<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:27723.wais]
STOPPING THE METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC: LESSONS FROM OREGON'S EXPERIENCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 14, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-144
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
27-723 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250. Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
JON C. PORTER, Nevada BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia Columbia
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ------
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (Independent)
------ ------
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian/Senior Counsel
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman
PATRICK T. McHenry, North Carolina ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DAN BURTON, Indiana BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN L. MICA, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota DIANE E. WATSON, California
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
CHRIS CANNON, Utah C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina Columbia
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Marc Wheat, Staff Director
Nick Coleman, Professional Staff Member
Mark Pfundstein, Professional Staff Member
Malia Holst, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 14, 2005................................. 1
Statement of:
Benson, Rodney, Special Agent in Charge, Seattle Field
Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Chuck Karl,
Oregon HIDTA; and Dave Rodriguez, Northwest HIDTA.......... 11
Benson, Rodney........................................... 11
Karl, Chuck.............................................. 21
Rodriguez, Dave.......................................... 41
Evinger, Tim, sheriff, Klamath County; Karen Ashbeck, mother
and grandmother; John Trumbo, sheriff, Umatilla County;
Rick Jones, Choices Counseling Center; Kathleen Deatherage,
director of public policy, Oregon Partnership, Governor's
Meth Task Force; Tammy Baney, Chair, Deschutes County
Commission on Children and Families; and Shawn Miller,
Oregon Grocery Association................................. 74
Ashbeck, Karen........................................... 116
Baney, Tammy............................................. 135
Deatherage, Kathleen..................................... 128
Evinger, Tim............................................. 74
Jones, Rick.............................................. 124
Miller, Shawn............................................ 139
Trumbo, John............................................. 118
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Baney, Tammy, Chair, Deschutes County Commission on Children
and Families, prepared statement of........................ 137
Benson, Rodney, Special Agent in Charge, Seattle Field
Division, Drug Enforcement Administration, prepared
statement of............................................... 14
Deatherage, Kathleen, director of public policy, Oregon
Partnership, Governor's Meth Task Force, prepared statement
of......................................................... 131
Evinger, Tim, sheriff, Klamath County, prepared statement of. 78
Jones, Rick, Choices Counseling Center, prepared statement of 127
Karl, Chuck, Oregon HIDTA, prepared statement of............. 24
Miller, Shawn, Oregon Grocery Association, prepared statement
of......................................................... 141
Rodriguez, Dave, Northwest HIDTA, prepared statement of...... 43
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, prepared statement of.................... 6
Trumbo, John, sheriff, Umatilla County, prepared statement of 121
STOPPING THE METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC: LESSONS FROM OREGON'S EXPERIENCE
----------
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Pendleton, OR.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m., at
the Pendleton City Council Chambers, 500 S.W. Dorion Avenue,
Pendleton, OR, Hon. Mark E. Souder (chairman of the
subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Souder and Walden.
Staff present: Nick Coleman and Mark Pfundstein,
professional staff members; and Malia Holst, clerk.
Mr. Souder. Before we formally start the hearing, I'm going
to yield to Congressman Walden to make some opening comments.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Chairman Souder. We
appreciate you being here. I want to, first of all, welcome you
and your staff, and let you know that we're sitting in the same
room where on March 4th I hosted nearly a 3-hour
methamphetamine town hall summit with a crowd about this big or
a little larger.
It was our seventh in a series. And it took place on a
Friday night. And we had a big turnout, which I think showed
the level of concern in this region and this community about
the problems of methamphetamine.
I'd certainly like to recognize and thank a number of
dignitaries who are in the audience today, and start with State
representative Bob Jensen who is here. Bob, we welcome you and
the work that you've done back there in the legislature along
with your colleagues to really put Oregon out in the forefront
in the battle on methamphetamine.
I'd like to welcome our Umatilla County commissioners;
Dennis Doherty, Emile Holeman, and Bill Hansell. And, as you
know, Bill is chairman of the National Association of Counties
and has made the fight on methamphetamine his signature issue
as head of this national organization.
I know he's going to be in your State tomorrow as part of
the Indiana Counties Association meeting and will be speaking
there. I believe Congressman Lamoreau--or, excuse me--
Commissioner Lamoreau and Commissioner McClure are both here
from Union County. We welcome them as well.
I think Judge Tallman from Morrow County will be joining us
soon, if he's not arrived already. And, obviously, we have a
lot of local law enforcement officials. I won't go through and
introduce them all, Mr. Chairman, but you met with most of them
in our meeting prior to this one.
And I want to tell you it's this law enforcement
community--and I've said it before private and public--that
really put this issue on my agenda because of the passion they
felt about the problem they faced. And it is from that that's
led all the way to here and the hearing that you're hosting.
I'd also like to welcome representatives from my friend and
colleague Senator Gordon Smith's office, Larry Garthy and Rich
Cricket I believe are both here, along with the U.S. Attorney's
Office, U.S. Attorney Karin Immergut.
And so I'd like to thank our witnesses, I'd like to thank
the city of Pendleton for opening up this room for us. And for
those of you who were here in time to see this DVD--and, Mr.
Chairman, I'll make sure you have a copy of it. It's called
``Messed Up.'' This was produced and funded by a company out of
Klamath Falls called Jeldwin Corp.
And I don't know what you all thought of it, but I thought
it was one of the most powerful messages I've seen on this
issue, and I know that they will make it available to
organizations and individuals.
I also want to thank Ken McGee who I know is here in the
front row. Ken is with the DEA. And I've got to tell you, Mr.
Chairman, he attended all seven of our methamphetamine summits,
and that included one at I think 8 a.m. in Grants Pass and one
here at 7 p.m. So, Kenny, good to see you and thanks for being
here.
Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back to you and welcome you here
to Pendleton, OR.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
The subcommittee will come to order. Good afternoon, and
thank you all for being here. This hearing continues our
subcommittee's work on the growing epidemic of methamphetamine
trafficking and abuse. I'd like to thank my colleague,
Congressman Greg Walden, for inviting me to Pendleton today.
Congressman Walden has been a strong advocate in the House
for a more effective anti-meth strategy, and I am grateful both
for his leadership and for the assistance that he and his staff
provided in setting up this hearing.
With the exceptions of California and Hawaii, the Pacific
Northwest has been dealing with meth longer than any other
region in the country, so I don't have to tell anyone here
about how powerful, dangerous, and destructive a drug it is. In
fact, as the title of this hearing indicates, our purpose is to
learn from you about how your communities have been suffering
from meth and how you have responded. Congress is currently
working on several key pieces of anti-meth legislation, and I
hope the information we gather at this hearing will help us in
that effort.
This is actually the 11th hearing focusing on meth held by
this subcommittee since I became chairman in 2001 and the
seventh field hearing. In places as diverse as Indiana,
Arkansas, Hawaii, Minnesota, and Ohio, I have heard gripping
testimony about how this drug has devastated lives and
families. This is in addition to meetings in Louisiana,
Washington State and others, with local law enforcement like we
had here this morning.
But I have also learned about the many positive ways that
communities have fought back, targeting the meth cooks and
dealers, trying to get addicts into treatment, and working to
educate young people about the risks of meth abuse.
At each hearing we try to get a picture of the state of
meth trafficking and abuse in the local area by asking three
questions. First, where does the meth in the area come from and
how do we reduce the supply?
Second, how do agencies and organizations in the area get
people into treatment, and how do we try to keep young people
from starting meth use in the first place?
And, finally, how is the Federal Government partnering with
State and local agencies to deal with this problem, and how can
that partnership be improved?
The question of meth supply divides into two separate
issues, because this drug comes from two major sources. The
most significant source--in terms of the amount produced--comes
from the so-called super labs, which until recently were mainly
in California, but are now increasingly located in northern
Mexico.
By the end of the 1990's, these superlabs produced over 70
percent of the Nation's supply of meth, and today it is
believed that 90 percent or more comes from Mexican superlabs.
The national trend holds true here in the Pacific Northwest, as
well; for example, it is estimated that 80 to 90 percent of the
meth in Portland is brought in by Mexican drug traffickers.
The second major source of meth comes from small, local
labs that are generally unaffiliated with major trafficking
organizations. These labs, often called clandestine or clan
labs, have proliferated here as they have throughout the
country, often in rural areas. For example, Oregon reported 352
such lab seizures, and Washington State 422. These are high
numbers, although by comparison Indiana reported 587 labs and
Missouri 1,115 labs during the same year.
And, by the way, I want to make a note. Any of you who want
a lab rate on this are fine. Every State is on the report. I
believe that's probably a third of my district, local law
enforcement has taken down more than 587 in the whole State.
But the total amount of meth actually supplied by these
labs is relatively small; however, the environmental damage and
health hazard they create--in the form of toxic chemical
pollution and chemical fires--make them a serious problem for
local communities, particularly the State and local law
enforcement agencies forced to uncover and clean them up.
Children are often found at the meth labs and frequently
suffer from severe health problems as a result of the hazardous
chemicals used.
So how do we reduce the supply? Since meth has no single
source, no single regulation will be able to control it
effectively. To deal with the local meth lab problem, many
States have passed various forms of retail restrictions on meth
precursor chemicals like pseudoephedrine--used in cold
medicines. Some States limit the number of packages a customer
can buy; others have forced cold medicines behind the counter
in pharmacies.
Here in Oregon, the State government has gone so far as to
make pseudoephedrine prescription-only medication. I have some
concerns about whether the law enforcement benefit of these
restrictions is significant enough to justify the burden on
consumers, retailers, and the health care system, but I'm
looking forward to hearing from our witnesses today about that
subject.
However, regardless of which retail sales regulations are
enacted by the State or Federal Government, they will not
reduce the large-scale production of meth in Mexico. That
problem will require either better control of the amount of
pseudoephedrine going into Mexico, which appears to be on the
rise, or better control of drug smuggling on our Southwest
border, or both.
The Federal Government, in particular the Departments of
Justice, State, and Homeland Security, will have to take the
lead if we are to get results.
The next major question is demand reduction--how do we get
meth addicts to stop using? How do we get young people not to
try meth in the first place? I am encouraged by the work of a
number of programs at the State and local level, with
assistance from the Federal Government, including Drug Court
programs--which seek to get meth drug offenders into treatment
programs in lieu of prison time; the Drug-Free Communities
Support Program--which assists community anti-drug coalitions
with drug use prevention; and the President's Access to
Recovery treatment initiative--which seeks to broaden the
number of treatment providers.
But we should not minimize the task ahead; this is one of
the most addictive drugs, and treatment programs nationwide
have not had a very good success rate with meth.
The final question we need to address is how the Federal
Government can best partner with State and local agencies to
deal with meth and its consequences. Perhaps the best example
of this kind of partnership is the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas [HIDTA] program, which brings together
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in
cooperative, anti-drug operations and intelligence sharing.
There are HIDTAs in both Oregon and Washington State, and I
am pleased that the directors of both were able to join us
today. Other programs designed to help State and local
communities include the Byrne grants and COPS; Meth Hot Spots
programs--which help fund anti-meth law enforcement task
forces; the DEA's fund for meth lab cleanup costs; and the Safe
and Drug-Free Schools program, which ideally should help
schools provide anti-meth education.
However, we will never have enough money, at any level of
government, to do everything we might want to do with respect
to meth. That means that Congress and State and local
policymakers need to make some tough choices about which
activities and programs to fund, and at what level.
We also need to strike the appropriate balance between the
needs of law enforcement and consumers, and between supply
reduction and demand reduction.
The House and Senate are currently considering a number of
different bills concerning meth, and I am hopeful that we will
be able to take strong, effective action before the end of the
year. Together with Jim Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee, Majority Leader Roy Blunt, the four co-
chairs of the Congressional Meth Caucus, Congressman Walden,
and over 40 other Members, I recently introduced H.R. 3889, the
Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act, which would authorize
new regulations of precursor chemicals, tougher criminal
penalties for major meth traffickers, and monitoring of the
international market for precursors.
We may be able to get that bill to the House floor for a
vote by next month. But numerous other proposals, including
classifying pseudoephedrine as a ``Schedule V'' narcotic under
Federal law, will have to be considered by Congress as well.
We have an excellent group of witnesses today who will help
us make sense of these complicated issues. On our first panel,
which by tradition of this committee is always the Federal
panel as our first priority as oversight of the Federal
Government, we are joined by Mr. Rodney Benson, Special Agent
in Charge of DEA's Seattle Field Division; and Directors Chuck
Karl of the Oregon HIDTA and Dave Rodriguez of the Northwest
HIDTA.
On our second panel, we are pleased to be joined by Karen
Ashbeck, a mother and grandmother who has spoken out about meth
abuse within her own family; Sheriff John Trumbo of Umatilla
County and Sheriff Tim Evinger of Klamath County; Rick Jones of
Choices Counseling Center; Kathleen Deatherage, Director of
Public Policy for the Oregon Partnership--Governor's Meth Task
Force; Tammy Baney--is that right?--Chair of the Deschutes
County Commission on Children and Families; and Shawn Miller of
the Oregon Grocery Association.
We thank each and every one of you for taking the time to
join us today and look forward to your testimony.
I yield to Congressman Walden.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.003
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank
you for being here. I also want to recognize the mayor of
Pendleton, Phil Houk, who is in the back of the room, or was,
and we appreciate his participation in this as well.
I'm looking forward today to hearing from our witnesses, so
I'll keep my remarks brief. But one of the things that I think
where we've achieved some success is getting the HIDTA
designation for Umatilla County. And just last week, it's my
understanding HIDTA has freed up the first $100,000 for
distribution, so I look forward, Mr. Karl, to hearing your
comments about what that really means on the ground for the law
enforcement community.
There are a number of issues from the Drug Enforcement
Administration. I met with a group in my office in Washington
last week to talk about some of these, but I'd be curious to
hear what you have to say about the drug trafficking issues, as
well as hopefully we can get back to getting some additional
help in this part of the region.
For a while there was a DEA agent that was assigned to help
in this area. I worked with Asa Hutchinson when he was at DEA,
trying to get that done, and I continue to hear the request for
that help. And so I continue to convey that at every level.
But I also want to hear, too, about the proposal, if you
know, the pilot program in Kentucky dealing with the cleanup
efforts in rural areas, the Container Program. I'd be curious
to hear what Oregon has to say about that as well. Because,
again, one of the issues I hear about in the rural areas is the
high cost of the cleanup. Not the cleanup itself necessarily,
but having to assign officers to watch over one of these sites
until the cleanup crew can arrive.
And I guess Kentucky has experimented with some Container
Programs that can--my understanding is cost per lab cleanup
there is down to $290, where nationwide it's $1.940. I know
there are some other issues associated with that, but we
welcome your comments on that.
And, finally, Mr. Chairman, I've been after my own
committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, to also do some
oversight hearings on the jurisdiction we have on environmental
issues and health issues. And I'm pleased to announce that
Chairman Barton has agreed to begin that process I understand
maybe as early as next week we'll begin to have some hearings
on the jurisdiction we have in Energy and Commerce on this
issue.
Clearly, we're all in this together, whether in the
Congress, in the city council, or grandparent or parent. This
is a problem that is tearing apart the fabric of our community,
our State, and our country. It has international implications
and it has local implications. And we're here today to hear how
best we can resolve the problems we face and take what we learn
here back to Washington and hopefully be a better partner.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for coming out
and enjoy the great Northwest and holding this hearing. Thank
you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
First, I'd like to do a couple of procedural matters. I'd
ask that all Members present submit their statements and
questions into the hearing record. Any written answers to
questions provided by them will also be included in the record
without objection. So ordered.
I'd request that all Members present be permitted to
participate in the hearing without objection. So ordered.
Let me just briefly explain what this committee is and how
we proceed here. First off, what's been unusual about much of
what we've been doing is it's very bipartisan. My ranking
member, Elijah Cummings, has been aligned with this. It is not
the easiest thing in various parts of Congress to be able to
get clearances to be able to do what I just read there.
Basically what that means is that in this particular case,
Mr. Cummings isn't here today, but he's letting the hearing go
ahead because we don't have a partisan position on this issue.
We also allow Members from the region or the individuals to
participate in our subcommittee, which is not always true in
other committees. And so while that sounded technical, it was
critical and it shows the bipartisan nature of what we're
doing.
The second thing is, to briefly explain, in the
congressional process, an authorizing committee like the
committee that Mr. Walden was just referring to on Energy and
Commerce, would pass legislation out of Congress that sets
parameters on how the law works. The appropriations committee
then can fund inside the limits in the policies that are set by
the authorizing committee.
The Government Reform Committee then has jurisdiction to
review those policies to see if they're being implemented by
the executive branch in the way that Congress intended.
Actually, the oversight committee preceded the authorizing
committee. It used to just be oversight and appropriations, and
the authorizers came in later.
And we have a wide scope, probably the best, while our
committee did lapse on the oversight over the last
administration's adventures, probably the best thing we're
known for right now is Mark McGwire basically said he didn't
want to talk about the past.
You'll see each of the witnesses has to be sworn in, as an
oversight committee, and Rafael Palmeiro is learning what it
means to violate that oath. And the only question was, was he
on steroids while he testified or not. If he was, he's going to
go to jail for perjury. So we don't take it lightly.
We also, as an oversight committee, have a right to
subpoena any records, e-mails, phone calls, as we did in the
travel office questions, as we did in other things with the
administration.
Now, what's a little unusual about this subcommittee is
we're also an authorizing subcommittee on ONDCP. So Nick
Coleman, the counsel of this subcommittee, has already met most
of the HIDTAs around the country as we drafted the bill that
passed through the committee and is pending coming to the House
floor, mostly held up right now with the steroids fight, who
has jurisdiction over the steroids legislation, but defines the
parameters of what the HIDTAs do, how many HIDTAs we're going
to need, how much money goes into the HIDTAs, as well as the
National Ad Campaign and other things.
So we're both an authorizing and oversight committee. But I
wanted to give you that idea of what this committee is and how
it differs from a lot of the other committees that you see.
We usually do our hearings in Washington, but in my
subcommittee, we've been trying to get out in the field more
because we can hear a little more diversity and it costs a lot
less than everybody coming to Washington.
Now, our first panel is composed, as I said, of Rodney
Benson, Special Agent in charge of the Seattle Field Division
of DEA; Chuck Karl, Director of the Oregon High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area; and Dave Rodriguez, Director of the Northwest
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area.
I mentioned that we have to swear you all in, so if you'll
each stand and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that each responded in the
affirmative.
We have a little light here that basically is 5 minutes;
theoretically, the yellow comes on at 4. In a field hearing
we're a little more generous with that, but that enables us to
have time for questioning that will also be inserted in the
record. And I look forward to your testimony. Mr. Benson.
STATEMENTS OF RODNEY BENSON, SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, SEATTLE
FIELD DIVISION, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; CHUCK KARL,
OREGON HIDTA; AND DAVE RODRIGUEZ, NORTHWEST HIDTA
STATEMENT OF RODNEY BENSON
Mr. Benson. Chairman Souder, Congressman Walden, thank you
very much. My name is Rodney Benson. I'm the Special Agent in
charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration's Seattle Field
Division which encompasses the States of Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, and Alaska.
On behalf of DEA's Administrator, Karen Tandy, I appreciate
your invitation today regarding DEA's efforts in the Pacific
Northwest to combat methamphetamine.
Unlike some regions of the country, for the Pacific
Northwest methamphetamine is not a new phenomenon. Law
enforcement in the Pacific Northwest for well over 20 years has
been dealing firsthand with the devastating effects of this
drug, which has spread eastward and is now impacting
communities across the Nation.
In the Pacific Northwest and across the Nation, we have
initiated and led successful enforcement efforts focusing on
methamphetamine and its precursor chemicals, and have worked
jointly with our Federal, State, and local law enforcement
partners to combat this drug.
