<DOC> [108th Congress House Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:20084.wais] LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE FIGHT AGAINST METHAMPHETAMINE ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ NOVEMBER 18, 2004 __________ Serial No. 108-287 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house http://www.house.gov/reform LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE FIGHT AGAINST METHAMPHETAMINE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE FIGHT AGAINST METHAMPHETAMINE ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ NOVEMBER 18, 2004 __________ Serial No. 108-287 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house http://www.house.gov/reform ------ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 20-084 WASHINGTON : 2005 _____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800 Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland NATHAN DEAL, Georgia LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Maryland MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN R. CARTER, Texas Columbia MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida ------ MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont (Independent) Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director Rob Borden, Parliamentarian Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman NATHAN DEAL, Georgia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN M. McHUGH, New York DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois JOHN L. MICA, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri DOUG OSE, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California JOHN R. CARTER, Texas C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee Maryland PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of ------ ------ Columbia BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota Ex Officio TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California J. Marc Wheat, Staff Director Nicholas Coleman, Professional Staff Member Malia Holst, Clerk Michael Yeager, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on November 18, 2004................................ 1 Statement of: Bundy, Sheriff Steve, Rice County, KS, Sheriff's Department; Lonnie Wright, director, Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs; Lieutenant George E. Colby, division commander/project director, Allen County Drug Task Force, Allen County, IN, Sheriff's Department; Joseph Heerens, senior vice president, government affairs, Marsh Supermarkets, Inc., on behalf of the Food Marketing Institute; Dr. Linda Suydam, president, Consumer Healthcare Products Association; and Mary Ann Wagner, vice president, Pharmacy Regulatory Affairs, National Association of Chain Drug Stores................................................ 65 Burns, Scott, Deputy Director, State and Local Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy; Domingo S. Herraiz, Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice; and Joseph Rannazzisi, Deputy Chief, Office of Enforcement, Drug Enforcement Administration................................. 18 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Bundy, Sheriff Steve, Rice County, KS, Sheriff's Department, prepared statement of...................................... 68 Burns, Scott, Deputy Director, State and Local Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy, prepared statement of......................................................... 20 Colby, Lieutenant George E., division commander/project director, Allen County Drug Task Force, Allen County, IN, Sheriff's Department, prepared statement of................ 87 Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 11 Heerens, Joseph, senior vice president, government affairs, Marsh Supermarkets, Inc., on behalf of the Food Marketing Institute, prepared statement of........................... 112 Herraiz, Domingo S., Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, prepared statement of...................................... 29 Rannazzisi, Joseph, Deputy Chief, Office of Enforcement, Drug Enforcement Administration, prepared statement of.......... 44 Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana, prepared statement of.................... 5 Suydam, Dr. Linda, president, Consumer Healthcare Products Association, prepared statement of......................... 118 Wagner, Mary Ann, vice president, Pharmacy Regulatory Affairs, National Association of Chain Drug Stores, prepared statement of...................................... 124 Wright, Lonnie, director, Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, prepared statement of..................... 79 LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE FIGHT AGAINST METHAMPHETAMINE ---------- THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2004 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark E. Souder (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Souder, Mica, Carter, Tiberi, Moran, Cummings, Norton, and McCollum. Staff present: J. Marc Wheat, staff director and chief counsel; Nicholas Coleman, professional staff member; Pat DeQuattro, congressional fellow; Malia Holst, clerk; Michael Yeager, minority deputy chief counsel; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk. Mr. Souder. The subcommittee will come to order. Good morning, and thank you all for coming. Today we continue our subcommittee's work on the problem of methamphetamine trafficking and abuse, a problem that is ravaging the entire Nation and putting a severe strain on law enforcement agencies, particularly at the State and local levels. Many of my colleagues have proposed legislation to help beleaguered law enforcement agencies deal with the meth trafficking threat. Today we hope to examine some of those proposals. Meth is one of the most powerful and dangerous drugs available, and it is also one of the easiest to make. It can be ``cooked'' using common household or agricultural chemicals and simple cold medicines, following recipes easily available on the Internet. Meth comes from two major sources of supply. First, most meth comes from so-called ``superlabs'' in California and northern Mexico. By the end of the 1990's, these superlabs produced over 70 percent of the Nation's meth supply. Superlabs are operated by large Mexican drug trafficking organizations that have used their established distribution and supply networks to transport meth throughout the country. The second major source of meth comes from small, local labs that are generally unaffiliated with