/ephedrine
products. And it was not without controversy and consternation
at the State level, but by overwhelming--Republicans and
Democrats alike and the Governor all said we have to go down
this path. We have to try something. What we are doing now
isn't working. And I--what we are going to see is a model. That
is one of the best things about States. We are going to find
out just how that process works. But I can tell you in my
district, I think we have got 40 percent of the labs and 20
percent of the population. Having a county of 70,000, in
Umatilla County out in Eastern Oregon, where they did--so far
this year busted more meth labs than in Winoma County, which is
Portland County, 10 times that size. We have an enormous drug
trafficking operation war coming up out of Mexico and
California from the superlabs. Congressman Souder, came out and
held a hearing for me on Friday in Pennelton. And we went
through with law enforcement, with DEA, with others about the
challenges we face. Today in the news, there is a story on the
financial times that talks about the methamphetamine problem as
it relates to oil rigs. And I don't know if you have had a
chance to see that, but I would certainly provide a copy for
you and submit it for the record. But there are oil platforms
now, they are finding, where entire crews have been fired for
making methamphetamine. Entire crews. They are actually now
having great difficulty finding enough workers to operate some
of these crews. Somewhere in here I think it said up to a third
in some areas are--they are finding when they test are on
methamphetamine. So it leads me to a couple of questions.
First of all, for our--Mr. Knapp, I believe, from Pfizer.
Can you talk to me about the alternatives that your company has
been trying to develop as a substitute for pseudoephedrine/
ephedrine products?
Mr. Knapp. Yes. Thank you, sir, for that question. I would
direct the comments probably to two efforts we have made to do
that. We actually commenced a program in 1999 to develop a
technological solution for it. It basically would be a chemical
solution that would have prevented pseudoephedrine from being
extracted and converted into meth, and we called that Lock II.
That was the internal name we had for it. Unfortunately, after
a number of formulations and significant expenditure by our
company--we put in an excess of $10 million over the 3 to 4
year time period, trying to develop this technology. In
consultation with the DEA, what we found was that of all the
methods, particularly the red phosphorus methods----
Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
Mr. Knapp. [continuing] and the new solvents, that they
could break that technology.
Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
Mr. Knapp. And really, it was disappointing to us. But it
was at that point in time we started investigating a second
alternative, which was phenylephedrine. And----
Mr. Walden. PE?
Mr. Knapp. PE. Correct. And we made that determination to
move to that in March/April of last year. We feel it went
pretty expeditiously and in fact launched that product in
January of this year, in single ingredient. We are working very
hard right now to reformulate our entire product line. We
believe in excess of 80 percent of our products that used to
contain pseudoephedrine will be reformulated to PE by mid-year
next year, representing well over 75 percent of our sales. So
we feel we are making great progress. And I think from an
industry perspective, we have certainly brought the other
players along with us. A number of players have followed very
quickly. And we feel that this is the right way to go.
Mr. Walden. And I appreciate your investment and your
willingness to pursue an alternative. Because my limited
understanding of this is that without ephedrine or
pseudoephedrine, you can't make methamphetamine. That is the
one precursor--there are other recipes. You can use other
ingredients. But you have to have that one. Now I want to thank
our representatives from the National Association of Counties.
Commissioner Coleman, thank you for being here. And I want to
thank NACo for taking the lead on this issue. The survey that
you all did was tremendously important. And Bill Hansel is a
constituent of mine that is now President of NACo and actually
was at our hearing on Friday. So thanks for the work that you
are doing.
Sheriff, I have a question for you. My sheriffs tell me
that 80 to 85 percent of the property crime we are seeing, 100
percent of every case of parental rights termination in my
State of Oregon are related to methamphetamine. Both of those.
Are you seeing that among your sheriffs nationwide?
Mr. Kamatchus. We are finding out that over 80 percent of
the property crimes--actually, over 80 percent of the
individuals in our jails in Iowa have some sort of fringe, if
nothing else, involved with methamphetamine, whether it is
domestic violence, whether it is theft----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Kamatchus. [continuing] or of course, whether it is the
drug use itself. As far as domestic violence and a lot of the
involvement of family disputes, the things that you mentioned,
I am not sure exactly what the numbers of that, but I have
heard over 90 percent also in that area.