Methamphetamines found in the United States originates from
two general sources controlled by two distinct groups. Most of
the methamphetamines found in the United States is produced by
Mexico-based and California-based Mexican traffickers whose
organizations control superlabs and produce the majority of
methamphetamine available throughout the country. Current data
suggests that roughly two-thirds of the methamphetamine
consumed in the United States comes from larger labs
increasingly in Mexico.
The second source for methamphetamines in this country
comes from small toxic labs which produce relatively small
amounts of methamphetamine and are not generally affiliated
with major trafficking organizations. A precise breakdown is
not available, but it is estimated that these labs are
responsible for approximately one-third of the methamphetamine
consumed in this country.
Methamphetamine is very significant, it is a very
significant illicit drug threat that faces the Seattle field
Division. Demand, availability, and abuse of methamphetamine
remain high in all areas of the Pacific Northwest. The market
for methamphetamine both in powder and crystal form in Oregon
and Washington is dominated by Mexican drug trafficking
organizations.
Small toxic labs producing anywhere from a few grams to
several ounces of methamphetamine operate within each State.
These labs present unique problems to law enforcement and
communities of all facets. The DEA both nationally and in the
Seattle Field Division focuses its overall enforcement
operations on the large regional, national, and international
drug trafficking organizations responsible for the majority of
the illicit drug supply in the United States.
The Seattle Field Division's enforcement efforts are led by
DEA special agents and task force officers from the State and
local agencies who, along with our diversion investigators and
intelligence research specialists, work to combat drug threats
facing Oregon and Washington.
During the last 4 years, the efforts of our offices in
Oregon and Washington have resulted in approximately 1,600
methamphetamine-related arrests, many of which occurred as part
of investigations conducted under the Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Force Program and the Priority Target
Organizations Investigations Program.
The DEA feels that training is vital to all officers
involved in these hazardous situations, and since 1998, our
office of training has provided training to over 9,300 officers
from across the country. Within the Seattle Field Division,
since fiscal year 2002 the DEA's office of training has
provided clandestine laboratory training to more than 320
officers from Oregon and Washington.
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.
The DEA's Hazardous Waste Program, with the assistance of
grants from State and local law enforcement, supports and funds
the cleanup of the majority of laboratories seized in the
United States.
In fiscal year 2004, the cost of administering these
cleanups was approximately $17.8 million. Through our Hazardous
Waste Program, since fiscal year 2002 the DEA has administered
nearly 1,400 laboratory cleanups in Oregon and Washington at a
cost of over $2.9 million.
The DEA is keenly aware that we must continue our fight
against methamphetamine. Nationally and within the Seattle
Field Division we continue to fight methamphetamine on multiple
fronts. Our enforcement efforts are focused against
methamphetamine trafficking organizations and those who provide
the precursors necessary to manufacture this drug. We are also
providing vital training and lab cleanups to our State and
local partners as they combat methamphetamine.
Law enforcement has experienced some success in this fight,
though much work needs to be done. Thank you for your
recognition of this important issue and the opportunity to
testify here today.
I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank
you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Benson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.010
Mr. Souder. Mr. Karl.
STATEMENT OF CHUCK KARL
Mr. Karl. Chairman Souder, distinguished members of the
council, Congressman Walden, I'd like to begin my testimony by
expressing my sincere appreciation for the opportunity to
address you today and for your efforts to seek out the nature
of the methamphetamine threat and epidemic in the Northwest and
the rest of our country and seek solutions to that.
Oregon, as has been testified, has had an escalating meth
problem for many years. So what's new? The methamphetamine
threat in Oregon and the rest of the Nation is clearly a threat
to our children, families, natural environment, government
services, business communities, and neighborhood livability.
In the last 2 years, from my perspective, with the HIDTA
programing and through HIDTA intelligence working with task
forces, the available methamphetamine in Oregon has changed
from predominantly the powder form of methamphetamine to the
smokeable and nearly pure crystal form of methamphetamine. In
my opinion, the crystal form of methamphetamine is the single
most addictive and damaging drug to come along in my law
enforcement experience.
Its initial use is said to provide an intense and
unforgettable pleasure which can cause an immediate addiction.
This can also immediately cause----
Mr. Souder. Could you hold for a second? Is there a way to
adjust the mic?
Mr. Walden. Maybe put that back away from you just a little
bit.
Mr. Karl. With a very little amount of methamphetamine
abuse, numerous wards of the community are created and may
continue to be wards of the community for a lifetime. These
include drug-affected babies and children, abused and neglected
children, learning disabled children, family, friends, the
crippled addicts themselves, not to mention the often innocent
victims of their drug related crimes.
A recent study conducted in Marion County by the District
Attorney's Office during August of this year found that five
meth affected babies were born in 1 week. That's almost one a
day. A treatment provider advised me this week that 90 percent
of women in treatment in Oregon are involved with meth. In Lane
County, State and child welfare programs hit a lamentable
milestone, more than 1,000 children living in foster homes.
Workers and job applicants in Oregon are failing drug tests
this year at a 30 percent higher rate than last year. In my
opinion, Oregon and the Nation are looking into the face of
another call to action to secure our homeland from those who
will harm us personally, socially, and economically by
poisoning us with a tasty piece of crystal candy called
methamphetamine. These predators are no less than narco-
terrorists.
Concerning Oregon's solutions, the single most effective
solution in Oregon today responsible for stopping the
escalating of meth labs being discovered by law enforcement has
been the recent State regulations and legislation intended to
control the primary precursor chemical ingredient of ephedrine
and pseudoephedrine.
The Oregon Department of Justice HIDTA Intelligence Center
has seen a 60 percent reduction in reported meth labs during
2005, as compared to the period of 2004. And by the way, in
Umatilla County, there was one meth lab for every 800 residents
in 2004. And that's probably underreported.
Please refer to my written testimony for some other
solutions already implemented in Oregon. I'd like to spend the
remaining time addressing some remarks toward other potential
solutions that relate to how the Federal Government can assist
State and local communities.
First and foremost--and I know you're aware of this--
illegal immigration enforcement and border access still needs
to be addressed at the Federal level. This is by far the
greatest threat to homeland security and safety from drug
terrorism, as well as traditional terrorism.
The response to this issue involves numerous components
such as personal identification controls and requirements for
obtaining work permits, credit cards, Social Security cards,
and driver's licenses across the country.
Identity theft is a major crime in Oregon and a regional
task force has been established. Currently, a case being
currently prosecuted in Washington County, OR, is one of the
largest fraudulent schemes for obtaining driver's licenses in
the United States.
Over 70,000 fraudulent Oregon driver's licenses were
issued. People were flying in from other States to obtain a
fraudulent Oregon driver's license for identification. The
potential threat and impact of this case as it relates to
traditional terrorism and drug trafficking is clear.
Additionally, the investigation and enforcement of
immigration violations is not coordinated and standardized
across the country. In Oregon, this represents a huge
communication and cooperation barrier between Federal, State,
and local law enforcement agencies working to ensure homeland
security and conduct drug investigations.
For example, State and local law enforcement officers in
Oregon cannot inquire about or investigate the immigration
status of anyone due to current State law. Further, they cannot
take enforcement action against an illegal immigrant based
solely on their status, nor can they use any State and local
resources to assist any Federal agency with immigration due to
the State law.
My final remarks are meant to bring some perspective to our
Nation's drug problem as it relates to the issue of homeland
security. The threats from the drug problems facing our country
are as great as those facing our country from traditional
terrorism. Be assured I do not wish to diminish the threat from
September 11th-type terrorism and the pain it has caused our
country.
However, I do wish to state that this country has suffered
far more pain and loss of life and human potential, as well as
the damage to our economy and infrastructure, from the gorilla
drug terrorism being waged quietly and not so quietly in our
cities and neighborhoods by these drug predators.
SAMHSA data, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, in just 34 metro areas of various sizes in 2002
reported 10,087 people died from drug-related deaths, not
including alcohol, leading drug treatment professionals to
liken it to cancer on a planet.
And I thank you for the opportunity and would be happy to
answer questions about the HIDTA program.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Karl follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.027
Mr. Souder. Mr. Rodriguez, good to see you again.
Mr. Rodriguez. You as well, Chairman.
STATEMENT OF DAVE RODRIGUEZ
Mr. Rodriguez. Chairman Souder, Congressman Walden, members
of the community, my name is Dave Rodriguez, and I've been the
HIDTA director since 1997. I want to thank the committee for
giving me the opportunity to testify today.
Mr. Walden. Can you hear him in the back? Yours might need
to be moved closer.
Mr. Rodriguez. The Northwest HIDTA fosters partnerships
between law enforcement agencies. At last count, we had the
participation of 392 task force officers and support staff
representing 96 law enforcement agencies Statewide. We
emphasize information sharing, case support, deconfliction
practices, and training.
As indicated in the 2005 HIDTA Threat Assessment,
methamphetamine abuse, availability, and production continues
to pose a significant threat to Washington State. The data from
the National Drug Intelligence Center indicates that 91.1
percent of the State and local law enforcement agencies in
Washington described methamphetamine as the greatest drug
threat in the area.
The number of reported meth labs in Washington began to
decrease in 2002, when the State ranked third nationally with
1,445 lab-related seizures as reported by the El Paso
Intelligence Center. Washington then dropped to sixth in the
Nation in 2003 with 928 seizures, and again ranked sixth in
2004 with 935.
Production creates and introduces toxic and hazardous waste
in the environment that endangers law enforcement personnel and
emergency response teams, as well as adults and children
visiting or residing in or near the homes of methamphetamine
producers.
The dangers associated with meth production are not limited
to chemical toxicities. Oftentimes individuals addicted to this
drug are extremely violent. On March 17, 2005, DEA task force
agents and officers of Yakima, WA, working in a HIDTA-supported
investigation, conducted an undercover operation to buy 1 pound
of methamphetamine ice from a male and female suspected of
being drug traffickers.
During the course of the arrest, agency task force officers
were fired upon and were involved in a high speed pursuit of
the subject. The male subject jumped out of the vehicle in
front of a convenience store where he had taken a female
hostage and held her at gunpoint for about 2 hours before he
surrendered.
Pseudoephedrine and ephedrine are the most commonly
diverted precursor chemicals used in illicit drug production in
Washington State. An increasingly popular method of acquiring
precursor chemicals in Washington is through Internet sales.
Although moving pseudoephedrine from Canada to the United
States has decreased, increasing quantities of ephedrine are
being smuggled across the U.S.-Canada border.
Data reported from the western sector in Washington of the
U.S.-Canada border indicates that 1,462 pounds of ephedrine has
been seized in calendar year 2005, representing a 48 percent
increase from calendar year 2004. There has been no
pseudoephedrine seizures reported in calendar year 2004 or
2005.
In spite of reports of a declining number of meth labs in
Washington State, the level of methamphetamine abuse remains
high. Data from the Treatment Episode Data Set indicates a
significant increase in amphetamine-related treatment
admissions in 2004--9,356--, ending the previous downward trend
from a peak in 2001--8,260.
High purity, low-cost methamphetamine is readily available
throughout the State. The National Drug Survey shows that 98
percent of State and local law enforcement agencies in
Washington described meth availability as high or moderate in
their jurisdictions. The availability and demand for crystal
methamphetamine is also increasing throughout the State.
Most of meth available in Washington is produced in large-
scale superlabs primarily located in Mexico and California. The
Federal-wide Drug Seizure System data indicates that Washington
ranked sixth in the Nation, based on weight, for Federal
seizures of methamphetamine in calendar year 2004, down from
fourth in calendar year 2003.
Although the use of meth itself is a crime, there are
several other crimes that have been increasing because of the
prolific use of the drug. There is a strong correlation within
areas with high levels of meth abuse with increased levels of
identity theft, auto theft, burglary, assaults, and domestic
violence.
As the meth threat from clan labs has declined, the
transportation of meth from other States has increased. On
February 13, 2005, 24 suspects were arrested for conspiracy and
possession with intent to distribute meth and cocaine
throughout the Northwest.
This was the result of a 2\1/2\ year multi-agency
cooperative investigation of a significant drug trafficking
organization involved in bringing large quantities of meth and
cocaine from Mexico through the Tri-Cities to the greater
Spokane area, and then distributing these drugs to customers
throughout the Northwest, including the States of Idaho and
Montana.
Agents and officers obtained 10 Federal search warrants for
residences in Spokane and Franklin County of Tri-Cities, as
well as Kootenai County in Idaho. During the investigation and
execution of search warrants and other enforcement operations,
agents and officers seized 10 pounds of methamphetamine, 8
pounds of cocaine, one semi-automatic handgun, 10 vehicles, and
approximately $60,000 in currency.
Also, agents and officers were able to establish a direct
link between this criminal organization and the drug
traffickers operating out of Mexico.
In 2004, the Northwest HIDTA provided over 53,000 pieces of
print and electronic meth education material, as well as
provided information with the HIDTA Web site M-Files, which
received over 2,000,000 hits and 80,000 visitors.
To conclude, I would like to thank you for the opportunity
to testify today regarding the methamphetamine epidemic, and at
this time if you have any questions, I'd be pleased to answer
them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.041
Mr. Souder. Lots of questions. First, I just need to--we
may provide a most likely series of some written questions
because there's no way to try and get all these.
I want to ask some basic factual questions. You've all
provided great specific data which is really helpful. Because
as we went into this hearing process a couple years ago, the
data was not as specific and often we'd just have kind of
general national information. And this is real interesting.
Audience member. We can't hear.
Mr. Souder. When did Washington State----
Audience member. Can't hear.
Mr. Souder. When did Washington State pass a precursor
chemical--is it behind the counter? Is it a ``Schedule V''.
Mr. Rodriguez. The latest rendition of the Washington State
law limits the access of pseudoephedrine. It is behind the
counter or is locked up. It also has an age requirement of 18
years or older. It also maintains a law where you have to show
ID, and you're limited to two packs of pseudoephedrine in a 2-
hour period.
Mr. Souder. When did that law take affect.
Mr. Rodriguez. Took effect in July.
Mr. Souder. So bottom line is there were already 3 years of
decline in Washington prior to the law.
Mr. Rodriguez. Yes, but we had already subjected
pseudoephedrine to other controls not as strict as these, but
there were regulations passed including increasing penalties on
meth cooks, as well as penalties for drugs endangering children
from the meth labs.
Mr. Souder. Part of the difficulty of looking at what's
having what impact, I was trying to sort out, based on the
data, because Washington still has a lot of labs. When did Meth
Watch get implemented?
Mr. Rodriguez. Meth Watch is approximately 3 years in our
State. It started in Spokane and it spread from there. It's in
approximately 29 of 39 counties.
Mr. Souder. And when did the initial--in other words, when
you hit your peak in 2001 and 2002, Meth Watch was the first
reaction with increased law enforcement also prior to that.
Mr. Rodriguez. Meth Watch was implemented around that same
period, but I would suspect that the results of our State drop
had to do with our State summit and the fact that we formed
meth action teams in each of our counties. Each of our counties
has an interdisciplinary meth action team of law enforcement,
prosecutors, treatment prevention, education professionals. And
that's when we started getting our hands around the meth
issues.
Mr. Souder. Because you had a 33 percent decline in the
number of meth labs, even though it's still high, and that's
before any control law, which is interesting because what we're
finding is this is a pretty typical pattern, that any action
has an impact. And it's one of the methods, and often it's
implied that it's the only method.
In Oregon, it looked like the data was up and down a little
bit more. Mr. Karl, why do you----
Mr. Karl. Well, I think our Meth Watch program started
about 3 years ago and kind of got really implemented about 2
years ago Statewide. And we did have from 2001 a slow decline
in the number of reported meth labs. I attribute that primarily
to the economic downturn in the lack of law enforcement
resources.
There were over 100 State police officers laid off, and
there just wasn't the number of police officers, even in small
jurisdictions, that were able to investigate or respond to
leads about meth labs and underreporting because of that. Only
in November of last year did precursor controls in the form of
putting pseudoephedrine behind the counter, mandated by--that
was November of last year--they put it behind the counter by
the Medical Board in Oregon, and since then we've seen a huge
drop.
Now, the State legislature enacted a bill that will take
effect in 2006 that will make it actually a prescription
requirement here to obtain pseudoephedrine products. And so we,
like I said, have seen a 60 percent drop during the same period
in the number of reported labs.
Counties like Umatilla that are on State borders, and even
Portland which is on the State border, although in Eastern
Oregon there's several borders that they state where
pseudoephedrine controls are not as strict as in Washington or
Oregon, and so there's still some, a lot of pseudoephedrine
being brought in from other States and there's some being
smuggled in as well from Canada and Mexico.
But primarily what I see in Oregon is the shift, and I
talked to a treatment provider this week who said we haven't
seen a reduction in the demand of treatment because of the
pseudo control laws because the addiction caused from it is
still being fed, but now it's being fed by this crystal meth
coming in from Mexico, and coming in in large quantities.
One pound in Portland can be bought at any time for $9,000,
which is about 1,800 individual uses and a profit of over
$20,000, so----
Mr. Souder. Mr. Benson and Mr. Rodriguez, we talked a
second about the Canadian border. I understood Mr. Rodriguez's
statement where you have HIDTA teams and a very aggressive
watch on hydroponic marijuana and swapping for cocaine and guns
and heroin at that border.
In Detroit, the DEA's sting took down looked like 40
percent of the entire pseudoephedrine market in the United
States at that time. It's interesting, because I believe Mr.
Rodriguez's testimony says there was a drop in the
pseudoephedrine, but moving to ephedrine, which you believe is
moving to California.
You had in your written testimony, Mr. Benson, an example
of where you took down a superlab in Salem. Are you convinced--
could you explain a little bit what you mean by the difference
between pseudoephedrine and ephedrine? Why couldn't ephedrine
also be broken in and become a source of supply to the mom and
pop and what we would call the slightly larger than mom and pop
operations? Is that likely to be a variation response to it
going behind the counter?
Mr. Benson. Mr. Chairman, they very well could bring in
ephedrine into those smaller labs as well. What we saw at that
superlab outside of Salem was obviously members of a Mexican
criminal organization where they chose to just really deploy
some of their workers up, and they felt that they were
comfortable in that particular location and created a massive
lab that was taken down.
But we have seen an increase just over the last--it's not a
lot of seizures. It was three seizures that totaled a little
over 500 kilograms of ephedrine that have come across from
Canada this year.
Mr. Souder. Do you have any comments on that, Mr.
Rodriguez, on how you think this--do you think the ephedrine
will get into what used to be the mom and pop labs, as far as
Canada? And let me ask you another question, both of those, and
Mr. Karl as well, both of you, I know in my district, which
isn't on the Canada border, but there's a huge business in
seniors' prescriptions.
The question is, when is this going to move to the mom and
pop lab just to go on the Internet and get it shipped in, which
will be much harder to find than the Meth Watch programs going
through pharmacies and grocery stores. Have you seen any of
that?
Do we have any monitoring efforts to see whether it's
coming in, any friendly working relationships with UPS and Fed-
Ex, trying to figure out what's happening here? Hydroponic
marijuana plants are being shipped across. We track that to
some degree.
Mr. Benson. Mr. Chairman, we do track with our Canadian
colleagues and we have a close working relationship with the
RCMP on looking at ephedrine moving through Canada. And we have
seen, you know, this year an increase mainly in three seizures
coming in.
And it's clearly--our intelligence indicated it was going
down into California to be manufactured in the superlab
operations.
Mr. Souder. Anything on the Internet.
Mr. Benson. We have seen a couple of examples of
pseudoephedrine being sold on the Internet here in this State.
Mr. Souder. Let me make this comment to you. Most things
people think they are buying from Canada are actually fronts
coming up from Mexico. For seniors who think they're buying
Canadian drugs, those are often fronts--and we're learning this
increasingly--because Canada doesn't have, whatever drug it is,
the amount that's coming into the United States right now.