major trafficking organizations. These labs have proliferated throughout the country. The total amount of meth actually supplied by these labs is comparatively small; however, the environmental damage and health hazard they create makes them a serious problem for local communities, particularly the State and local law enforcement agencies charged with the duty to uncover and clean them up. In my home State of Indiana, for example, more than 20 percent of the labs raided by police were discovered only after the labs had exploded and started fires. Children are often found at these meth labs and have frequently suffered from severe health problems as a result of hazardous chemicals used in drug manufacturing. Robberies and violence in local communities as drug dealers and other people seeking money, the addicts, continue to commit criminal acts in order to obtain precursor chemicals and also money to fund their habits. So this has been closely related to other crime in the local communities, much more so than the superlabs. During this Congress, we have held hearings here in Washington, but we have also held field hearings across the country--in Indiana, Hawaii, the deep south, the northwest-- examining the meth epidemic. Everywhere we go, we hear about many of the same issues. In particular, we have heard about the high costs and long hours required for law enforcement agencies to hunt down, investigate, and clean up dangerous meth lab sites, while dealing with the heartbreaking cases of children exposed to drugs and chemicals and in need of emergency medical care and a safe place to go. Where meth is a problem, this drug is probably the single biggest drain on local law enforcement resources in the country. We will need to take action at every level--Federal, State, and local--to respond to this problem. At other hearings we have addressed the question of treatment and prevention, and Congress will of course need to deal with them. At this hearing, however, we intend to focus on the law enforcement side, specifically what we in Congress can do to help sheriffs and police departments across the Nation deal with meth. The whole meth process started in this subcommittee about probably close to 6 years ago in California, where we started with the superlab problem, and we have increasingly moved to look at the local law enforcement problem, which will be a little more the focus of this hearing. Congressional proposals to assist local law enforcement have taken two basic forms: first, regulations designed to reduce the supply of precursor chemicals used to make meth; and, second, direct financial assistance to State and local agencies to support anti-meth enforcement. I will briefly discuss each of these concepts. First, what is the best way to reduce the supply of meth precursor chemicals, such as pseudoephedrine? Presumably, if we can substantially reduce the availability of meth components, the number of small meth labs will be reduced as well. There are several proposals currently on the table intended to do just that. One idea is to eliminate the Federal ``blister pack'' exemption for pseudoephedrine sales. Under current law, retailers can sell unlimited quantities of pseudoephedrine, as long as it is packaged in ``blister packs.'' Sadly, these blister packs have not been much of a hindrance to meth cooks. I believe the exemption should be eliminated, and have proposed legislation (H.R. 5347) which would do just that. A second approach is to put pseudoephedrine and similar chemicals on Schedule V of the Controlled Substances Act. This would force retailers to sell cold medicines and similar products from ``behind the counter,'' and may also force consumers to show identification and sign a register when purchasing such products. It may also prevent non-pharmacists from selling cold medicines. Oklahoma recently enacted this approach in the law, and several other States are planning to do the same. In this session of Congress, Oklahoma Congressman Brad Carson proposed legislation which would do this on a nationwide scale. Finally, a third approach takes aim at the importation and sale of bulk quantities of pseudoephedrine. According to a recent report in the Oregonian newspaper, most of the world's supply of pseudoephedrine comes from just a few factories in Europe, where, by the way, this subcommittee has been both at Rotterdam and Antwerp, and pressured aggressively European authorities to crack down on the pseudoephedrine shipment, which has traditionally been our supply, as well as working with the Canadians. But much of this has now moved to India and China. It might be possible to stop most chemical diversion even before these products reach the shores of the United States and the stores in the United States if we can put pressures on the trade. Import quotas, international cooperation, and regulations of the wholesale markets are all possible ways of reducing the availability of precursor chemicals to meth traffickers. With respect to any new regulation of meth precursors, Congress needs to ask several questions. First, how effective will the new regulation be at reducing the supply of precursors and the number of meth labs? Second, what will be the impact on legitimate sellers and consumers of these products? How much inconvenience do we want to impose on people who just want to buy cold medicines? And, finally, how effective will the regulations passed only in one State be if all the other States don't follow suit? Do we need a national standard? The second set of proposals involves Federal grants and other financial assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies. Currently, the Federal Government provides significant assistance to State and local agencies through several grant programs, including the Byrne Grants and the COPS ``Meth Hot Spots'' grants, administered by the Department of Justice, and the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas [HIDTA] program, administered by the Office of National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP]. State and local law enforcement officials have repeatedly told me and my staff that these grants are vital to their drug enforcement, and particularly their meth enforcement efforts. Several Members of Congress, including Missouri Congressman and Majority Whip Roy Blunt and my subcommittee colleague from California Doug Ose, have proposed expanding these programs to deal with the meth threat. The administration, however, has proposed significant cuts in these programs particularly the Byrne