Mr. Walden. And I think--I did seven summits around my
district in February and March. We had panels, much like what
we have had here today. And every time I held one of those and
went to the next one I didn't think it could get any worse or I
could hear anything more troubling. And then you would hear
something else. I mean, we had high school kids testify at one
where they referred--they said the girls at their school
referred to methamphetamine as the Jenny Crank diet and would
take it for weight loss. Unfortunately, part of the weight they
lose is their brain because we also had the CAT scans that show
the erosion/corrosion of the brain that never comes back. And
that is what I think has led Oregon to take the initiative we
have taken, as inconvenient as it could well be and as costly,
I think, for some of the supermarket or, you know, various
convenience stores.
The final question I have--I realize I have about exhausted
my time and hospitality here. But I appreciate both, Mr.
Chairman. The other question I have, my concern is coming out
of this hearing Friday we had out in Oregon, that if we take
the pseudoephedrine/ephedrine off the market, that two things
are likely to occur--well, three things. We will see a drop in
labs. And indeed, just putting it behind the counters we are
seeing a 56 percent drop in labs in Oregon since the
legislature took that--or the Board of Pharmacy took that step.
This is before it goes prescription.
The second event is a concern that the purchasing of these
same products will go to the Internet and you just but it off
the Internet, which I have legislation to try and deal with.
The third issue is that it will incent a higher quality crystal
meth from superlabs. And I wonder from our panels' perspective
if that is something you are concerned about or have seen or if
you have any information on that.
Mr. Kamatchus. You know, if I could just address that real
briefly. In the 90's before all the small labs came up, we were
dealing then with the Southwest corridor labs, the Mexican
meth, if you will. And we had a pretty good grip on it. I know
that four of the drug cartels in Mexico that we knew of that
were actually pipelining it into Iowa and then into the
Midwest, two of those four labs we hit extremely hard and
knocked down. And our seizures went down with that. And
frankly, it is because of that that we began seeing that these
small labs popped up where the addicts were needing to find
something for their addiction. And they went online and they
found out how to make the Nazi method crank and the--and what
we see today has grown out of it. I made a comment earlier that
one of the biggest problems with these small labs is that they
take an enormous amount of investigative time and manpower to
sit on.
Mr. Walden. Yeah.
Mr. Kamatchus. So therefore----
Mr. Walden. Yeah.
Mr. Kamatchus. [continuing] our efforts just aren't
adequate to concentrate on those superlabs. So what we are
hoping here and what we are seeing in Iowa, as a matter of
fact, since we have seen our big 78 percent reduction is now we
are starting to work together and we are concentrating on the
big labs more. And hopefully that will have an effect, too, in
the long run. Again, like we saw before. But now they won't
have anything to fall back on if we can attack those big labs,
those big drug movers.
Mr. Walden. Anyone else have a comment? Finally, the--I
know I said finally the last time, but keep doing that, you
know, they think you are done and you are really never done.
Talk to me about the importance of Byrne Grants, COP Grants,
HIDTA. I hear from my law enforcement people those are
essential in their ability. And the other element is this
notion that they have got to sit on these labs until a cleanup
agent can get there to deal with them. And I wonder if anybody
has any success at alternatives to that.
Mr. Coleman. Well Congressman, they fund our prime
taskforce. And without this funding, it becomes an undue burden
on the taxpayers because we have to clean up the work. We have
to stop the growth of these labs. And we have to make these
arrests. In making these arrests, it causes overcrowding of our
jails. It causes an early release of prisoners of less
offenses. At the same time, it is putting an undue burden on
our sheriff departments and our manpower, which causes us--in
the State of Michigan, where we do have financial problems, it
increases the burden that we have in trying to face and to
balance our budgets. So without this money, where do we go?