Often those are based, you can see when you go to the
Mexican border, drug stores all along the lines that are
shipping in as pharmacies. So just because it's coming in
theoretically from Canada on the Internet doesn't even mean
it's coming from Canada.
But I'm wondering whether, in the HIDTAs, have you looked
at this or heard stories on the street? Clearly there's going
to be a reaction to move to crystal meth, and some of it will
be try to find alternative sources for--
Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Chairman, as far as the Internet, there
is anecdotal information that we have. I talked to one of the
officers-in-charge of the Pierce County Special Investigation
Unit.
Pierce County is the county in Washington where we have the
most meth labs. There were over 500 reported in just that one
county. It's always led Washington State, and at one time it
was No. 3 in the West Coast behind San Bernardino and Riverside
Counties.
The officer-in-charge told me that when they raided this
one lab in the county, after they had entered the lab, secured
the suspects, that there was a delivery of pseudoephedrine
through UPS that had arrived at the residence. And the
pseudoephedrine, they found out, was ordered over the Internet.
It came out of India.
And it was contained in--there were 10 jars in the box.
Each jar had about I believe it was 500 tablets of 30 or 60
milligrams of pseudoephedrine. And he had been ordering
numerous amounts of this pseudoephedrine over the Internet, not
only from India but also from New Zealand.
And so that, I can report that's one of the issues that we
have, as well.
Mr. Souder. I mean, this is really troubling, because it
means it will be harder than if we monitored it wholesale going
into local--because one of your big sting operations you have
written in here, too, and you all refer to is working with the
wholesalers and taking down some of the wholesalers because you
can see where it went to a retail pharmacy or grocery store
because they all have to buy from the wholesale.
So we have methods of tracking that. What we don't have is
methods of tracking it over the Internet coming from India.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Chairman, I actually have legislation that
will help deal with that. Congressman Jim Davis, a Democrat out
of Florida and I put in last session and have it in this
session that deals with this whole issue of Internet drug sales
by requiring a standard which the National Boards of Pharmacy
have agreed to and you would label the site.
Now, you say you could counterfeit the site, but we link
back to the control mechanism being the credit card companies,
that they can't process a transaction on the Internet that
isn't from a certified site. Then you would know that the drugs
you were purchasing on the Internet were as safe and secure as
the drugs you purchase down the street at your local pharmacy.
As you can imagine, the credit card companies don't like
any piece of this because they don't want to be in that part of
the business. But if you can't track the money, I don't know
any way to track the Internet sales. And you're absolutely
right, this thing is going to get ahead of us in that respect.
Mr. Karl, I want to followup on some of your testimony
involving Oregon and the issuance of 70,000 Oregon driver's
licenses that were issued fraudulently.
Mr. Karl. That's conservative. It's up toward the top end,
toward 80,000 is what I understand. I do not have access to the
exact details, but I know it's currently in prosecution by the
Oregon Department of Justice in Washington County, and that's
phenomenal.
Mr. Walden. And was it, just on the legal side, wasn't
Oregon one of the States that had no requirement to prove
citizenship to get a driver's license.
Mr. Karl. At the time, I believe that is correct. The
process that was followed was a citizen of the United States, a
Hispanic citizen of the United States, was running a business
to provide false identification to the Department of Motor
Vehicles in order for people to prove that they were a resident
and could get a valid Oregon driver's license.
That process has been tightened up, obviously, as a result
of this case, but it's a--I bring it up as an example of how a
lot of the identification processes need to be tightened
nationwide.
Mr. Walden. Well, as you know, we passed the Real ID Act to
do precisely that, or at least to try to drive it federally,
which you kind of hate to do as a States' rights guy. But at
some point we have a disintegration problem, this national ID
problem.
And we know from the 9/11 Commission report some of the
highjackers had gotten driver's licenses from I believe
Virginia and some other State that they were getting ID cards
that they were using to board the plane that they used to drive
into the Pentagon, as well as the Twin Towers. So hopefully we
can tighten up, as we have on the Federal level, the ID
process.
I'd like to know more, now that Umatilla County has been
declared a HIDTA, what you're seeing and what's flowing this
way and what can be expected on the ground here and how it will
affect the whole region out here.
Mr. Karl. Well, clearly, Mexican drug trafficking
organizations are operating, have been operating for several
years in Umatilla County, in Eastern Oregon, and most rural
parts of Eastern Oregon. As recently as last month, over 20,000
plants in six separate groves were taken off that was run by a
drug trafficking organization.
The response--and some of these are in Umatilla County and
neighboring counties. The response, thanks to HIDTA funding
basically, is not to just cut the plants and arrest whoever
might be there at the time, but to conduct a thorough
investigation before those plants are cut, when it's first
discovered, and subsequently.
And so currently we have an OCDETF case going that impacts
the whole region where law enforcement agencies that are
participating, like the Blue Mountain Narcotics Enforcement
Team and other narcotics investigators in Eastern Oregon, are
participating with the DEA and the other agencies involved in
the OCDETF to do an investigation that will result in
dismantling of these drug trafficking organizations.
So the HIDTA funding brings resources to target the
organizations to disrupt the supply that provides resources to
do that.
Mr. Walden. OK. Mr. Benson, I want to followup on the
question I posed in my opening remarks about the continued
requests I get from this area for more, greater DEA presence on
the ground here.
What's the likelihood of that potentiality?
Mr. Benson. Right now, how we respond to the region is
through--there are a couple different ways. One is through our
Portland office, which is obviously a distance away. And then
we have our office in Tri-Cities. We have two agents that have
been deployed there since around 1995, 1996, or so. That's how
we've responded.
Clearly, there's a continuing threat here and there needs
to be more response. One thing that we've done nationwide is
we've begun deploying our mobile enforcement teams to focus on
methamphetamine. We just did that in Idaho. That is deploy
based on the request from a sheriff or police chief in a
particular area. I would encourage that for here.
It's a team of nine agents that, based on a request from a
sheriff, an assessment will come in, we'll conduct that, and
then they get deployed anywhere from 90, 120 days, 6 months,
working side by side with our State, local counter- parts to
deal with the specific drug threat in that region.
Mr. Walden. Do you think that 60 or 90-day assignments is
going to do the job here.
Mr. Benson. We would go in looking with the mind-set of
looking at the targets that the local law enforcement
authorities have identified that are the most significant, and
we would attempt to do as much as we could in that timeframe.
Now, when that meth team would leave, again that would pick up
more responsibility on the part of our Tri-Cities office and
our agency report.
Mr. Walden. And you've got, what, two agents in Tri-Cities.
Mr. Benson. That's correct.
Mr. Walden. And then how many do you have this side of the
Cascades, Eastern Oregon.
Mr. Benson. We have offices in Oregon: Portland, Salem,
Eugene, Medford. And then in Washington on the east side, we
have an office in Yakima, Tri-Cities, and Spokane.
Mr. Walden. All right. So nothing east of Bend, then.
Mr. Benson. No, we don't.
Mr. Walden. Does the office you have in Idaho cross back
over on the Ontario side.
Mr. Benson. We have one office in Idaho, and that's in
Boise.
Mr. Walden. OK. Well, I just know it's a continuing issue
here. Consider it popularity, I guess. Everybody wants you.
Well, except the bad guys. But clearly that's an ongoing issue.
I know when, as I said, Asa Hutchinson was head of the DEA, I
talked directly with him about it, and we got some help for a
while.
And I continue to hear that. And I hope as you're
evaluating your resources, you'll take a look at Northeast
Oregon as a place where there's certainly demand for additional
assistance. And I know you're constricted on budgets, too.
Mr. Benson. Yeah. I will give you my word we'll do our best
to help our partners in law enforcement out here.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. Let me do some additional questions here. Mr.
Benson, if you can't answer these today, if you'll respond in
writing--how much assistance in dollars is DEA providing to
State and local law enforcement agencies in Oregon and
Washington in finding and cleaning up meth labs, including
smaller labs?
In other words, one of the things we're trying to sort
through is because our Federal agencies are basically
structured to take down bigger trafficking organizations, it's
clear--and I think it was just yesterday in a memo from
Director Tandy's office that we had requested at an earlier
hearing of what some of the national DEA efforts are, and what
I think that they're learning at the Federal level is because
of market demand in the different regions, DEA has actually
been doing more on the ground with meth than they realized even
at the Washington level.
But do you know off the top of your head what you've spent
on meth labs in this zone?
Mr. Benson. I have a figure here, Mr. Chairman, in Oregon
in 2004, $516,000.
Mr. Souder. And do you have a trend line on that.
Mr. Benson. No, but I can get that for you. And then in
Washington, $44,230.
Mr. Souder. At the end of your written statement, you had a
cumulative figure. If you could break that down for us by year
in the followup.
Mr. Benson. Sure.
Mr. Souder. Also, if you could give us a dollar value of
the meth-related training provided to State and local law
enforcement in Oregon and Washington, so we could have that for
the record.
And to any of you who know the answer to this question, in
addition to the HIDTAs for Oregon and Washington, do you know
how many drug task forces are funded by Byrne grants here? Do
you have any idea? Is DEA a participant in drug task forces as
well as in the HIDTAs?
Mr. Benson. Pretty much every office we have in my
division, Mr. Chairman, is a task force component. So we have
that merger of DEA agents and State local officers. I couldn't
give you the number on Byrne grant task forces.
Mr. Souder. And, generally speaking, around the country do
you know of any case where it isn't a Meth Hot Spots proposal
or, in other words, a drug task force usually has to have some
kind of funding base with which it gets funded.
Could you--we'll ask--individual sheriffs may know here,
too, but could you do a quick check of those different offices
and ask them, in the drug task forces they're participating in,
how many of those came through a COPS, Meth Hot Spots grant and
how many of those came from a Byrne grant? And if they didn't
come from either the Byrne grant or Meth Hot Spots, where did
they get the money?
Because I don't think DEA generally funds the task force
directly. I think you provide the agents to a task force that
is usually funded.
Mr. Benson. Or our task force operations would be funded
from within our agency budget.
Mr. Souder. So some of your agents may be participating in
those kind of task forces.
Mr. Benson. Yes.
Mr. Souder. If you could break that out so we can get a
picture because Byrne grant money is used in multiple different
ways. The COPS grants are used in certain ways. But certain
members have designated their COPS money to be used for meth
hot spots. And in other cases they use COPS money for meth and
it isn't designated a hot spot, but that's how they fund the
task force. And we're trying to figure out, when we do certain
funding shifts, how that works.
How many meth cases in Oregon and Washington State are
funded by OCDETF? Do you know how many currently are being
funded?
Mr. Benson. We have several OCDETF cases ongoing at any
given time. I could get you the exact number. It's probably--
our priority target investigations are usually OCDETF and we're
usually around 50 or so at any given time that are open and
active.
Mr. Souder. Would you off the top of your head, and you
could also then give us the backup info, do you have any idea
of how many of those are meth cases? 10 percent? 30 percent? 50
percent?
Mr. Benson. I would say probably in my division, overall
case-wise, probably 30 or 40 percent are methamphetamine cases.
Mr. Souder. The first time I heard that statistic was at a
closed briefing in Washington just a few weeks ago. And that
fits what we heard from national DEA. But what I'm trying to
get a handle on here is that if 30 to 40 percent of the meth
use--the OCDETF cases are meth, then where are we getting this
8 percent figure in usage.
In other words, there's some kind of disconnect here that
I'm trying to sort through. Because we're constantly being told
by ONDCP and others that meth is 8 percent. And nowhere,
including the previous hearings and now you today in a formal
hearing, you're saying that this zone has been hit a little
harder, but if 30 to 40 percent of your cases, you know, you've
got this 25 to 50 range, that's a significant percentage of the
organized crime cases.
This isn't mom and pop where they're cooking for three
people, because you wouldn't deal with somebody who's cooking
for three people in an OCDETF case. These would be a higher
level case.
Mr. Benson. Right.
Mr. Souder. One other thing we've been having trouble
getting data on is where we come up with the 70 percent or 30
percent figure or two-thirds, one-third. Is that partly where
this is coming from, that your OCDETF cases are suggesting that
they're so large?
Let me ask you another question before you answer that one.
How many of the cases are kind of major distribution ephedrine
and pseudophedrine, how many of those, roughly, you can break
it out in more detail, I'm just trying to get at is it half, is
it a quarter, is it 10 percent, how many of them are going to
superlabs and how many of these are this medium type lab that
you did in Salem, you know, where you have--it's not a mom and
pop cooking for three people? There it was cooking for a large
number of people, maybe eight houses strung together, something
like that.
Mr. Walden. And before you do all that, can you, for the
audience, define OCDETF? We're using the acronym.
Mr. Benson. Sure. That's the Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Force Program that's managed by the Department
of Justice.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Benson. Mr. Chairman, that laboratory south of Salem
had 80-pound production capability. So it was--I believe it's
the largest lab we've ever seized in this State.
Percentage-wise, most of our OCDETF cases targeting
methamphetamine trafficking organizations are, again, targeting
the major distributors. They're moving multiple pounds of
crystallized methamphetamine. And we trace it, as Mr. Rodriguez
mentioned that one case that was tied to Spokane to Tri-Cities
to Los Angeles to Phoenix all the way down into Mexico.
And our goal on every case is to take out that biggest
piece of the organization as possible. But most of our cases,
to answer your question, are focusing on those larger
methamphetamine traffickers. We do have some that are looking
at those responsible for chemical supply, but the number is
lower. But I could get the exact.
Mr. Karl. I think a key component here is also that these
are polyrung organizations and so likely many of them--and my
knowledge of Oregon's OCDETF cases involve polydrugs. So
organizations taking the B.C. bud from Canada to San Diego and
picking up the cocaine and bringing it back and distributing it
every place along the way, as well as bringing in marijuana
with methamphetamine with pseudoephedrine together so that it--
they're diversified clearly. And so those organizations are the
bigger organizations that are doing that in large quantities.
Mr. Souder. Two more questions, and then we may ask some
followup, see if Congressman Walden has any more. One of the
tricks in this lab reporting is how much of this--it's been a
constant question in law enforcement and drug enforcement in
general. And that is that if you're successful in arresting
people, it looks like drug abuse went up.
And then people say we've been spending all this money and
the problem went up, but it may just be that law enforcement
got aggressive. And then on the other hand, if you cut back
that law enforcement, then it looks like you're making progress
when, in fact, it just means you're not arresting.
One of the questions here is--and the interesting thing
about the Washington State decline is that if there wasn't
any--Oregon becomes more complicated because you threw a
variable in, that there were fewer people to do the arresting,
therefore the decline might not have been a decline.
Is that true in Washington, or do you believe there have
been changes in the numbers? Or do you believe that, in fact,
to some degree, as we increase awareness, we get a bump up in
labs, and then how can we, as policymakers, look at an area?
It's almost like when the area becomes aware, the number of
labs go up. And then we see the turn a couple years later. It's
very hard for us to figure out when you're trying--unlike other
drugs, you can chart this across the country.
And you can see it around national forest areas in Arkansas
and Missouri and other areas, and then it's in the rural areas,
and then it goes into some suburban and eventually it hits
Omaha, Minneapolis, Portland.
The chart you have there for Washington State, it's like
this is happening in every State in the county. Now, it's in
Titusville, PA; Western North Carolina; hopping into some of
upstate New York. Just marching east. Same pattern. It doesn't
just go into the city. It goes out.
And mom and pop superlabs move in, and it's like how many
years of watching this do we have to see the pattern here? But
part of this is trying to figure out early warning signs in
areas that haven't been hit yet, is how do we account for the
numbers, and the awareness leads to more arrests, more people
understanding the smell next to them, watching the impact of
peopling coming into the pharmacies, teachers reporting kids,
exposure.
Mr. Rodriguez. I think it is a paradox. Clearly, there is
going to be a short-term bump up as you increase community
awareness through different means, whether it's prevention,
whether it's education, or whether it's just law enforcement.
So we've seen a bump up.
However, going back to my example with Pierce County, which
again leads Washington State in the number of labs, we probably
have most of our resources in that county. We probably have the
most aggressive type of campaign in that county, and yet we've
been able to drive those numbers down a little bit, but not
much.
And talking to the task force managers is that they have a
very aggressive street program with the community, with the
various partners to make sure that this meth awareness issue is
rampant throughout the community. And they say that's what's
keeping their numbers up, because they keep getting more and
more information from the community regarding meth labs and
meth dump sites, etc.
So would we have the same reaction in other counties if
they were as aggressive? We don't know. We do feel, though, as
far as the national numbers just like you mentioned, they are
being underreported. Because if we look at the numbers from the
Department of Ecology, those numbers are considerably higher
than the EPIC numbers would be.
That's because they count everything, whereas EPIC numbers
you only count those where you have law enforcement present.
But that's due to the reporting.
Mr. Souder. My last question is, one of the unique
challenges we have with this, just let me briefly say, for
example, the EPA, who isn't here today, one of the things that
they aren't used to dealing with is the size of the small lab
type things. They're used to dealing with hazardous waste
sites.
But particularly if you look at where many mom and pop labs
are, they're in rural areas, often around watersheds. And it's
a little like when you go down to Columbia, you fly over, there
were lots of different labs flowing into the Amazon Basin, and
it accumulates on the Amazon, even if no single lab was there.
But that's not the way we're used to looking at EPA
questions. Similar in how DEA, historically, HIDTAs have been
set up. They were looking at the major drug traffickers; take
down the majors, and local law enforcement would get the
smaller mom and pop. Now we have an epidemic that's in the
rural areas where we historically have not structured our
Federal response to deal with that.
We also have local communities that don't have big drug
task forces. Their treatment programs aren't as big. The
prevention programs, they may have gotten $2,500 at the
schools, not $15,000 at the school. May have gotten $6,000.
They can afford part of the payment for one speaker to come in
or a few pencils. It's a different challenge for us.
What do you think we could do at the Federal level that
takes into account the leg of this? I personally believe we're
going to be able to tackle the crystal meth much like we tackle
other types of national things. It means we'll be fairly
ineffective, but we'll work at it hard and get some of the big
guys.
But we really don't have a Federal clearcut strategy of how
to deal with these scattered multiple addicts who maybe go into
the county jail for a brief period and then they come right
back out and startup again.
Do you have any suggestions of what we can do in the HIDTA
program? Should there be a subpart of the HIDTA program that we
designate to underfunded rural areas? How do we do this?
Because clearly the cost is disproportionate to the population.
The cost is disproportionate to the number of users.
We're dealing with a low number of addicts, low number of
users, but it's a huge impact on areas that don't have
resources, much like some urban centers where they don't have
as many cash resources.
Mr. Rodriguez. My suggestion would be to, first of all,
gather good documentation, good data on the rural areas. And
then possibly devise a national program through the HIDTA
program, possibly using a certain amount of funding to do that,
to address that issue. But, again, I think we have to know what
we're looking at before we can decide what we want to do on it.
Mr. Souder. Why do you think that isn't being done?
Mr. Rodriguez. Well, I think it is being done in a sporadic
manner. I don't think it's being done by all reporting entities
in a systemic or uniform manner. And there might be something
that----
Mr. Souder. Have you ever heard of anybody, without
endangering yourselves, have you ever had anybody from
Washington ask you that question, from ONDCP or anybody? Does
there appear to be any kind of national awareness of it?
Mr. Rodriguez. Not from ONDCP.
Mr. Souder. Anybody else?
Mr. Rodriguez. Well, we get, just like you, we get the
concerns from the rural community. And, again, they're saying
they're being stretched, they have limited resources, and they
are petitioning the State to be more proactive.
And we're fortunate in that we have a State agency, the
Washington State Patrol, that is able to re-allocate resources
within the State to meet this. They have, matter of fact, we
have them as a HIDTA initiative. It's called Washington State
Proactive Meth Team. And that's all they do is work on meth-
related issues, whether it's clan lab or whether it's
trafficking issues.
And they'll go as a fly away team to any part of the State
that they need to be at. That's currently in place right now.
And they do address in a certain manner rural areas with that
problem.
Mr. Souder. If members--and you have this kind of now in
your HIDTAs. If rural areas came to you and said, we would like
to get the information on what other rural communities are
doing across the country to try to address this, like the
Kentucky Cleanup Program, like the Montana Prevention Program,
like this program here in Oregon, like the Partnership for a
Drug-Free America, is there a clearinghouse?
Has anybody suggested there's a clearinghouse? Where would
you send people to get any national info?
Mr. Karl. I don't have an answer to that. I know that this
is a serious issue. Because as I stated a moment ago, clearly
the cartels are taking advantage of rural America and are
taking advantage of rural Eastern Oregon. And we know that. I
know that sitting in Salem. We know that in downtown Portland,
where a lot of resources are to investigate those.
Now, with the National Marijuana Initiative, Oregon
received $250,000 to assist in investigating these
organizations operating in rural Oregon. And so we have begun a
process of providing resources to those who are stakeholders in
that investigation.
And we have linked with, through the HIDTA model, Federal,
State, and local together onto that task. That deals with the
upper echelon, the organizational level.
But to respond to your question about the small folks, I
don't know how the locals--and that's the rub, is how do the
locals do both? How do they help participate with the big
investigations, still take care of the neighborhood issues,
livability issues that they have with mom and pop labs, from
the crimes related to drug addiction, and so forth? That's a
difficult one.
It's a resource issue, and resources are short. So the
beauty of the HIDTA structure is that it leverages Federal,
State, and local. For example, in some recent cases, we brought
together most of the Federal agencies and local agencies to do
some major cases in Eastern Oregon. Hundreds of officers.
And that will take care of some things, but it won't take
care of the day to day. Those are the once or twice a year big
cases that come along. So at the lower level, they need more
resources. They clearly need more resources.
Mr. Souder. The DEA has done, I presume, lots of drug lab
training in this zone, as well as they have around the country.
That's one program. But what I find in Indiana is the training
of how to clean it up isn't the big problem. It's having the
labs in which to clean it up and the resources to do that,
which is why DEA has been raising a fuss about the Kentucky
model and trying to find a better way to do this.
I have not understood in the CTAC program--is the CTAC
program run separate at a regional level from the HIDTAs? Do
you have any input into that? Or is that just one of the
separate divisions of the ONDCP?
Mr. Karl. The technology program.
Mr. Souder. Yeah, where local law enforcement can----
Mr. Karl [continuing]. Access technology? Yeah. Eastern
Oregon has taken advantage of that program.
Mr. Souder. Do you determine what products are that they're
eligible for, or is that done out of Washington?
Mr. Karl. No. I can help them access the program. Some have
accessed the program independently of the HIDTA program, and
the HIDTA program has also referred agencies. Because I can't
apply for the agency. The agency has to apply. And some have
gotten very technical equipment.
Mr. Souder. What I've seen in my district is that a lot of
times this is basically everything from listening to goggles to
all this type of thing to better work at organizational.
But I haven't heard of anything, partly because they're a
bigger costly item, but have you ever looked at or is anybody
looking at possibly making the mobile cleanup labs and things
part of the technology that a region could apply for if several
counties went together so it wouldn't be so far away?
Because I know in Indiana, often they're sitting there for
6 hours. And these vehicles cost $250,000. But isn't that one
way we could kind of look at how to help local law enforcement,
and have you heard in CTAC, particularly, looking at things
that could be helping local law enforcement in meth mom and pop
lab cases, as opposed to the traditional way we've provided
equipment?
Mr. Karl. I had a call this last week on the very issue
from another legislator, and it was, what do you think of the
idea of pooling chemicals in a particular place and then have
them picked up, you know, when the supply gets large?
There are a lot of issues involved. And it implies that the
police officers doing the investigation will actually collect
those chemicals, haul them to this site, and that's not going
to happen. I don't know many law enforcement chiefs and
sheriffs that want their officers, who aren't trained, to do
that pickup.
So it falls then back to the fire department. OK. Is the
fire department going to pick that up? They're trained in
HAZMAT and how to deal with them and put them into a pool
resource. That's the way we did it in the old days, and we
found we were in danger of exploding the place because we were
mixing chemicals.
So we then went to a different hazmat response. So a mobile
lab or mobile cleanup lab is still going to be faced with those
issues.
Mr. Souder. That's what they're supposed to be training
them to do.
Mr. Karl. No, but you're still going to have costs related
to the cleanup. And I think you're trying to cut those costs by
designing some mechanism to cut those costs. And so I'm not
sure--I'm more than willing to explore any ways, and I'm sure
the sheriffs and chiefs, they don't want their people tied up
on cleanups. They want them doing the investigations.
But I'm not sure that there's an easy way to cut those
costs because of the hazards involved in dealing with the
chemicals. And there very well may be. And I think you need to
explore those solutions. And there's been a tremendous amount
of training in Oregon by DEA and through the HIDTA program as
well, separately from DEA, on certification of officers for
entry and cleanup.
But still, bottom line, we have to call a contractor who's
going to take possession of those after we've done the initial
evidence gathering and cleanup, and that contractor costs
money. And we used to take it down to the police property room
in the old days, and we had all these chemicals laying around,
and pretty soon somebody said, hey--the fire department comes
in and says, you're condemned.
And so there's got to be some way to cut our costs because,
I agree, they are very high, too high. I'm not sure how to get
there. There are many issues--and that's my point--there are
many issues involved in that solution.
Mr. Walden. I just have a couple of brief questions. I want
to followup on this issue of the contractor. Right now, where
does the contractor come from to do clean up, let's say, in
this county or Union County?
Mr. Benson. Congressman Walden, in my region there are
several contract companies that we have contracts with. There
is a company based out here in this region that has responded
and asked--we have actually six in Oregon, six companies.
Mr. Walden. And so there is one out--when you say ``out
here,'' is that here in Pendleton.
Mr. Benson. I believe it's here in Pendleton.
Mr. Walden. OK. So no longer does the--I'm getting the
shaking of the head from the sheriff, but--can you name that
contractor? Maybe that would--name that contractor?
Mr. Benson. I can get the name of the company.
Mr. Walden. Well, Sheriff, you're going to be up next. This
has been--and I'm sure you're acutely aware of it, an issue
that gets raised with me is the lag time between--my
understanding is there is a Statewide contract, and people had
to come from the Portland area out to cleanup.
Mr. Benson. It's on rotational basis. So they end up
rotating the companies. So there might be one in Pendleton, and
that company, that would be their turn, so they would respond.
Mr. Walden. So like every 6th lab or 10th lab.
Mr. Benson. That's something we're trying to work out with
our contracting folks. The best way would be for the lab seized
in Pendleton, that the company----
Mr. Walden. Maybe we could do that fighting fires, and
every sixth fire in Portland, we could send in the fire engine
from Pendleton. Do you think that would be very effective?
I don't mean to make fun of it, but, you know, when you
represent a district like this, you've got to jump up and down
a little harder because of the distances. And that's why I'm
jumping up and down on the lack of a DEA agent, other than the
Tri-Cities, but my understanding is they don't get across the
river very often.
And everything is up and down the I-5 corridor. And I
understand that's where 80 percent of the population is, but in
this case, I think a lot of the meth problems are out here and
a lot of the delay means costs for agencies that are
understaffed and underbudgeted.
Mr. Benson. I agree there's a significant methamphetamine
problem here. And we will continue to, through Tri-Cities,
Portland, and then I, again, strongly offer that, the
assistance of our mobile enforcement to go into the region, to
help address the problem.
Mr. Walden. All right. Appreciate that. Just one final
question for each of you. What's the one thing that Congressman
Souder and I could do to change Federal law, Federal action,
Federal something, that would be the most helpful in this
fight? What can we do? What would be the most effective thing
we could do?
You can always say more money, and we'll just give that as
a given. But what is the most effective way--what most needs to
be done by the Federal Government to help you do what you all
do so well?
Mr. Benson. Congressman Walden, I think this hearing is
raising the issue of what's happening, the threat that
methamphetamine poses to this country, is a very positive----
Mr. Walden. So public awareness. But statutorily there's
nothing you want to lay on the table.
Mr. Benson. The criminal penalties in the Federal system
are, I believe, fairly significant.
Mr. Walden. OK. Mr. Karl.
Mr. Karl. Well, my sense is that you're aware of the
extreme epidemic that Hawaii has gone through in prior years.
That's hit the West Coast in the last 2 to 3 years, and it's
just starting.
And as you travel around and take testimony and get a sense
of the methamphetamine problem on the East Coast, it's not
there yet. A thousand kids in Lane County in foster homes is a
good indicator. Track those kids, and you will track the spread
of meth.
Its addictive power is extreme and its physical damage to
people is extreme, which creates those wards of the community
that I referred to. And that will destroy our infrastructure as
it moves along. And I'm not sure, Chairman Souder, that we can
show the destructive nature satisfactorily by showing the
pictures to kids of what happens.
Because if they try it, it is extremely pleasurable to
start with, and that addiction is what scares me the most. It
is so much more powerful than even crack. And I saw crack hit
Portland in the 1980's, and we thought that was so addictive.
This makes that look like kids' play.
This is really a damaging thing. And I talked to a
treatment provider this last week who said that one of the
dilemmas that they have is that under the State law regarding
removing children from homes, or Federal law, I believe,
Federal act, Child Protective Act, that if you remove some
child from a home and it's more than 15 months to 22 months,
I'm not exactly certain because I didn't have a chance to read
it, then they become a ward of the State.
And what they--automatically, I guess, if you fail to get
them returned because the parent, the mother or something is in
treatment, they're not able to make those time lines. They are
not able to get some of these meth moms, these families, to a
point where they can take their kids back.
So I was talking to somebody earlier, are we looking at the
old orphanage system? I mean 1,000 kids in one county. Are we
talking now about creating an orphanage for just meth-affected
children? I don't want to see that happening. But I'm telling
you, look at what happened in Hawaii, look at what's happening
along the West Coast.
And it's heading east. And it's not going to stop because
these people are giving it away in Chicago to create an
addiction base.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Rodriguez, is there anything we can do to
help.
Mr. Rodriguez. Yeah, I have two things. No. 1, we need to
have a stronger engagement with both Mexico and Canada on
precursor control. And No. 2, I think we need to do much better
in our education system at the grammar school level on our
prevention message on drugs. I know teachers say they're
overburdened with curriculum as it is, but I think this is so
important that we need to keep stressing it at that level.
Those are the two things that would make a big difference.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. Mr. Karl, just to followup on your
comment about the children in Lane County, I participated in a
court-appointed special advocate fundraiser in the Dalles a
couple weeks ago on a Friday night. And they told me there they
had 110 children who lacked a CASA volunteer to help them. And
the administrator there told me that virtually every one of
those was related to some sort of meth problem.
And that wasn't the total number of kids that have CASA
volunteers, but that was the number that didn't have one. And I
think what you've said is really an eye opener, that it's bad
and it's getting worse. And so I appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Karl. Drug courts are very effective, enhanced
treatment clearly, and any educational component. We've got to
do all of it. But I'm telling you, this is a very dangerous
drug.
Mr. Walden. I want to thank all of you for participating in
the hearing. We really appreciate not only your testimony, but
for this Member of Congress, the work that you're doing in the
field. It is tremendously important and very much appreciated.
Mr. Souder. And I want to share that, too. The agents
working in the HIDTAs, which the good news about all the
pressure that happened during the HIDTA debate is now Members
of Congress know what HIDTAs do and more people understand what
HIDTAs do than ever before. Because it leveraged dollars, and
people didn't understand it was leveraged dollars.
Last week we had our annual U.S.-Canada parliamentary
group, and I co-chair the border subgroup. And it's real
interesting, because methamphetamine has hit western Canada.
And there are legislators in particular, as well as B.C. buzz
dominating the non-Vancouver-city-legislators' minds, they've
had problems with corruption in their system in Vancouver
because of marijuana now being their biggest export product.
But now they're seeing methamphetamine kind of even compete
with that hydroponic marijuana and even over in Toronto,
eastern Canada. So the good thing about working with Canada is
you don't have to worry about the law enforcement shooting at
you like DEAs have a problem sometimes at the south border.
And Vincente Fox has improved things on the south border,
but let's just say the south border and north border are
different law enforcement challenges with the IMET teams and
different things that you have.
And Canada understands, and we had pretty strong language
on trying to tighten the reporting, trying to deal with this.
They're obviously making a lot of money right now in Canadian
pharmacies, and we're trying to make sure those pharmacies stay
legitimate, don't become drug laundering vis-a-vis Mexico. They
had not realized the penetration of Mexican pharmaceutical
companies coming in and claiming to be Canadian. So we're
working on that border.
The south border, I was just shocked to hear you say we
have to control it. I'm kidding. For the record, that was a
joke.
In addition to the methamphetamine legislation that we're
working on over the next few weeks, we are trying to develop a
border control strategy by the end of the year, which will not
control the border, but which will make some steps. There are
some scattered attempts.
The public policy committee has been tasked by the speaker,
and we've been having unity dinners to try to figure out a
solution to a realistic immigration work force strategy with a
border strategy. You cannot control the border when you're, in
effect, bringing in a million workers.
And we have to somehow separate the illegals, illegal
criminals, from people who are violating immigration law, and
work that thing out, or it will not work. And yet that's what
we've learned is our unity dinners have broken up, in not much
unity right now.
But we will have some efforts which should help in some of
these. And then if our bill can get better reporting on the
international--part of the question is how much of this is
going to be DEA, FDA? Who's going to enforce what parts of this
law? How do we do international tracking with the State
Department?
But, clearly, the southwest border remains a thorny
problem. Even if we could start to address the local labs, then
we move into a whole other arena where we've already
established we basically have no control. So we're working at
it. And it will be a tough process.
And I hope we can effect demand reduction as well as supply
reduction. Because if we can't effect demand reduction, it's
just very hard. What I hope is that by putting the pressure on
the supply side, you're working with fewer numbers of people on
the demand side. If we give up on the demand side, we'll never
stop this in treatment. So we have to somehow keep all prongs
of this going.
Thank you again for your testimony. We're going to take, at
maximum, a 3-minute break, but if the next panel could come
forward so we're all ready to go.
[Recess.]
Mr. Souder. The subcommittee will come back to order. I'd
now like to yield to Congressman Walden.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to
introduce a couple of other folks who have joined us or who've
been in the audience and I missed them early on. First of all,
representing U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, Kathleen Gaffey is here.
Kathleen, do you want to stand up in the back, please? Thank
you for joining us today.
We also have State Senator Jason Atkinson, who is also a
Republican candidate for Governor. And Alice Nelson, wife of
Senator Dave Nelson, is here as well. So we appreciate all of
you being here. Thank you for your participation.
Do you want me to introduce the panel?
Mr. Souder. Yeah. If you want to name the panel and who
each person is, and I'll have you each stand and we'll swear
you in.
Mr. Walden. First of all, Karen Ashbeck, who is the mother
and grandmother of recovering methamphetamine addicts and a
lady I spoke to last time I was here in Umatilla County and
offered to tell her story, and we're glad you came to do that.
Sheriff John Trumbo, Umatilla County Sheriff's Office.
Probably nobody has been more effective in influencing me on
this issue than Sheriff Trumbo. Sheriffs have a way of having--
well, anyway.
Also, Sheriff Tim Evinger, Klamath County Sheriff's Office.
And, Mr. Chairman, I meant to tell you this before, but he's
fighting a time line. He flew himself up here, and he's
fighting weather and lightening to get back. So if there's any
way he can go first and be excused----
Mr. Souder. We could do that.
Mr. Walden. He's got across the State to go.
Mr. Souder. Is that where all the water stuff is.
Mr. Walden. That's where we--yeah.
Mr. Souder. I sat next to Congressman Walden on the
Resources Committee, and I used to hear about the water all the
time.
Mr. Walden. Yeah, or lack of water.
Mr. Souder. We don't have that problem in Indiana, so it's
new to me.
Mr. Walden. Rick Jones, Choices Counseling Center. Good to
see you.
Kaleen Deatherage, director of public policy, Oregon
Partnership, and member of the Governor's Meth Task Force.
Tammy Baney, Chair of Deschutes County Commission on
Children and Families.
And Shawn Miller, who represents the Oregon Grocery
Association.
Mr. Chairman, that's your second panel.
Mr. Souder. He did that so I didn't have to say Umatilla
(mispronounced) instead of Umatilla. Please stand and raise
your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that all the witnesses
responded in the affirmative. And we're going to start with
Sheriff Evinger.
STATEMENTS OF TIM EVINGER, SHERIFF, KLAMATH COUNTY; KAREN
ASHBECK, MOTHER AND GRANDMOTHER; JOHN TRUMBO, SHERIFF, UMATILLA
COUNTY; RICK JONES, CHOICES COUNSELING CENTER; KATHLEEN
DEATHERAGE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY, OREGON PARTNERSHIP,
GOVERNOR'S METH TASK FORCE; TAMMY BANEY, CHAIR, DESCHUTES
COUNTY COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES; AND SHAWN MILLER,
OREGON GROCERY ASSOCIATION
STATEMENT OF TIM EVINGER
Mr. Evinger. Thank you, Chairman Souder. Thank you,
Congressman. My name is Tim Evinger. I am the sheriff of
Klamath County, OR. I've been in law enforcement for the past
17 years. I've personally witnessed the increased use of
methamphetamine in Klamath County during that time, and I've
been fortunate enough to be involved in model programs that
have worked well.
Oregon has certainly led the way in the battle against
methamphetamine. With the help of the Federal Government, I
believe that we can actually win this battle, although we'd
have to stay on the main target.
Leaders in Oregon have the misfortune of being on the
forefront of the Nation's methamphetamine epidemic. We now have
many years of failures and successes in an attempt to address
this problem. Methamphetamine is rapidly eroding our society's
values and is threatening future generations as the cycle of
addiction continues. The methamphetamine epidemic has spread
across our Nation and must be addressed as a nationwide
problem.
Unlike other drugs that are produced by growing marijuana,
poppy, or coca, methamphetamine is a completely synthetic drug.
And as a result, we have the power to curtail the supply of
ephedrine, the primary ingredient used to manufacture
methamphetamine.
Significant results could be gained by the Federal
Government enacting legislation, which we've already talked
about earlier today, to deal with the ephedrine production.
Many suggest our government should address the commercial
manufacture and sale of ephedrine, at least as aggressively as
it has with the cultivation of poppy in the Mid-East and the
growing of coca in South America.
Our government should impose sanctions to countries who
refuse to submit to a standardized reporting and production
procedure.
The Federal Government should more strictly control the
sale of products using ephedrine as an ingredient. Oregon's
model has worked quite well, as we have seen a marked decline
in methamphetamine labs since over-the-counter cold medicines
containing ephedrine have been restricted. There are now
substitutes available also for cold medicines that do not
contain ephedrine.
Perhaps medicines containing ephedrine should be listed in
the Controlled Substance Act. Drug manufacturers might be given
incentives to produce cold medicines with other ingredients.
Again, while I come from a law enforcement background, it
has become obvious that, while law enforcement is a critical
component, we cannot adequately address the methamphetamine
epidemic, as it is a social problem as well. Western States
have now had several years to analyze the consequence of this
drug. We have learned valuable lessons.
Oregon has the single highest methamphetamine addiction
documented in the Nation. More than half of Oregon's foster
children placement involves methamphetamine abuse in the home.
Oregon has seen a 17 percent--and we can't forget these victims
of collateral damage--17 percent increase in reports of child
abuse and neglect in 2001 to 2003.
Clearly, a loving family is the best place for our kids,
but when it's clear that the kids are being put in a dangerous
situation because of their parents' meth habit, they need
protection. Research shows that almost 4 out of 10 of the
children who are re-abused or neglected, rather than being put
in safe foster homes, will become violent criminals.