There is a limit to what we can do. And we need the Federal
help necessary to combat this problem.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Mr. Kamatchus. If I might just address that also,
Congressman. In our taskforce in Iowa, we get about $200,000 to
fund it. And without that, the taskforce falls. It is done
with. As a matter of fact, there has been studies that have
shown as many as 38 States in this country would have a
definite effect on--a devastating effect, because they are
overwhelming funded by that Byrne/JAG money. We see a push
toward high intensity drug trafficking areas in that process.
And it is a good process, by the way. But in Rural America, the
small agencies out there in particular, the majority of their
drug funding--and this is where these small labs are and exist,
comes from the Byrne/JAG system. And to see the cuts is going
to have a devastating effect on us. Most States are like Iowa.
We have a ceiling that is preset--the amount of taxes that we
can go after. We are at the top of that. So we began saying
where are we going to cut services in order to pay for the drug
fighting.
Mr. Walden. Yeah.
Mr. Kamatchus. So it is devastating, sir.
Mr. Walden. Okay. All right. Finally, what is the most
important thing we can do here to help in this process?
Forget--we will assume more money is on the--I mean, you have
already--that is always an answer. But structural
legislatively, to attack this problem that is eating up our
communities--we won't even talk about treatment, which is a
whole other issue and I am very supportive of, but from your
perspectives, what is the most important step Congress can take
to try and get this methamphetamine crisis back to a more--we
won't get rid of it. It is like any other bad thing out there.
But how do we get it back toward the bottle and the cork closer
to putting it on top?
Mr. Knapp. I think, sir, if I could at least address
Pfizer's point of view on that, I--the one thing I think is
most important is that Congress pass legislation that puts all
types of pseudoephedrine containing products behind a secure
counter, whether that be a pharmacy counter or a secure counter
somewhere else in other stores to address the rural issue. But
we fundamentally believe that is probably the most important
thing that could occur here.
Ms. Wagner. And if I may, I am with the National
Association----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Ms. Wagner. [continuing] of Chain Drug Stores.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Ms. Wagner. We agree that we think the one thing that
probably should be done is to pass a Federal comprehensive
standardized approach to solving this problem. We all agree it
may only attack 20 percent of the methamphetamine problem in
our country. But nevertheless, if we can eliminate that part of
it and devote resources then to the bigger problem----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Ms. Wagner. So we feel passing a Federal bill that would
give a standardized approach on it would be the one thing you
could do.
Mr. Walden. Okay. Sheriff?
Mr. Kamatchus. I have actually have been coming here now
for about 10, 12 years and dealing with methamphetamine--to
Washington. And over the period of time in my 18-plus years as
a sheriff, I have heard fellow politicians, I will say, because
I am elected also, statesmen. Thank you. Coin the phrase ``War
on Drugs''. I know many people who beat the drum in the 90's
saying they were going to fight the war on drugs. Then we need
to fight it like a war. And we need to do something. And we
need to take action and we don't need to beat the drum forever.
We need to take action and move forward. So I think taking a
direction, working with the professionals that you are--that is
the nice thing about having this type of Committee, and then
moving forward in that direction and not looking back. I think
that is the best thing we could ask you to do.
Mr. Walden. All right. Sir?
Mr. Heerens. I would agree with the comments that have been
made. I think obviously getting pseudoephedrine behind the
counter is very important. We have seen significant reductions
in our State since we did that just 3 months ago. I also think
the biggest thing you could do is somehow find a way to shut
down the superlabs and the 80 percent----
Mr. Walden. Yeah.
Mr. Heerens. [continuing] that is coming in from out of the
country.
Mr. Walden. Great. Commissioner?
Mr. Coleman. Yes. What we need is a comprehensive approach
to the problem. We need it at the floor level, not necessarily
at the ceiling level, to address the issues of the precursors,
the child neglect, the abuse, the cleanup, the environmental
dangers. Once it is--for example, once a location is identified
as a meth manufacturing home, it is not just that house that is
contaminated. It is the neighborhood that is contaminated and
all that live in that area. So it is not just a money approach
but we need a comprehensive approach when dealing with this
major problem.
Mr. Walden. All right. I want to thank all of you. And
again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your very generous clock and
the staff for your help on this hearing. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gillmor. Okay. I want to once again express my
appreciation to our witnesses and we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
<all>