It's important we have an appropriate place to put these
kids. And when no safe foster home is available, how does the
risk of further abuse and neglect, how high does that risk have
to be before I or DHS has to remove a child from a home?
Innocent lives hang in the balance.
Methamphetamine use has spread disproportionately to
suburban and rural areas, and its use is on the rise across the
Nation. This phenomenon has placed a particular burden on rural
law enforcement agencies that cannot afford to address the
issue. In Klamath County alone, drug enforcement officers also
face another danger. They seized 140 firearms in the last
calendar year.
Oregon's medical examiner reported 78 methamphetamine-
related deaths in 2003, a 20 percent increase from the year
prior and a 56 percent increase from 2001. This is truly an
epidemic.
Methamphetamine is an inexpensive drug that is readily
accessible and its effects last as much as 10 times longer than
other drugs. In Klamath County last year, meth-related arrests
outnumbered other drug arrests five to one. According to the
most recent national data, 607,000 people are current users of
methamphetamine, having used the drug within the last 30 days.
Over the past year, 1.3 million people have admitted to
methamphetamine use. Nearly one-half of those supervised in
Klamath County by a probation officer are on supervision for
meth-related crimes.
Organizations must tear down the walls and work together in
order to succeed in this endeavor. The problem has spread so
rapidly from the Western United States across the Nation that,
in my opinion, it has become a national problem.
To summarize what the Federal Government can do to help,
the stable funding to the State for foster care is critical.
The Federal Government certainly should not institute the
proposed funding cap to States for foster care, in the
President's budget.
States regularly see double digit increases in foster care
needs, mostly due to methamphetamine abuse, and they cannot
fund these increases without help from the Federal Government.
Without sufficient funding, our children and future generations
will suffer the effects of this drug.
Local law enforcement across the West have suffered funding
reductions to the point that we can barely respond to some of
the basic calls for service from our citizens that we are
supposed to protect. Dedicated funding, without long-term
obligation from the hiring authority or excessive bureaucratic
red tape, for drug enforcement is a key component to the
problem.
This is an especially troubling component because
methamphetamine addiction has spread through areas that can
least afford to address the problem.
In closing, I'd like to talk about the model that we have
taken on in Klamath County on a local task force level. We have
taken a multi-disciplinary approach, and Klamath County
District Attorney put together a local methamphetamine task
force of which there were six components: Law enforcement,
health, business, treatment, youth, and faith- based.
Law enforcement--we need the help of the Federal Government
to fight the battle. COPS grants, fund grants have been waning,
and as we look at our local funding streams, we can barely keep
our jails open.
State government can make an impact. Narcotics detectives
already report an increase in labs that are being dumped or
abandoned. This is likely due to the cooks not being able to
easily obtain cold medicine for processing, and they don't want
to be caught with the lab equipment if they're not using it.
Now the Federal Government needs to do its part on
eliminating access to precursors entering the country, as well
as tightening our borders against the entry of finished
products.
In health, from the first draft of the report I've seen
from the Methamphetamine Task Force in Klamath County, health
comes to the table suggesting that we take up an aggressive
education campaign; educating communities, especially children
and parents, of the dangers and the signs of meth use.
In the business community--and Jeldwin, that helped produce
the video that Congressman Walden talked about earlier--sat at
a table on the Methamphetamine Task Force and became involved,
not only in the video, but also talking about drug testing
should be more prevalent in our business community. It should
be more cost-effective.
One suggestion that came from the business community is
that businesses are offered a tax credit for drug testing
versus writing it off as an expense. Drug testing both private
and in the public sector needs a thorough legal analysis and
then simple guidelines provided to employers.
In the treatment community, we are fortunate in Klamath
County that treatment, in my opinion, is a valuable partner to
law enforcement. Again, through a consortium approach,
recidivism is significantly reduced. Leveraging Federal dollars
for treatment is imperative, and those funds must be
coordinated to fund the right treatment and not to pit
providers against one another.
Back to our youth. The schools must continue to partner
with law enforcement working on character education, having
school resource officers, and making locker and property
searches expected and commonplace in our schools. That is
effective prevention. It is necessary for us to have early
intervention and share information between disciplines to make
good risk assessments regarding our youth.
And faith-based. Our churches and religious organizations
have to be leading their members to be included in these very
social programs. Mentoring programs are one way for the faith-
based community to be involved. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Evinger follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.078
Mr. Souder. Before letting you go, I want to ask you a
couple of quick questions.
Mr. Evinger. I understand.
Mr. Souder. Do you use Byrne money through your office.
Mr. Evinger. We do not get any Byrne money through our
office. The city police in our jurisdiction area in Klamath
Falls gets about $30,000.
Mr. Souder. Does that go into the community drug task
force?
Mr. Evinger. Very interesting. Prior to my administration,
the city had their own drug team. The State police and the
sheriff's office had their own drug team. We had two separate
drug teams working in the same town. We have now combined
those, and we use those Byrne moneys, is what they are, that
$30,000, and have combined our efforts.
And it's very difficult because we're not able to go after
some of the bigger cases. We're just taking care of the
neighborhood problem. We can only spend $200, $250, generally,
on a buy or walk money.
Mr. Souder. Do you get any COPS grant money?
Mr. Evinger. We do. We're on our last year of COPS grants,
and it was Homeland Security based.
Mr. Souder. That was going to be my next question. The
administration testified to this committee that they had moved
some of the money that was Byrne and COPS money over to
Homeland Security.
If you had your choice, would you rather have it for
Homeland Security, or would you rather have it for narcotics,
or would you like to have the flexibility?
Mr. Evinger. The flexibility is very good, based on what
problems we're facing at the time. And I think, I truly think
that they're interrelated.
Mr. Walden. You might point out for the chairman the issue
with Bly.
Mr. Evinger. The Congressman refers to Bly, OR, which in
1999 was identified as a place where terrorists were setting up
a training camp, and several have been indicted and one already
convicted, and waiting for extradition from London on one of
them now to face charges on setting up that terrorist training
camp in eastern Klamath County.
Mr. Souder. Did you use any of your funds for that, or was
that predominantly then Federal that came in?
Mr. Evinger. We got the Homeland Security money in a 3-year
stepdown that partially funded two deputies. And we have
addressed critical infrastructure and extra patrols with that
money at this time.
Mr. Souder. And do you feel--I mean, this is what we have
to deal with all the time is a tradeoff. And in the Homeland
Security Committee there is a big question, in my district and
elsewhere, as was alluded to in the first panel and as Elijah
Cummings, our ranking member, says, we're always talking about
the cost, quite frankly, we had 20,000 people die in the United
States last year in narcotics, and we've had 60,000, to 80,000
since September 11th.
And yet we have diverted funds to address those
infrastructure needs because of the potential risks of a
catastrophe. Yet a terrorist camp like that, that's really a
little bit different than the way you said you used your
dollars.
And infrastructure in my cities and they're trying to
figure out how to address the power plants, how to do this,
long-term there's no question, we have to work these through.
But these are the day-to-day tradeoffs we're making right now.
And if you had that money, would you have used it on meth, or
would you have used it on infrastructure, if you had that
flexibility?
Mr. Evinger. I believe today I would apply it to the meth
battle. I used to have two representatives on the inter-agency
drug team, of which I had to pull one back to try to remain
whole to meet the hiring requirements that were associated with
the COPS grant to deal with the calls for service, so I'm
supplanting.
Mr. Souder. Thanks. Those are tough questions. I appreciate
you being direct. Anything else you want to add?
Mr. Walden. (Shook head negatively).
Mr. Souder. Good luck on getting back.
Mr. Evinger. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. We now go to Ms. Ashbeck.
STATEMENT OF KAREN ASHBECK
Ms. Ashbeck. Chairman Souder, Congressman Walden, and the
rest of the panel, I'm Karen Ashbeck. And I'm here today to
testify as to how----
Mr. Walden. Can you hear her in the back? I'm not sure that
wireless mic really functions unless you're right on it.
Ms. Ashbeck. Can you hear me now?
Mr. Walden. There you go.
Ms. Ashbeck. My name is Karen Ashbeck, and I'm here today--
I guess I addressed you earlier, so may I do that again.
Chairman Souder, Congressman Walden, and the rest of the
panel, I'm here today to testify as to how the blast of meth
has left a hole in my family. I'm a great grandmother raising
my great grandson. I gained custodial guardianship of him when
he was 16 months old.
His mother--excuse me--my granddaughter, was deep into the
throes of meth, as well as my daughter. Neither were able to
care for him and meet his needs. My granddaughter was arrested
many times, booked and released.
She refers to meth as the beast. It has a hold on her, and
she knew the only way that she could get away from it was to be
locked up. She also knew that with the matrix system, she would
just be booked and released. Eventually she was jailed several
months. Getting locked up was the only way she was able to
escape the hold meth had on her.
She was sent to Ontario, OR, for drug rehabilitation twice.
The first time they kicked her out, as she was not ready to be
serious about her recovery. When she returned, she joined the
work release program.
My grown daughter lost everything she owned; her car, her
furniture, her history, her memorabilia, everything, because of
her addiction to meth. I drove by her on the street 1 day, and
she was pulling a little red wagon behind her with all her
worldly belongings in that wagon. I can tell you, watching her
broke my heart. All I could do is drive by.
Tough love is hard. Separating emotional feelings from
rational reasoning is necessary for emotional survival. Having
a good support system is crucial. Faith, family, and friends
sustained me through the hard times.
My grandson was exposed to alcohol and drugs in vitro and
some environmental exposure after he was born. We don't know
yet what the ramifications of that exposure will be on his
development. So far, aside from his asthma and allergies, my
grandson is on track developmentally for a 5-year old.
My daughter and granddaughter, both clean now, continue to
fight the methamphetamine battle. There are many others who are
fighting this same battle. Where do they go from here? How do
they regain what they have lost? They know how to cook meth,
but do they know how to cook spaghetti? Can they fill out a job
application? Can they re-enter society without the social
skills they need to survive? Do they know where to access
community resources to assist them in their lives? Do we just
write them off and say, ``You made your choice, now stay the
hell out of my life?''
Some in society, including some family and friends, would
say yes. Meth had a domino effect on their family and their
friends.
I asked my granddaughter what she regrets most due to her
addiction to meth. ``I regret that I abandoned my son and lost
the maternal bond that a mother should have with her child.''
What would have made the difference to get you to stop
using? In her case, she answered, ``getting locked up sooner.''
My story is not unique when it comes to how methamphetamine
affects family. There are many stories similar to mine. Most, I
imagine, are too embarrassed or have feelings of guilt to tell
their story. I have some case history. I'll hit a couple of
them. The names are changed.
Brenda, a 22-year-old mother of two who is raising her two
younger brothers. She gained custody of them because her mother
is addicted to meth and cannot care for them. Brenda is
challenged not only with the responsibility of the boys, but
also with the responsibility of finding a job and attending
school. Juggling is not her forte.
Brenda's mother is 42 years old. She looks 80, due to the
drug. Brenda's dream is to have a mother-daughter relationship
some day. She has never known her mother to be clean. Brenda
has never used drugs. What does Brenda's future look like?
Julie is a 23-year-old mother of two boys. She was raped
when she was 12 years old by a family friend and became a
mother at 13 years old. She adopted her sister's two little
girls, as her sister and mother were practicing addicts.
Julie is now caring for her 46-year-old mother since her
mother suffered a stroke due to excessive drug use. She is
fighting for custody of the children in a divorce battle. Julie
does not have a formal education but maintains a fairly good
job. Her sister is now pregnant with another baby. What does
Julie's future look like?
Mary and Frank gained custody of their grandson when he was
2 years old. He walked on all fours and ate out of a bowl on
the floor. His mother was hooked on meth and neglected his
needs because of her need for meth.
He is 4 years old now, and through hours, days, and years
of care, is a much healthier child. He occasionally reverts
back to walking on all fours. What does their future look like?
Becky is a Native American foster mom caring for a 4-month-
old meth baby. She has four children of her own. She hopes to
adopt this child into her family. There's a great need for more
foster homes in the Native American community. What does the
future hold for these babies?
George is a retired Native American grandpa who has his two
young grandchildren, as their mom is running. This has happened
several times. Mom has a difficult time staying clean. What
does the future look like for them?
These are only a few of the stories of how meth has
affected families in our area. I applaud the efforts of our
local, State, and Federal Government for recognizing the
importance of combating the menace of methamphetamine. I have
accessed the help of our local city police sheriff and State
police in waging my own war in fighting this menace.
I thank them now for their support and continued concern
for the families that are affected by meth. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Next, Sheriff Trumbo.
STATEMENT OF JOHN TRUMBO
Mr. Trumbo. With your permission, Chairman Souder, I'll
just hit the high spots of this.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. And we'll put all of your full
statements into record.
Mr. Trumbo. Chairman Souder, Congressman Walden, I'm John
Trumbo, sheriff of Umatilla County, OR. I have 33 years of law
enforcement experience, the last 9 years as sheriff. I am
currently a member of the Governor's Methamphetamine Task Force
and a board member of the Blue Mountain Enforcement Narcotics
Team.
As adults, we recognize things fall into two categories,
needs and wants. Our wants can be tabled until extra time and
money are available. Our human needs, the physical, mental, and
moral necessities of survival cannot wait for available time
and money. This is why we're here today.
Our human needs need to be met now. The use and abuse of
methamphetamine affects more than just the abuser. The indirect
costs to our citizens are even greater than the direct costs.
Abusers must burglarize and steal, including identities, to
support their habits.
When a citizen becomes a victim, law enforcement steps in
to investigate the crime. The case may be solved, however many
times the victims may not get their property returned. In the
case of identity theft, the victim's good credit rating may
suffer.
When the suspect is arrested, they will be lodged in jail.
Normally the defendant will receive a court appointed attorney.
The District Attorney's Office will be required to prosecute
the offender. A trial will be held to determine guilt or
innocence, and if found guilty, the offender is incarcerated in
a State-operated correctional facility for a prescribed period
of time or placed on supervised probation.
Many offenders have families that require State assistance
to cover food, housing, and medical costs. A portion of these
costs associated from the original complaint until such time as
the offender is released from supervised custody must be
covered by the original victim. With this scenario, the victim
becomes an unwilling victim again.
Insurance companies are also indirect victims of meth
abuse. When a claimant suffers a loss, the insurance company
steps in to cover the financial loss. At some point, those
costs are seen as higher insurance rates. The original victim
may become a victim for the third time.
I believe local law enforcement in Oregon needs four things
from the Federal Government: No. 1, restrictive and enforceable
laws for meth production and use. This would include, but not
be limited to, severely restricting the importation of
pseudoephedrine and pseudoephedrine-based products from outside
the United States.
No. 2, financial support in order to carry out our public
safety mission. HIDTA grants are very much appreciated and will
certainly go a long ways toward fighting the war or drugs.
Locally, we also depend heavily on Byrne grant funds. The Byrne
grant fund program must be renewed as well as serious
consideration be given to increasing individual awards.
Additional resources need to be made available for
treatment services so we can break the cycle of addiction. Law
enforcement does not have the resources to continually deal
with the same individuals on the same drug-related issues. In
many instances, even those individuals who no longer are
involved in the illegal drug culture suffer from mental
illnesses brought on by their previous activities.
No. 3, the Drug Enforcement Administration needs to be
taking a more active role in the local war on drugs. Illegal
drug activity has no geographical boundaries, and an occasional
appearance from a DEA agent is not sufficient to successfully
track the larger suppliers of methamphetamine. An active DEA
presence will also allow us to develop cases that will be
prosecuted in Federal court.
The U.S. Attorney's Office in Oregon is aggressively
attacking the meth problem by prosecuting violations of the
Federal law. Their willingness to prosecute violations of
Federal drug law, as well as related crimes, is only tempered
by their inability to do so adequately because of inadequate
financial support.
No. 4, Eastern Oregon needs a minimum of a half- time U.S.
Attorney and preferably a full-time prosecutor. For the most
part, a violation of Federal law has consequences that are much
more severe than Oregon provides. Locally, people in the drug
culture are not naive to our inability to punish violations of
Oregon law as prescribed by State statute.
We need to send a clear and convincing message for those
who continue to proceed with their illegal behaviors; there is
an end to the road, a Federal prison if you violate a Federal
law.
This menace called meth is slowly destroying our quality of
life. The cure is not cheap or painless. The solutions to the
problem will no doubt be unpopular with some citizens who are
not directly affected. We are in a crisis. Our lawmakers in
Washington, DC, must provide leadership and financial
assistance. They must pass laws to directly address the issue.
Officials on all levels must understand that what is
affecting us in the rural areas is the same plight that is
affecting the urban areas of the United States.
As we say in Eastern Oregon, it's time to cowboy up and do
what's right and do what is necessary. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Trumbo follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.081
Mr. Souder. Cowboy up. We haven't had that yet in any of
our hearings.
Mr. Walden. And then let 'r' buck.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Jones.
STATEMENT OF RICK JONES
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Chairman Souder, Congressman Walden.
It's a privilege to be here today. When I was writing this up,
I've never really written testimony for Congress before. So,
you know, I have a one-page rule. So I thought I'd hit the
highlights.
I've been in the substance abuse treatment arena for over
30 years, just close to 30 years in Southern Oregon. I grew up
in Klamath Falls. Spent a decade, actually, using substances
when Tim was a law enforcement officer. I guess he's only been
there about 17 years.
But my stepfather is actually a retired police officer over
there. And we actually get together and tell war stories every
once in a while.
So I think it's real clear, I'd like to make it clear that
I grew up in Southern Oregon, and I know something about the
drug culture over the years. In 1975, 1976, I ended up in law
enforcement's hands as a result of methamphetamine and heroin,
and was given a prison sentence in lieu of--a suspended prison
sentence.
Instead, I got to go to treatment in Portland. And I went
to a treatment program, residential program, where I spent 18
months, live-in, at 19 years old. And I'm really pleased to say
that I'm still clean and sober as a result of that today.
And I'll be 50 years old here in January also. I'm not
pleased to say that I have a defibrillator, I've had three
heart attacks, and my health is not good. I have hepatitis C as
a result of methamphetamine and heroin addiction. And so my
discussion really covers a lot of ground.
One of the reasons I like--the title of my presentation was
``A Nudge from the Judge.'' I like to refer to Drug Court as a
nudge from the judge, because I think in my career, rarely does
anybody ever walk through the doors and say, ``Gee, I went down
to McDonald's and had some orange juice and an Egg McMuffin,
and I just thought I'd get some help for my meth addiction
today.''
You know, they come to me because somebody said, ``Get over
there,'' whether that could be the judge, the DA, the sheriff,
their mother, somebody brings them through the door. We need
that leverage with this addiction particularly.
I also come here highly qualified in that I've raised a
couple of kids as best I could who still decided to test the
waters with methamphetamine. My oldest daughter has done two
terms at Coffee Creek Prison for Women for identity theft.
Actually, the first time she went was for racketeering because
she was so involved in the identity theft and checks and those
kind of things.
My youngest daughter actually tested positive early in her
addiction when she was pregnant, and the doctor told her to go
into residential treatment. She did, and she's still clean. And
I have a bouncing 3-year-old grandson as a result of that.
I have a 10-year-old grandson who lives in my home and has
off and on since he was 6 months old because of his mother's
addiction. Fortunately, he's just keeping me young.
I began my career in the treatment business in Klamath
Falls in long-term residential treatment; long-term meaning 90
days, and then graduated over the years through--into the
medical model and into short-term outpatient treatment, and I
actually started the detox sobering unit in Jackson County back
in the 1990's.
I've worked in a lot of different settings. And I think one
of the things that we have run into when it comes to
methamphetamine is real bad timing, because treatment has
changed because of money. We're under the gun to provide
shorter treatment, less treatment, you know, quicker treatment.
You know, it's supposed to have a beginning and an end and
all these things that go on in the treatment arena, and what's
come out recently--and I thought, actually, Eric Martin was
going to be here. I heard rumors he was going to be in
Pendleton today. Eric Martin is director of the Addiction
Council Certification Board of Oregon and has become one of the
leading trainers of methamphetamine, as far as I'm concerned,
in the country.
And the information that we're getting about the brain
effects of meth addicts, even short-term use, is incredible to
us in the treatment arena, because, you know, we've been
telling people to quit using for decades. And what we find out
is that the drug really messes up the part of the brain that
says I don't remember what you tell me from day to day.
And so in the treatment arena we've really had to become
more of a hand holding organization, to some degree, where we
actually call people up and remind them that they have an
appointment, and give them a calendar their first assessment,
and maybe do their assessment in chunks instead of 2-hour
blocks because these folks are not really able to sit there for
2 hours and give us that information. But yet on the other
hand, I'm consistently told, you know, you've got to get these
people moving.
APHSA was mentioned earlier, as far as the moms and the
kids. And I knew that was going to be insane to begin with,
when it came to methamphetamine. You know, we're trying to get
these people on their feet in a year. Many of them, if their
children go into foster care, lose their benefits for treatment
anyway.
So one of the problems in Oregon is the different little
rules as far as the availability and what beds you can get into
and what slots are available to you and whatnot.
There's are a lot of barriers to particularly these women
whose custody of their children, they're told to go get some
treatment, go do some things in order to get them back, and
we've got a year to help them put that together. And that's a
bit tough.
I want to spend a quick minute on Drug Court. I can write a
little, but I can talk a lot. Drug Court is a situation where
you involve everybody. I've really enjoyed it. It's been a
highlight of my career. I go into staff meetings and I talk
with the District Attorney, I talk with the defense attorney,
and I talk with the judge, and we talk about this person.
And then this person comes up and talks to the judge. And
the judge has the data and the progress report. And the judge
gives them the strokes or gives them the sanctions, whatever
they have coming. And they do that consistently throughout--for
our program, it's a year.
And there's some transference that takes place. We've heard
people talk already today about the lack of family. And I, you
know, law enforcement probably kind of cringes when I say this,
but there have been some of our folks that have done well
because the judge did well with them. It was transference. It
was like, ``Hey, dad, I'm here, I'm doing well.''
They've never had anyone with any authority actually pat
them on the back. And I have people that actually have 5 or 6
years clean that our judge is retiring that have really come up
to me and say, ``Gee, what are we going to do? He's retiring,
dad's leaving.'' And it's like, you can get through it. You can
grow up. It's part of growing up. It's part of getting through
it.
So I guess the last thing I would say about treatment and
Drug Court being a good treatment for methamphetamine addicts
is that we need the consequences. You know, in the DSM-IV for
diagnosing substance abuse disorders, one of the leading ways
that we do that is continued use despite negative consequences.
And so, as a treatment provider, I need that, but I know
the consequences are not going to keep the people from using.
They're using despite those consequences. And my experience
with the prison systems and the consequences that somebody
already mentioned that our clients are basically kind of going,
you know, don't worry about it.
I mean, I can tell somebody, ``Hey, you're going to die.''
And they look at me and say, ``Rick, you know, you told me
that last year.''
So I really need to be able to look at them and say,
``Look, you're not going to get a stroke from the judge this
weekend,'' or ``You're going to spend the weekend in jail.''
And instead of going in 13 months and getting out and
floating around, these people basically get short sanctions,
they come back to the treatment program and they talk to us
about how that, and we can use that as a process of treatment,
rather than, you know, this kind of cat and mouse game that we
play with the criminal justice system and the substance abuse.
So that's all I have. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.082
Mr. Souder. Ms. Deatherage.
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN DEATHERAGE
Ms. Deatherage. Chairman Souder, Congressman Walden, thank
you for holding this important public hearing on the issue of
methamphetamine. My name is Kaleen Deatherage, and I'm the
director of public policy for Oregon Partnership, Oregon's only
Statewide non-profit organization that provides substance abuse
prevention and treatment referral.
I know that you've heard and read a great deal about the
tremendous toll methamphetamine is taking on Oregon's rural and
urban communities. The manufacture and use of meth continues to
harm families; our environment; and the most innocent among us,
our children. And it's also placing a tremendous burden on our
law enforcement and criminal justice systems.
Helping children, family, and neighborhoods overcome the
scourge of meth requires consistent public investment in a
multi-pronged strategy; prevention that stops meth use before
it starts, substance abuse treatment that helps people who
struggle with addiction, and law enforcement that helps
maintain community livability. It is in effect a three- legged
stool that works only if each component exists.
The goal of the alcohol and drug abuse prevention component
is to make a positive impact on individual, family, and
community behavior. We have an existing prevention knowledge
base, founded on research and principles of effectiveness,
which should guide the prevention strategies applied by
agencies and communities across our Nation to address this
issue.
I would like to point out a few of the drug prevention
strategies that have been shown to create positive behavior
change. First, it's important to help young people to recognize
internal pressures, such as wanting to belong to the group, and
external pressures, like peer attitudes and advertising that
influence them to use alcohol and drugs.
Next, it's important to teach the youth that using alcohol
and other drugs is not the norm amongst teenagers, thereby
correcting the misconception that everyone is doing it. And,
last, actively involving the family and the community so that
prevention strategies are reinforced across settings.
The field of alcohol and other drug prevention has also
identified evidence-based principles that should be applied to
programs to effectively impact individual, family, and
community behavior. Some of those principles include:
Prevention programs should target all forms of drug abuse.
We know, and we said earlier today, that almost no one
starts by using methamphetamine. They're starting with alcohol,
they're starting with marijuana, and our programs need to look
at the full range of substances, not just at methamphetamine.
Prevention programs must include skills to resist drugs
when offered. Strengthen personal commitments against drug use
and increase the social skills of our young people who use
drugs. Prevention programs should include a parent or a care
giver component that reinforces with adults what young people
are learning at school and in community settings.
Prevention programs should long-term, over an entire school
career, with repeat intervention to reinforce those prevention
goals. And prevention programming needs to be adapted to
address the specific nature of a drug abuse problem in a local
community.
This summer, Oregon took a big step forward in efforts to
address the methamphetamine crisis. With the leadership of our
Governor, strong support from State lawmakers, and invaluable
groundwork by the Governor's Meth Task Force, we signed
legislation that requires prescriptions for cold medications
containing pseudoephedrine. The legislation also strengthened
law enforcement and provides greater resources for Drug Court
and substance abuse treatment programs, which are proven to
heal individuals and family.
As the work of the Oregon Legislature this session clearly
demonstrates, Oregon's meth crisis transcends politics and
requires that all segments of our community work together.
While new tools will now be available to law enforcement to
address meth manufacture and use, communities Statewide also
need to use proven prevention principles to develop broad-based
strategies to fight their ongoing meth epidemic.
Oregon Partnership is committed to providing new prevention
resources and tools to assist communities in those efforts. And
I would like to tell you about a new collaborative venture
between Oregon Partnership and Southern Oregon Public
Television to develop a campaign titled, ``Target Meth:
Building a Vision for a Drug-Free Community.''
This strategic response to the meth epidemic will
incorporate a Statewide media and community training campaign
designed to educate Oregon residents on the problems and
dangers associated with methamphetamine manufacture and use.
The Target Meth Campaign will deliver cutting-edge information
to communities through a complete multimedia campaign,
consisting of four major components.
The first is a Master Methamphetamine Training Powerpoint,
which will allow the user to select from meth subject matter
slides and customize presentations by adding their own local
video. To accompany the training Powerpoint, the Oregon
Partnership is producing a Target Meth Community Action Guide
to provide community leaders, faith-based organizations, parent
groups, and others with drug prevention practices, techniques
from neighborhood involvement, community mobilization,
assistance for families dealing with drug addiction, and a link
to local resources.
Oregon Partnership and Southern Oregon Public Television
are co-producing three 30-minute Target Meth specials, and each
special will be designed to air with a local companion piece
that focuses in on specific regions of Oregon and provides
local data.
The last component of the campaign is a Target Meth Web-
based information portal providing Oregon meth information,
programing, and downloadable tools. In addition, the portal
will include video clips from Statewide media coverage,
resource links, State and local meth stats.
Oregon Partnership is excited that citizens from all walks
of life are joining together to fight the meth epidemic, from
representatives of law enforcement, treatment, community
coalitions, and the news media to the average citizen on the
street. The good news is that we know prevention works. And the
National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates that for every
dollar invested in prevention programming, we save $10 in
enforcement and treatment.
I want to thank you, Chairman Souder and Congressman
Walden, for your leadership on the Federal level to address the
devastation meth is causing across America. Thanks to you,
there is encouragement for families and communities struggling
with meth.
Here in Oregon we've asked all of our citizens to
participate in stopping the threat to their own safety, to
their health, economy, and the environment. And the best news
of all is that as a result of our ongoing effort, Oregon is
starting to see successes in the fight against meth, and hope
is beginning to return to individuals and families across our
State.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Deatherage follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.086
Mr. Souder. Ms. Baney.
STATEMENT OF TAMMY BANEY
Ms. Baney. Hi. Make sure I'm not too close, not too far
away.
Chairman Souder, Congressman Walden, and members of the
panel, thank you for this opportunity. I am here today
representing, in essence, the third leg of the stool. I am the
community volunteer. And I also am coming to you today as the
sister of a recovering addict.
My brother is just now 21 years old, and he's been battling
the methamphetamine addiction for 5 years. I have watched--I
resonate with a lot that you mentioned, and the destruction
that it can cause within a family can be unbearable at times.
And coming from a family of four children; two are firemen, one
a community volunteer, and another struggling with meth
addiction, it wasn't just parenting.
You couldn't put a finger on what made it different. We all
grew up in the same house. And so I hope to offer some of the
stigma, that it really isn't there; that it's not about the
parenting, it's not about something that went wrong. A lot of
times it's just about the child and choices that are made.
I'm also here as representative of the Meth Action
Coalition, which is a grass roots effort in Deschutes County,
and I'm here representing the Central Oregon region, which is
Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson Counties. And, of course, as
you know, we have a methamphetamine problem. And we are right
on Highway 97, which I drove to get here.
I didn't drive slow, and it was very easy to not drive slow
because--and sorry for those that are--sheriff.
Mr. Walden. You were driving the speed limit.
Ms. Baney. Well, just over. And, however, as I flew my car
here, I did not run into law enforcement officials. And the
reason why is because of funding cuts. And the reason why is we
have rural areas, we have, you know, 50-mile stretches where
there is barely a house or a barn.
And so we're talking about a prime--I drove along today,
when I could see the trees flying past, Sheriff, thinking of
myself as someone who has precursor chemicals in the back and
thinking what an easy road this would be to drive. And so no
wonder the rural areas are having such a difficult time
grappling around this situation. And so Deschutes County and
Crook and Jefferson are no different in that.
And one thing that we have done is, thank you to the HIDTA
dollars, we've been able to put together the Central Oregon
Drug Enforcement Team. So we are crossing all county lines, and
we have partnered all three counties together to leverage our
dollars. And that's been very beneficial for us.
Bend may seen like a very urban area; however, we have La
Pine and Sisters and Terrebonne and even Redmond. There are a
lot of areas, I grew up outside of town on five acres, and, you
know, we could do a lot out there. And so to think of Deschutes
County just as Bend, OR, is not the same. There are a lot of
rural areas.
We do not have a problem with the mom and pop labs in the
Central Oregon region, so to speak. We primarily, actually, in
speaking with our CODE team, have taken less than a gram of
powder off of our street, and the vast majority, obviously, is
crystal meth, and that is coming from Mexico. And apparently we
have an influx of the Mexican cartel in our region.
And so when we talk about the precursor chemicals and we
talk about pseudoephedrine and getting them off the shelf, we
know that is more lending a hand to others in saving maybe one
child's life down the road. You were asking about, well, what
does that really mean by putting those drugs behind the
counter.
What it means to us is if we save one child's life, if the
inconvenience is on me because I have a head cold, I would
rather save a child's life.
So for us, it's not the mom and pop lab, it's the crystal
meth that we're fighting. And it's not an inexpensive drug.
It's taking those that have been hard- working and have saved a
lot of money, and it's taking those dollars and washing them
completely down the drain with $100 to $120 a gram.
So I am here to speak about the three-legged approach. And
I know that I'm getting the yellow light. But the importance
is, none of us are going to be able to conquer this. You could
drop $5 million to the sheriff, and he's not going to be able
to do anything if we don't talk treatment and we don't talk
about the community.
So I'm here to, hopefully, instill the importance of the
community aspect in looking at Federal dollars and dropping
those down into the local level. If there's a component about
engaging the community, that is the legwork for those who are
doing the work and can help to take some of the burden off
those that are doing the work as well.
Right now in Deschutes County, in order to get into
treatment, there's a 120-day waiting period. The vast majority
of the people are on the Oregon Health Plan or they lose the
Oregon Health Plan when they go into jail, which is usually
what happens. And then they're matrixed out because our jail is
well over capacity.
So what I share with you--oh, and to detox, you would need
to put that on your day-planner in about 10 days. So like you
were saying that you get your Egg McMuffin, you have to say,
well, in 10 days, I think on the third Wednesday of the fourth
month, you'd want to detox.
So in talking about treatment, in talking about law
enforcement, components in grants dropping down from the
Federal level, talking about engaging the community is
critical. In talking about getting rotary clubs and getting
your volunteers and the school board and everybody on board in
talking about, yes, we have a problem, and here's how we're
going to address it. I really encourage you to add a component
in talking about the community involvement and engaging the
community.
Thank you so much for your time.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Baney follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.088
Mr. Souder. Mr. Miller.
STATEMENT OF SHAWN MILLER
Mr. Miller. Chair Souder, Congressman Walden, my name is
Shawn Miller, and I represent 235 members and 1,113 member
locations of the Oregon Grocery Association involved in the
manufacturing, wholesaling, and retailing of grocery products.
Our industry employs roughly over 50,000 Oregonians.
I'm here today in support of H.R. 3889, the Methamphetamine
Epidemic Elimination Act. First, I'd like to thank Chair Souder
and Congressman Walden for their leadership and commitment in
addressing the serious meth epidemic that faces our communities
here in Oregon and all across the Nation.
The grocery industry recognizes the problem as an epidemic
and wants to be a partner in crafting a comprehensive solution.
The crisis has had a significant impact on Oregon communities
and the Oregon Grocery Association joins you in supporting the
elimination of the meth production, distribution, and use.
Not a stranger to this issue, the Oregon Grocery
Association has worked with law enforcement to pass legislation
in Oregon limiting the sale of pseudoephedrine products to 9
grams or less in a single transaction. OGA is willing to limit
the sales even further, which is proposed in H.R. 3889.
With that said, we do have serious concerns about recent
legislation passed in Oregon that imposes questionable and
inefficient controls on the sale of cough and cold medicine
containing pseudoephedrine or PSE. I'm referring specifically
to the recent passage of House bill 2485, which was passed here
in Oregon recently, which requires all PSE products to be
treated as Schedule III prescription drugs.
Under the Oregon law, which has not gone into effect yet,
it will go into effect early next year, only retail stores that
have a pharmacy are allowed to sell these medications with a
doctor's prescription and these items must be kept behind the
pharmacy counter.
OGA believes that Federal legislation needs to balance
consumer access with reasonable PSE sales restriction. I want
to be clear that the Oregon Grocery Association does support
restrictions requiring all the PSE products be secured behind
the counter, locked behind the counter at all pharmacy and non-
pharmacy outlets.
We also support requiring the clerk to assist the customer
in obtaining the PSE product; however, we believe Oregon went a
little too far in House bill 2485 going to prescription-only.
We believe that Oklahoma went a little too far in their model,
and we do believe that legislation that's passed the U.S.
Senate and is currently pending in Congress goes too far.
The end result under the rigid pharmacy-only approach is
dramatic reduction in consumer access to cold and cough
medication, depending on whether the consumer's local grocery
store has a pharmacy department and what hours the pharmacy is
open on a particular day. For consumers living in rural Oregon,
which is much of Oregon, pharmacy-only access can create major
hardships if the nearest pharmacy is 20 or 30 miles from the
consumer's home.
The Food Marketing Institute and the National Consumers
League gauged consumer opinion on views of the sales
restrictions of PSE products in a national survey that was
released in April 2005. What this survey found is revealing.
About 44 percent of the 2,900 adult survey respondents felt
that pharmacy-only access would create a hardship for them,
while 62 percent said they did not believe that restricting
sales of PSE products to pharmacies is a reasonable measure for
controlling meth production.
In stark contrast, the survey respondents were far more
receptive to less severe restrictions that pharmacy-only
access, such as placing all the cough, cold, and allergy
products behind the counter; not necessarily a pharmacy
counter, but placing them in a locked display case.
Additionally, more than 80 percent of the survey
participants expressed support for limiting the quantity of
such products that individuals can purchase, which is also a
component of H.R. 3889. For these reasons, the Oregon Grocery
Association cannot support pharmacy-only classification for
cough and cold products containing pseudoephedrine.
Pharmacy-only access clearly poses significant problems for
consumers who have a legitimate need for these medications to
treat their allergies, coughs, and cough.
Chair Souder, Congressman Walden, I want to express the
industry's support of the Meth Epidemic Elimination Act. As you
work toward a final product in these next few weeks, we would
urge at subcommittee to amend the bill to include strong
Federal preemption language governing the sale of PSE products
in order to ensure uniformity.
Many retailers, including OGA members in Oregon, have
retail outlets in multiple States. Creating this restriction on
sales of PSE products that are uniform throughout the States
will facilitate retailer compliance.
In conclusion, I want to re-emphasize the need to balance
consumer access with reasonable PSE sales restrictions. I want
to thank Chairman Souder for visiting Oregon and listening to
the grocers' concerns and recommendations as you develop this
very important piece of legislation, and I want to thank
Congressman Walden for his leadership on this issue.
And I thank you for the opportunity to provide this
testimony.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.090
Mr. Souder. And I'm going to--I'll question a few, and then
turn it over to Congressman Walden. A lot of different things.
Let's start with Mr. Miller and work backward.
It's kind of hard to sometimes be a quasi-skunk at the
picnic, so to speak. But we're working through very tough
legislation. I come from a small town in Indiana where I grew
up, and they've lost their pharmacy and their grocery store. I
want to make it clear, I shop at Wal-Mart. I'm a supporter of
Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart financially supports me. I'm not anti-Wal-
Mart.
But Wal-Mart and Target support this legislation, the
restriction behind the counter, because they can deal with
that. Many of the associations can figure out how to deal with
that. What the fundamental question is, is how many small
grocery stores are going to shut down because we took out the
profit margin?
When there are ways of tracking at the wholesale level, as
the DEA's written testimony showed today, the big busts came
because they could tell the small grocery stores were doing
large increases. It's tracked by distribution organizations.
And you can tell which store went above budget, just like we
can tell in Mexico.
If this is the only way we can do it, this is the way we're
going to do it. And let me just tell you now, there isn't going
to be a pre-emption. Unfortunately, if you don't win at the
State level, it's clear we're not going to pre- exempt State
laws on this.
But what we need out of your association, to the degree--
and often these little stores don't even belong to the
association. But how many grocery stories in small towns don't
have a pharmacy? You said you have a membership. How many of
those don't have a pharmacy?
And to the degree that they're willing to say this, what
percentage of their profit is in the sales--in Indiana it just
went into effect, and it went behind the counter as opposed to
behind the pharmacy. The average store dropped from 120
pseudoephedrine down to 20. So first off, if you can get an
estimate of how much product reduction there is and what that
does to profit.
And then, second, at the margin, what is the estimate in
the small towns, how many grocery stores will go out? It won't
be 12 months, it won't be 24 months, I know this is hard, but
if you look at that margin.
In other words, if the average grocery store margin, profit
margin is 5 percent after taxes, and 10 or 20 percent of that
is from pseudoephedrine products, or even 5 to 10, you can tell
that you're going to push them below 3 percent, and they're not
going to survive.
Many of them are already going down, it's just a matter of
how many will this push over the top, and is that really going
to solve the problem. But we need some hard data. We're pushing
the National Grocery Store Association to tell us what's
happened in Oklahoma. Everybody knows I came from a retail
background. All businesses yell loudly on each thing.
The question is, is it really going to be a restriction?
Can they make the money on substitute products? Is the only
problem going to be tobacco and lottery tickets? Is that where
we're headed?
What's going to happen to convenience stores that are a big
part of the access that's replaced small town grocery stores,
you get it at the gas station. But if they don't have a
pharmacy, you're not going to be able to get the stuff at a gas
station. Does that mean those convenience stores are going to
shut down; they're not making it on the gas?
What is the practical tradeoff we're making here? And it's
really not affecting the bigger towns. This is a small town
question. Because the bigger grocery stores will have some
margin in profits, but it's not going to hurt badly.
Mr. Miller. Chairman Souder, I'd be happy to be look into
that. Our association does represent the large retail stores,
the chain stores that do have pharmacies and some that don't,
and we also represent the small mom and pop stores in many of
the small town communities across the State.
I think in the issue--and I'd be happy to try to do a
survey.
Mr. Souder. Yeah, because it would be like we have Super
Value in northeast Indiana, IGA, those type of organizations.
They have a good indication to be able to kind of
collectively--how many of these small stores are left that, in
effect, could be toppled by this?
Mr. Miller. We would be happy to put together that
information. I think, from our standpoint, what we're trying to
balance is the access and the convenience for the consumer, the
legitimate consumer, that wants the product more so than the
profit level.
And so I know from the grocery stores that I've talked to,
it's really not a profit issue and a product issue, more so
that this is, you know, in retail industry, obviously we are
interested in pleasing our customer.
When they walk into a grocery stove, they want to be able--
as some of the grocery stores you just indicated--they want to
be able to get all the products they can and go home and not
have to go to many different stores. And so in the retail
industry, we try to please those customers.
Mr. Souder. This actually first popped up in Hawaii because
they have lots of little tiny towns with grocery stores who
don't even have a scanning system. And the only way to get to
this was at the wholesale level or to shut down the grocery
stores.
Mr. Miller. And the wholesale level, we do support
legislation and stricter penalties on actually retailers that
are going to get in products from the wholesaler and put them
out the back door. I know that was one of the components of the
legislation on the stricter penalties that we do support as an
industry because we want to get rid of those people in our
industry, if they are running it out the back door.
So if there are any components to your legislation that
deal with the wholesale level, I know that we're very
interested in that end of the legislation as well.
Mr. Souder. Let me ask a couple of you now, some more basic
questions. First, Sheriff Trumbo, do you get a Byrne grant and
do you use the Byrne grant on any narcotic problems?
Mr. Trumbo. Yeah. The Byrne grant goes to the Blue Mountain
Enforcement Narcotics Team. And they use that for their
operation.
Mr. Souder. And how many dollars.
Mr. Trumbo. $30,041.
Mr. Souder. And do you also get any COPS money?
Mr. Trumbo. Our department doesn't. I don't think the BMENT
team does either.
Unknown. No.
Mr. Souder. So no on the COPS. Ms. Baney, in the community
prevention in Oregon, does anybody here have any of the
community grants that come through the national--the Drug-Free
Community.
Ms. Baney. Yes, we do. And we do in Deschutes County as
well. And it works very good in the rural drug-free area.
Mr. Souder. And is it predominantly in your area, or are
there several in Oregon?
Ms. Baney. Go ahead.
Ms. Deatherage. We have 33 drug-free community grants used
in Oregon, and they're spread across the State. There's good
geographic representation.
[Discussion off the record].
Mr. Souder. What we're trying to figure out is, initially
there were 50 grantees and then 100 grantees in the entire
Nation, and I was trying to figure out how you got 33. But what
you have is a grantee that is then subdivided into 33.
Ms. Deatherage. No, we have--California has nearly 50 Drug-
Free Community grants. And so we have 33 separate grants in the
State of Oregon.
Mr. Souder. But your grants aren't----
Ms. Deatherage. Some of those--they're not all brand- new
this year. Some may be in their 2nd, 3rd year. But there are 33
distinct grantees. I can share with you more information later,
if that would be helpful.
Mr. Souder. What's happened is, we have a cap. And we've
moved through this bill, and we've gradually increased the
number, and the dollars are up to $70 million in the amount of
our cap. It basically means there are 700 in the entire Nation.
Of that 700, the question then is would 33 of those be in
Oregon? And the answer is possibly. It may be you have a couple
that are coming through another grantee. But regardless of
that, you have a major--that fund has been tapped into heavily.
Let me ask another kind of entry-level fundamental
question, and that is that in the--may I ask this across the
board, but let me start with Ms. Deatherage. You focused a lot
on the kids. In the meth problem, it doesn't seem to be heavily
among kids. In your Drug-Free Communities program, are you
targeting here the program specifically at the population that
seems to be more at risk?
One of the problems we've had with the Drug-Free Schools
program is for years it often--I'm going to make a broad
statement here that, for the record, is dicey. I don't mean it
this way. It's just my son, who has never used drugs, and my
daughter who has never used drugs. However, my son, because he
loved rock music, because he hung around with guys who used
drugs, found most anti-drug programs laughable. And he and his
friends made fun of them and didn't go to them.
My daughter, who was somewhat, in a nice way, a goody two
shoes, which is wonderful, found these programs very good, very
motivating, and she wasn't a person at risk. And the question
is how do you--one of my concerns in meth is that we're
approaching this, we're really good at convincing young
children who aren't tempted at this point for the bulk of it,
for folks in high school, but we seem to have a very unusual
problem here in that many of these people--not all.
Because once it gets going in a community, it hits a large
percentage. In one town in Arkansas, 80 percent of the town,
including law enforcement, the doctor, everybody else. But
typically in the community, people have already gotten into the
culture because of marijuana and others and often isolate
themselves from fear of getting caught.
How, in the community anti-drug effort, can you educate on
meth when they're already inside the drug culture, to some
degree they've somewhat become anti-social. How would you
recommend, in our prevention campaign, we target the people who
are actually most at risk of moving to meth?
Ms. Deatherage. That's an excellent question. And I--that
question in and of itself is why the enforcement piece of this
problem tends to be easier to deal with than the prevention
piece.
But to try to take your question apart, first of all, Drug-
Free Community grantees are required, and as they should be, to
address more than just one drug. So you shouldn't find any
grants out there just dealing with methamphetamines and they
actually wouldn't be in compliance with the grant itself.
You asked about addressing methamphetamine with young
people when we know that it tends to be maybe college age or in
the 20's that we see the predominant meth use. It goes back to
a comment that we made earlier today. Very few, if any, people
ever begin their drug addiction by deciding this morning I'm
going to get up and try methamphetamine. So they've probably
been drinking or smoking marijuana or some other entry type
drug, then they have progressed to methamphetamine use.
And I think when we look at a community level at how we're
going to prevent use among our young people, we're really
looking at how we're going to change norms in our community.
And I think what the challenge is, how do we take on a task
that's not going to have a 6-month or even a 1-year measurable
outcome, like we might want to see, but similar to tobacco, how
do you tackle the 20-year campaign to change public perception
and public knowledge about the dangers of cigarette smoking?
And I think we're looking at the same type of approach is
needed for drugs.
So I think you're right that we do have--when we look at
prevention, we talk about universal prevention which is for
everybody, selective prevention which is for at-risk
individuals, and intricate prevention which is at the most
specific population for perhaps a specific ethnicity at risk.
Universal prevention programs probably are going to be more
applicable to people like your daughter who have some of the
protective factors in their life and are not at as great of
risk to use. More emphasis has to be put on how do we identify
those youth who may be at greater risk because of past trauma
in their life, because of parental history or use of friends
and family.
And how do we form our messaging so that we can begin to
make an impact with those individuals as well. So I think we're
looking at the need for a multi-pronged strategy, but clearly
we've got to start earlier and we've got to be in schools more
often with a more effective message. At this point, we're not
getting the job done efficiently.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Jones, before I yield to Greg, let me--
you've been--you've dealt with this with your own family, with
yourself, and as well as working with many addicts. And there
was one suggestion in the first panel that, in fact, prevention
may not work on meth, and we're wasting our dollars when we
focus on prevention of using meth.
And what Ms. Deatherage just said, which she wouldn't
phrase it this way, but she really hit on a core of a debate
that I've been having with the drug right now, and that is the
position of ONDCP is that, in fact, we can't really dent the
meth question with the prevention. We have to focus on the
marijuana--tobacco is funded through a different procedure
through the tobacco funds--and alcohol.
Because you can't isolate the meth user once they're inside
this subgroup, and it is a fact that we've moved, that the meth
population, we moved the meth population. It's been real
interesting, as somebody that's been minutely involved in the
National Ad Campaign, to hear Members of Congress sound off
about the ineffect, ``Well, I haven't seen the ads, I don't
understand the ads.''
Well, they're not the target of the ads. If I see an ad,
then they've made somewhat of a mistake.
Mr. Walden. There may be some State legislators who may
be----
Mr. Souder. For example, we had a little bit of a battle
when they ran an ad in the Washington Post. I felt that was
more political to try to prove to Congress than try to reach
kids. I've had some concerns about--I'm a Notre Dame football
addict--that the ads that they run on occasion during games is
to show me, as chairman of the subcommittee, that they're
running ads, rather than focusing on kids who are at risk,
although I don't really know about Notre Dame alumni, that
particular class.
But the point here is that in watching how they've done
target polling, as we've pushed in the National Ad Campaign,
they've actually tried to highlight the highest risk
population; let's say, marijuana go to certain different
places.
And the new ads are about to come in on methamphetamine.
For example, there was one of a girl plucking her eyelashes
that I just thought it was the dumbest ad I've ever seen. And
the females on my staff were just appalled. They thought it was
incredibly effective, and I thought it was incredibly stupid.
But I know enough to know that it doesn't impact me.
Now, the fundamental question here is do you believe that,
in fact, we can do targeted prevention? I'm not talking about
treatment right now, but prevention targets that would have
reached your kids or you or the people who are your addicts, or
are we better off trying to get them before they get into that?
And then if that's the case, we're miserably failing on meth
and why?
Mr. Jones. I want to echo what Kaleen Deatherage has said,
in I don't really think that--yes, I think we can prevent
methamphetamine use. The prevention work that's being done
that's effective is not very specific.
You know, you're not going to respond to something about
plucking your eyebrows out unless you've done it or you know
somebody who did or you watched your mom do it. But that would
be effective for someone who went, oh, yeah. You know. But you
can't relate to it because it doesn't address you.
See, methamphetamine once a person has used it, the tug-of-
war is on. You know, it's a very powerful drug in that the only
thing it's been compared to is a sexual orgasm. And we're up
against that issue with our kids anyway. And so then with some
of the adults, it's like, you know, taking away their chocolate
cake. There's a tug-of-war that goes on.
I think--I go all the way--I mean, I've been in prevention
for all of my career, too. And I go all the way back to the
Chemical People Project, the Just Say No campaign, the whole
Red Ribbon Campaign, and the different things. And they all
have their pieces.
What I have seen recently that I really--and I do see
treatment as a primary prevention strategy, particularly in our
Drug Court, we've had 15 drug-free babies, I don't think
prevention gets any better than that. The assets, the street-
based program, the community-based program, bringing families
together, that's where prevention is. And it's not drug
specific.
Methamphetamine isn't a drug of self-esteem. It's a
stimulant. It's not far different than the smoking issue.
Because, actually, I used to run a detox, and I could take all
the drugs and alcohol off a drunk and an addict, and they'd
kind of tolerate that, but they'd want to beat me up if I took
their cigarettes. Nicotine is a behavioral stimulant.
Methamphetamine is a much more powerful behavioral stimulant.
It's a very insidious drug.
You know, your question about actually targeting these
folks who are in it, I think that's a tough issue. I think
we're involved in some movement right now as to what we're
doing with kids. I have 40 kids in my treatment right now. I
have a wonderful staff. We have not thrown anybody out of our
treatment program over the last 5 years.
And back in the earlier days of treatment, if you didn't
behave, you got thrown out. Well, that just fed into things.
So, you know, I think keeping kids engaged, keeping people
involved in a process with positive role models, mentorships,
things like that, that are being talked about in prevention
right now are key.
Mr. Souder. Do you use the matrix well.
Mr. Jones. Yes. Actually, Joe County recently got a
$500,000 grant to implement meth projects.
Mr. Souder. Which county.
Mr. Jones. Josephine County.
Mr. Souder. And what city does that----
Mr. Walden. Grants Pass, Cave Junction, Selma, Williams,
Sunny Valley. Grants Pass is the biggest part of that.
Mr. Souder. And do you--a couple quick questions on
treatment yet. One thing we've heard in treatment is that the
alcohol method of treatment, where you have an enabler and then
the support, isn't really true in meth. Have you run into
people where, in any husband and wife situation, they aren't
both involved?
In other words, the traditional treatment models we assume
there's an abuser and then a support, where what we see over
and over in meth, they kind of pull away into what we call the
mom and pop places. Even though a lot of people don't like to
use that expression, often they pull their kids in to help, who
are cooking too, and their immediate friends.
In Ohio we had an addict actually come in that just came
off. Nick had to make sure I read him his rights. There were
about 40 sheriffs. But one of the things he said is they're
completely isolated within the community because they're afraid
somebody's going to tip off law enforcement, which is not the
traditional enabler community.
How does this differ in treatment?
Mr. Jones. It's very insidious, the treatment is for these
folks. And there are some similarities. I don't like getting
too specific. And there's recent information that Eric Martin
has been presenting regarding treatment in that we're as
effective with methamphetamine as we are other drugs, and I
don't know why we're getting such a bad wrap.
I think the expectations are high, for one, in the
treatment arena regarding people. And that's why I made the
statement that recovery or treatment, it's a process, it's not
an event. But it is very insidious, it's very criminal, and
it's very generational in our area.
It isn't really uncommon for us to have families who are
very much involved. But we've seen the same thing with
marijuana in our area, still a cash crop. And we're still
struggling with generational growers in the area. The thing
about methamphetamine is that most of these folks come through
the door having burned out everybody else. I think that's the
major difference.
When you get someone who's purely alcoholic, who has the
traditional family system around them where there are some
enablers and different people, the meth addict, by the time we
get them usually, they have really blown everybody out of the
water. Everybody's mad.
Mr. Souder. So you're not seeing moms and dads? You're not
seeing pairs?
Mr. Jones. As far as both using and coming into treatment?
Yes, we are.
Mr. Souder. Higher than some other drugs, or do you see it
in some other drugs as well, where you see the pair?
Mr. Jones. Actually, I think we probably see it more with
the meth addicts. I would have to agree. We do see folks coming
in who are jointly addicted more than the other drugs.
Mr. Souder. Do you see it in law enforcement? Do they tend
to get both of them? Or sometimes the reason you're not seeing
a pair is because they caught one and the other didn't get
caught.
Mr. Jones. Actually, they've been getting both of them down
in our area, and they're also getting charged with child
neglect. And we're actually kind of having----
Mr. Souder. Let me ask a quick question of the sheriff.
When you go in, do you tend to get both of them and they both
get the same----
Mr. Trumbo. And then we get the child or children.
Mr. Souder. Let me ask one other treatment question, so I
kind of keep that train of thought here for a second. We've
heard in some places, and I assume all these are true, and I'm
just interested in getting data. Some cities are running 50
percent are women and it's weight loss driven. Other places,
which doesn't suggest it's a sexual orgasm approach, although
it may give them that effect, but they lose weight. Maybe they
get a sexual orgasm as a side benefit. Not a side benefit, but
their goal is to lose weight.
Other places are just straight the drug was addictive. A
third is that I had a company, an RV company, fastest growing
RV company in the United States, heard that they had a drug
problem. They did a quick test, and a third of their employees
were either on cocaine or meth with just a little marijuana.
And the argument, the treatment people in that county,
which has one of the highest meth problems in that State, is
that they're using it like an amphetamine, because of the piece
rate, they initially, at least, get a faster support rate. That
suggests that the people coming into treatment aren't coming
in--it may even be different by region, but even within a
region, depending on your mix of industrial, women, what the
word of mouth on the street is, or are you seeing all these
areas?
Mr. Jones. All of the above. I've been in the business for
a long time. And I used to consult the Weyerhaeuser Corp. in
Klamath Falls. And other than waiting around waiting for a fire
to happen, those people were all basically in a production
position, and they used a lot of methamphetamine.
And I think any production business in this country,
basically you're going to find the same thing. Methamphetamine
is a stimulant. It is the drug of self- esteem. It is the drug
that makes people feel efficient. Far greater than cocaine in
that cocaine makes you feel that way for about 20 minutes, and
methamphetamine will give you that for 10 to 12 hours or more,
depending on the drug itself.
The comparison with the sexual orgasm is really more of a
term, in that people, lay people don't seem to understand, if
you haven't used it, what it feels like to have that kind of a
rush, particularly if you inject. If you smoke it, it's
similar, but it's about, you know, around 3 seconds. What is it
like to have a feeling like that within 3 seconds, 5 to 3
seconds? Most lay people around, unless you've experienced it,
have no idea.
So orgasm is used as a, well, that's similar, that's the
competitor. What you'll also find out in talking to law
enforcement is that the meth addicts do have a tendency to be
very involved in high risk sexual behavior. And there's a lot
of jokes and stuff around about sex toys and those kind of
things.
My generational overview of that, actually developmental
overview of that is that some of these folks have never
participated in sexual behavior not stoned on some chemical.
And that's a major issue that we have in our treatment program.
I think the thing I want to say about treatment more than
anything else is that we have to really stay focused with them.
They have to come in and see us a lot. Rather than traditional
therapy and psychotherapy and issue-oriented kind of things,
it's really important to have these folks kind of coming in two
or three times week, if not more.
We have an ability to see people five times week. And
sometimes we'll see them four or five times, you know, in a
couple of days, you know, just coming in, having them give
urine screens. It isn't about therapy as much as it is about
contact and accountability and kind of keeping clean long
enough to get to where they can get some therapy.
The problem we're having in the treatment arena is people
expect it to be like surgery, where you go in and get the cure,
you know, and never drink again. That doesn't work for people
on meth. We have to keep these people involved in some form of
treatment forever.
It's like my cardiac problems, you know. I'm going to be
dealing with this forever. It's not--I'm not done just because
I got a defibrillator and I'll get shocked if I don't behave.
It's important for me to take the medications I need, it's
important for me to do the followup work. It's the same thing
with addicts.
And we tend to blow that off, and the addicts tend to blow
it off. And, you know, I think that we are growing kind of a
different addict with some of these folks in the criminality of
it all.
My daughter, for example, at 26 years old, has significant
legal problems that are going to follow her for the rest of her
life, as far as employment and bonding and child care issues
and HUD and all those things that go with that are major
barriers. And I think those folks tend to not do as well out
there in the world, and they do relapse more often, because
they have so many more trip-ups.
You know, the alcoholic who works for the frozen food
organization over there, he trips on it, he gets sent by his
boss to go to treatment, and we work with his employer and ya-
da, ya-da, ya-da, everything is fine afterwards. He keeps his
job, he stays there, everything is fine.
With the meth addict, oftentimes there are so many hoops
for them to jump through, that sometimes they say screw it. And
I think the more we walk with them slowly and lower our
expectations of what we expect out of them. Why would you want
to--we expect someone to make $7.50 an hour working at Taco
Bell when they've been making a couple thousand a day messing
with speed.
I mean, it's very tough. They look at me like, how do I do
that? And that's a process, not an event. They have to come
talk to us. We have some groups that focus on that.
Mr. Souder. What you say is interesting, but the
difference, other than drug addicted driving, which we need to
get under control, like alcohol driving, it's mostly a process
of right now getting cheap tests that police can administer
because more people are dying from that.
But other than that, the alcohol addict probably is causing
some financial problems in his family, maybe beating his child
and family. I'm not arguing that. But they're not blowing up
their home, they're not tying up local law enforcement, they're
not polluting the local waters. And that's why it's a different
type of a drug to deal with than alcohol. And we're not
understating alcohol. We're trying to tighten this. Let me give
it to him.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. And thank you, Rick, for your
comments. I was going to have you explore just briefly for the
chairman the discussion we had in Josephine County, the
followup forum on the success of the women who had been clean
and given birth and the savings that had been achieved as a
result. And I think that was all tied into the Drug Court,
right.
Mr. Jones. It was. Well, I have an interesting position,
too. I run a treatment program that's actually owned by the
Oregon Health Plan, one of the few--actually, the only one in
the State. So I work with 20 doctors. I work with a small
medical clinic.
We actually had a panel today to deal with prescribed
medications that I had to miss because I was here. I thought
this was important, and those guys could take care of that
themselves. And so there's a big focus in my job and at my shop
about medical issues and the whole frequent flyer kind of
problem.
And, you know, a methamphetamine affected baby costs well
over $1 million. And so they really like it when we have meth
addicts who show up in our program who might be pregnant or get
pregnant in the program and deliver a drug-free baby. We make a
big hoopla out of it.
We give them gifts, we bring them before the judge. We give
them a bear. We give them a certificate, we give the baby a
certificate, the only Drug Court certificate they'll ever need.
Because that's, like I said earlier, that's the epitome of
prevention.
You know, women, we've had just a few more women than men
graduate from our Drug Court program in Josephine County. And
in my history, that's phenomenal. Back in the 1970's and
1980's, we didn't have women in treatment. We couldn't figure
out how to balance all the issues, and we now have all these
women in treatment and we're dealing with barriers of child
care.
I didn't answer one of the issues you brought up about
women and the sexuality and the weight loss and all those kinds
of things. You know, that's a major package deal. We run across
of a lot of these women that can't clean their house unless
they're wired. And so it's kind of--just think if you don't
sleep for a couple days what you can get done. I mean, it's
amazing how that works.
So I have been real excited about the Drug Court piece down
there.
Mr. Walden. Do you remember the numbers? I've forgotten the
numbers.
Mr. Jones. We had 15 drug-free babies. And I didn't really
have time to put together these statistics, but we had a high
number of women in our----
Mr. Walden. The equivalent would be, at a minimum, maybe
$15 million in savings just in the ER.
Mr. Jones. Oh exactly.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. Let alone the long-term costs of
treatment care.
Mr. Jones. Not even really talking about what we know about
the care of--I think you had actually mentioned the child and
some of the issues that these kids have as they become
teenagers and whatnot.
Mr. Walden. Go ahead, Karen.
Ms. Ashbeck. I just want to interject something about what
Rick was saying. My daughter is 42. She's been fired from every
job she's held. And it seems that's the pattern. She can't
focus. She can't stay on track.
She was very sexually active, not in a good way, because
she had multiple partners. And then she would use meth, and
then coming off of it she'd go into a deep depression or she'd
be in a depression before she used it. And my granddaughter is
seeing all of this.
I mean, that's, you know, she had a grandpa and I at the
same place. You know, we lived on a ranch outside of town, and
she'd come out there and ride horses and stuff. But my
granddaughter started using marijuana at age nine. So what she
was saying--she was going to be with me here today. She's out
sleeping in the car because she worked all night, but she
wanted to be here.
She's clean right now, but she has pending charges against
her. She may go to jail. We don't know. They were--can't go
into why, but, anyway, so, you know, she has some issues that
she has to deal with. But I remember when she was pregnant with
her child and we were talking, and she said, ``Does God forgive
you if you make the same mistake over again?''
And I said, ``Well, that depends on if you're doing it
intentionally or if you're just doing it, you know, just
because you know you're going to be excused.''
And she said--and she's 16 years old. She said, ``Well, I
think God knows that my mom is fragile and that He will forgive
her for what she does.''
She's been her mother's care giver. And that's what you see
with so many of these children. And like some of these case
histories that I wrote down, is that the child becomes the
parent. And my daughter would ask my granddaughter if she could
have a party or if they could do this or if they could do that.
And she's in the fifth grade.
You know, you don't ask your child--she was trying to be
her daughter's best friend rather than her parent. And so then
what happens is the child becomes the one who tells the parent
what to do and manipulates that parent into doing what they
want them to do. And they use each other. And it's sick. It's
just so sad.
And you know it's going on. I accessed treatment for my
granddaughter in three different treatment programs. She was in
one in Portland and then she was in one in Boise, and then she
went to El Cornelius Treatment Center in Baker for almost a
year. But she would sabotage herself and fail so that they
would--because if she felt success, then we would expect more
of her.
Or, you know, I mean, there's--I'm sure Rick sees it all
the time. But it's so frustrating. And now, you know, she has
missed so much. And she says, ``Grandma, there are things that
I should know, but I just don't know them. It's like, 'Why
don't I get that?'''
You know, and it's just common, everyday things that you
should know; as feelings for your child or, you know, that
pleasure center. And I visited with a lady who's 18 years clean
from cocaine, and she said the hardest thing for her and her
husband to do when they came off of cocaine was to know what to
do to have fun. They don't know what to do.
Mr. Walden. Because that's what they've always done.
Ms. Ashbeck. And she said, ``We always had friends, 'cause
we had--my husband had a good job and we had lots of money, so
we had lots of friends.'' ``But,'' she said, ``when we went off
coke,'' she said, ``then it was, you know, what do we do for
fun.''
It wasn't the sunset or the baby ducklings in the pond or
any----
Mr. Walden. Let me go to Sheriff Trumbo. And then I know
we've well gone over the time line of the committee. But I want
to followup on this issue of the cleanup that I raised and the
contracting thereof.
Can you tell me what--because you were kind of shaking your
head back there when we were walking through how the contract
works. Can you tell me what your officers and others in the
community face when you do discover a lab and then how that
contract works?
Mr. Trumbo. The last two labs we had, we had to call the
cleanup crew out of Portland to come in and clean them up
because the Pendleton cleanup crew was in Portland cleaning up
labs.
Mr. Walden. Let me get that straight.
Mr. Trumbo. Pretty simple.
Mr. Walden. The Pendleton crew was sent to Portland to
clean up a lab when you've got a lab here to clean up, so they
send a crew from Portland to here to clean up a lab. Is that
because the number came up for Pendleton, they get the next
lab.
Mr. Trumbo. Right.
Mr. Walden. So rather than--OK. So my fire analogy was
pretty close; next fire that comes up in Portland, we'll send a
Pendleton crew.
Mr. Trumbo. So that's the challenge we're facing, because
we have to have two lab site safety officers on the lab until
the cleanup crew gets there. And when they come out of
Portland, that's 4 or 5 hours. Because they have a minimum time
they have to be here, but they don't push that, I'll guarantee
it, because they're making money for every hour they're sitting
in that truck.
So, you know, they're pushing right to the limit each time.
But we have to sit there and guard that scene, and it becomes a
real challenge for us.
Mr. Walden. And am I correct that the DEA picks up the
actual cleanup costs----
Mr. Trumbo. Yes.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. But not your officer time?
Mr. Trumbo. No. But they don't pick up our overtime costs.
Mr. Walden. That's what I mean.
Mr. Trumbo. And the protective suits and all the other
things.
Mr. Souder. Because we were trying to sort this out
earlier, let me see if I can understand this, because there's
several things going on. DEA does the clean-up cost. Your
primary pressure isn't the clean-up cost. Your primary pressure
is how long they have to sit there until the agency----
Mr. Trumbo. It's the manpower cost.
Mr. Souder. Therefore, the Kentucky model that enables you
to do it directly or for minimal cost would enable your
officers to get out of the way, and then the DEA comes in and
cleans it up.
Mr. Trumbo. Absolutely.
Mr. Souder. So that would----
Mr. Trumbo. That would save the Federal Government hundreds
of thousands of dollars every year.
Mr. Souder. Because this is what, in Indiana, our State
police run the cleanup, so they can do the first sites. And
part of our problem is to try to get enough of those mobile
labs. And we don't have enough mobile labs to come in.
So we have all these police agencies sitting in a minimum
of 4 hours up to 8 hours with drug teams of four people, tying
up in some counties the entire police narcotics force. And if
there's a way to seal that in 30 minutes such that the site is
secure enough that the officers can leave or just leave one
person, you change the cost dynamics for overtime
substantially.
Mr. Trumbo. We spent about $360,000 in this county last
year on drug cleanup. That includes what DEA paid and what our
overtime cost and equipment costs and everything else, about
$360,000.
Mr. Souder. You said that included the DEA costs.
Mr. Trumbo. That includes everything. But it's all taxpayer
money, whether it's Federal, State, or local. It's still
taxpayer money, which is what I said in my speech. You know,
you become a victim and a victim and a victim, and you keep
paying.
Mr. Walden. So one of your issues is the delay in the
cleanup.
Mr. Trumbo. Yeah. It becomes a real major delay, especially
with us. Right now my staffing level is one-third of an officer
for every thousand people, and I should have an officer and a
half for every thousand people. So that becomes a big issue.
And one of our patrol officers is site safety trained,
which means we pull him off the street, stick him in a
protective suit, send him out.
Mr. Walden. And help me understand this; are you required
to have more than one officer on the site?
Mr. Trumbo. We have to have two.
Mr. Walden. And they have to be site trained.
Mr. Trumbo. They have to be site safety officers, and they
have to be trained, and they have to have the proper equipment.
Mr. Walden. Why do you have to have more than one? I would
think one of you standing there well-armed would be enough to
chase away anybody that was going to mess around.
Mr. Trumbo. That's an OSHA requirement, isn't it? State of
Oregon stepped in and said they wanted two.
Mr. Walden. Is that what's required elsewhere across the
country, or is that an Oregon requirement?
Staff member. It just depends on State law.
Mr. Souder. I think it's Oregon.
Mr. Walden. Does anybody know what it is in Washington? Do
they have to have two?
Mr. Trumbo. The thing that concerns me--and at one time a
couple years ago, DEA might have dried up and DEQ stepped in.
But if it came down to the local level having to suffer the
cost of cleanup----
Mr. Walden. You wouldn't bust many labs.
Mr. Trumbo. Well, that, and, in fact, there would be some
things done to try to circumvent some of the costs, and we
don't want to go there. You know, we've still got an
environment, we've got a neighborhood, and we want things done
correctly. So there's got to be some way of doing it correctly
and then saving taxpayer money.
Mr. Souder. I just want to ask a followup question because
it's so refreshing to hear a local official say, hey, it's all
the taxpayers' money, it doesn't matter which level.
Mr. Trumbo. Well, it's the same thing when people say, you
know, ``I'm not affected by methamphetamines because I live in
a good neighborhood and my kids don't use it,'' and all that.
And I say, ``Fine, you're the same one that's paying the
taxes. Who do you think is paying the freight on this thing?''
Mr. Walden. Yeah, the editor of the Medford Mail Tribune,
we had a forum in Medford, and he was talking about how they'd
done a series on it, front page sort of deal, and a reader had
called in to complain that they were wasting all the paper on
covering this issue that had no effect on him and why were they
doing that?
And he recounted that story.
Mr. Trumbo. And what we're experiencing here on the local
level, and I talked about these indirect costs, what's
happening now is these meth abusers are stealing cars and
they're driving right to the front of a business and right
through the front door. And then they're stealing everything,
throwing the stuff in the stolen car and--so now not only do we
have theft, we have some major building destruction because
they're driving right through the front doors.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, there was some discussion earlier
about the difference between alcoholics and meth addicts or
alcohol and meth, and I'd just like to quickly draw an analogy
in that--because I don't know about the rest of the State, but
Josephine County still has a significant drunk driving problem.
And most of the drunk drivers that come into my treatment
program are repeat offenders. And they don't understand
anything about the fact that they're driving a bullet down the
road than the meth addict understands that he's messing up
someone's property.
It's big to us, but they're just as much messed up up here
as the alcoholic is who thinks--I guess in D.C. you really
can't drive at all, unless--if you've had one glass of wine, I
heard on the news this morning, which is fine, but they're in
just as much denial about the effect.
The guy that drove the car into the building over there--I
mean, I'm not soft on crime, but he doesn't understand it any
more than the guy driving down the road drunk. The disease of
addiction is the disease of addiction regardless of the drug.
Mr. Souder. Let me just ask on that, because you're
getting--do you--one of the questions about meth, and as we
look at treatment is does meth do different things to your body
than others and does it cause quicker negative damage to your
body?
Mr. Jones. Definitely.
Mr. Souder. More than other drugs? And in case that, for
example, the question of whether somebody can hold a job, does
it depend somewhat whether they--I would think if crystal meth
is pure, that crystal meth would burn you out quicker and you'd
start to lose your job quicker and so on.
Mr. Jones. The lifestyle issues are certainly huge. They
are certainly much huger than alcohol. We've known that for
decades.
Mr. Souder. Are there meth users that would--like some
people smoke a little bit and then some drinkers drink more on
weekends or that type of thing. Are meth users, do they binge?
Do they control some? Or is it such that you just have straight
downhill?
Mr. Jones. Well, I think it's just like anything else. We
see people who do that. We see bingers.
Mr. Walden. But that suggests you can control the extent--
--
Mr. Jones. Well, there are people that, because of their
lifestyle issues, use occasionally every drug. And then there
are people because of whether it's genetics or lifestyle issues
or whatever they were raised with, use one time and they're
gone. I don't think you can lump it all into----
Mr. Souder. I understand that basic principle: Some people
can handle more alcohol and less and react differently. The
question is, is meth unique or relatively unusual as a drug
that its addictive properties--and we've had different
testimony of what it does to your brain and body--is such that
you can't kind of restrain yourself.
Mr. Jones. It becomes that way. I think for some it's a
matter of time. I mean, there are people, just like anything
else, we call it tapering on, rather than tapering off, in the
business. There's no question at all that methamphetamine is a
very toxic, quick-acting substance.
But the addiction, you know, it carries the same symptoms.
You know, the denial about how it's affecting me and all those
things, that's what I'm really trying to get across. It does
happen much more rapid in some people.
My philosophy is, if you've got a screw loose and you use
methamphetamines, you're going to knock it out of its socket.
You know, it really depends what you've got going on----
Mr. Walden. It amplifies.
Mr. Jones [continuing]. When you put that stuff in your
system as to what can happen next.
Mr. Souder. Ms. Ashbeck, you said that your daughter said,
when you asked her--was it your granddaughter or daughter that
said, you know, what could you have done, and she said she
could have come in contact with the law sooner.
Ms. Ashbeck. Uh-huh.
Mr. Souder. Could you elaborate on that a little bit? And
do you think that really would have had an impact? And then the
second thing with that is, would it also, if there was a drug
test at work, would that have had a similar impact.
Ms. Ashbeck. No. Because she wasn't working. She was just
doing the drug.
With the matrix system the way it's set up, it's five
points. It's a point system. And she said she would get picked
up and all she could think in her mind was book and release,
book and release, book and release. That's it. They book and
they release them.
She said that for her, getting locked up sooner would have
helped her. It might not have some others, because while she
was in jail, she visited with some of the other inmates and
they maybe had been in there 7 to 8 months, and they couldn't
wait until they were out to go get their first hit.
That wasn't the case with her, although she did relapse
after a short time out, but has been, so she says, clean for
about the last 9 months.
But here comes the story of, you know, credibility,
rebuilding credibility and trust. She hasn't been in any
trouble, she's been working, and she's gained some weight, so,
you know, those are all really good signs. She's been lucid in
the times that we've been around her.
But I think the way that the system is set up, there was a
point in time where, when we were in this very room, and the
judge had the opportunity in his hands to say, ``You need--this
is what I'm going to do for you, and you need to go to--I'm
going to say that you need to go to treatment.''
And he didn't do that. He could have, but he didn't,
whatever the circumstances.
And I think that we need to be more aware of what is
actually going to help the people, what are the precursors that
makes one person choose a drug and not another. I'm from a
family of alcoholics. My father committed suicide when I was 11
because of alcohol addiction.
My grandfather was. My mother was. I'm not. I like an
occasional glass of wine. But my two daughters are drug
addicted. My granddaughter is drug addicted, but my son isn't.
So what are the precursors?
And, you know, all three children were raised in the same
house. Two were girls, one was a boy. But it's like they were
saying, some people are predisposed. Some people are
predisposed to alcoholism, some people are predisposed to
drugs.
The drug was attractive to my granddaughter because of how
her relationship was with her mother and the world that they
lived in, that's what it was, even though she had another world
to go to and she could, you know, she had us as a good example.
And she had other friends as good examples.
But it's just that some people are more destined to do
that. What--you know, we could go on all night to figure out
what that is. You know, is it genetics, is it self-esteem, is
it ADHD, is it bipolar? What is it? Maybe it's all of those.
But I think catching them as soon as you know they have the
problem and separating them from the drug is extremely
important. Jail, I would say jail detox, in a situation--and I
don't know that jail is the answer. But separating the person
from the drug is most important. And then rehab is extremely
important.
And not for 30 days like some insurance people want to say.
It has to be long-term. They have to learn a new way of
thinking. And the sooner you catch them, the less damage is
going to be done to their brain.
But like my daughter who's been doing drugs now for over 20
years, what's the hope for her? She's with a man now who really
loves her and cares for her and is getting her help, but will
she ever be able to hold down a job? She might, if she's the
greeter at Wal-Mart maybe.
But to stay on track--you know, she's a wonderful,
wonderful lady, but it's just not there for her anymore. And
it's so sad to see that. And, you know, I'm sure that Rick will
agree with me, the sooner that you catch them and separate them
from the drug, the better luck you have or our prisons are
going to be full and we may have a State orphanage because the
children are getting neglected.
Amber, my granddaughter, is fortunate to have the support
that we're giving her. Our family is divided, because some say,
you know, she made her choice. Well, you know, God never gave
up on us. I'm not giving up.
If I didn't wake up with hope in my heart, I wouldn't get
up in the morning. It reminds me of a little song: The more we
work together, they happier we'll be. You know, your friend is
my friend and my friend is your friend.
It's simple, but that's exactly what we need to look at
here, is that we all need to work together to stop this menace.
Mr. Souder. Before closing, I need to ask Ms. Baney one
question.
Ms. Baney. Yes.
Mr. Souder. Did your group just go through this review on
the national grant structure.
Ms. Baney. No not to my knowledge, no.
Mr. Souder. Do you know--ONDCP is doing a review right now
of all the different community grants. Did you hear anything
back? We have chaos at the national level.
Ms. Deatherage. Yes, there's chaos here, too. I know that
Oregon Partnership is the fiscal agent for the grant. We
received our scores, but I haven't--I just got an e-mail
yesterday saying that they want to come out and do a site
review next year. We're in our second year. We've not been site
reviewed yet.
Mr. Souder. And you said you had 33.
Ms. Deatherage. Uh-huh.
Mr. Souder. Of the 33, through either of you, do you know
how many of them got renewed.
Ms. Deatherage. I could find out. I don't know off-hand. I
don't know.
Mr. Souder. If you could give that to me, because my
understanding is they suspended 20 percent.
Ms. Deatherage. OK, 63 were defunded and 88 were put on
probation.
Ms. Baney. We were not one of those.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. Thank each of you for your openness
today, for your testimony. If you have other things you want to
submit, if you could get those to us as soon as possible. Also,
thank you for your leadership in each of the communities you're
a part of.
With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.105
<all>