Grants. Before deciding whether to expand, contract, or significantly re-tailor these programs, Congress needs to have a better understanding of what they do and how effective they are. This hearing will address these difficult questions and hopefully help lay the groundwork for legislative action in the next Congress. Our first panel of witnesses has joined us to discuss the Federal Government's response to the meth problem. Mr. Scott Burns, Deputy Director of State and Local Affairs at the Office of National Drug Control Policy, who has taken a lead role in addressing meth issues; Mr. Domingo Herraiz, Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs, which is responsible for administering many of the Federal grant proposals at issue today; and Mr. Joseph Rannazzisi, Deputy Chief of the Office of Enforcement at the Drug Enforcement Administration, which is not only responsible for coordinating the Federal Government's meth enforcement efforts, but also for administering the Federal Government's meth cleanup assistance program for State and local agencies. For the record, the subcommittee invited the U.S. Coast Guard to testify at this hearing concerning the trafficking of Southeast Asian methamphetamine, also called yaba, and the movement of precursor chemicals into this country from Asia. The Coast Guard declined to testify about their knowledge of these issues. The subcommittee will ask the Coast Guard in writing about questions regarding Southeast Asian meth and the movement of precursor chemicals. At a hearing like this, it is vitally important for us to hear from the State and local agencies forced to fight on the ``front lines'' against meth and other illegal drugs. We welcome Mr. Lonnie Wright, Director of the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, who will talk to us today about his State's new anti-meth law; Sheriff Steve Bundy of the Rice County, KS Sheriff's Department; my fellow Hoosier, Lieutenant George Colby, Division Commander and Project Director of the Allen County Drug Task Force at the Allen County Sheriff's Department. We also welcome three representatives of manufacturers and retailers of pseudoephedrine products, who will help us understand the impact that new regulations may have on businesses and consumers. We are joined by Mr. Joseph Heerens, Senior Vice President for Government Affairs at Marsh Supermarkets, on behalf of the Food Marketing Institute; Dr. Linda Suydam, President of the Consumer Healthcare Products Association; and Ms. Mary Ann Wagner, Vice President for Pharmacy Regulatory Affairs at the National Association of Chain Drug Stores. We thank everyone for taking the time to join us this morning, and look forward to your testimony. [The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.004 Mr. Souder. Now I will yield to the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Elijah Cummings. Mr. Cummings. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and for your attention to this important issue of methamphetamine abuse in the United States and our efforts to fight it. Methamphetamine is a dangerous, highly addictive, and sometimes deadly illegal drug, the increasing use of which has created a serious drug epidemic in our country. Once concentrated in the western United States and among particular population subgroups, the use of meth has spread geographically, has become more broadly population, and appears to be increasing among young adults in particular. Significant changes in patterns of meth trafficking and production have contributed to the epidemic, while increasing the challenge of anti-meth law enforcement efforts. The adverse impact of the meth problem is not limited to the serious negative effects on health and the general well- being of its users. Because meth use leads to violent and erratic behavior, it fuels serious crime problems in areas where meth use is prevalent; and meth production can result in deadly exposures and substantial environmental damage. For these reasons, the spread of meth production and use creates severe burdens for the government agencies that must deal with the consequences. On that note, I want to thank all of our witnesses who, on a day-to-day basis, work so hard to address the drug problems in this country. As one who has seen the effects of the drug epidemic and has seen the people that it has destroyed, the neighborhoods and the families, I thank you for what you are trying to do. I know it is an awesome task. Anti-meth efforts have become an increasing focus for Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in various parts of the country, including through the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program and other joint law enforcement task forces. We will hear today from representatives of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Office of Justice Programs, and the drug law enforcement officials from Indiana, Kansas, and Oklahoma about how law enforcement is responding to the trends in meth production, trafficking, and use, and to the costly consequences of these activities. The chairman did mention the fact that we will be hearing about the Federal Government's response. One of the things I am also interested in hearing is I read about some of the State laws that have been put into effect, and I would like to hear recommendations as to whether other States should be doing the same things, or perhaps whether the Federal Government should step up their role in regard to those issues. When I read about one of them, I immediately wrote my State legislator, my favorite State legislator--you have always got to have somebody to carry your water in the State government-- and said, look, you ought to put this into effect; you ought to make sure you file this come January, when our legislature comes into being. So we want to know that. Because meth is frequently manufactured from common, readily available products, such as over-the-counter cold and cough medicines, it presents unique policy problems. Beginning with the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996, Congress has responded with legislation to increase penalties for meth-related crimes and tightened controls on retail sales of products containing pseudoephedrine and related chemicals. Several proposals introduced in the 108th Congress would place further restrictions on the sale of over-the-counter products' use in meth production, and Mr. Souder has gone over some of them. Clearly, the meth epidemic presents a difficult set of challenges for law enforcement policymakers. I hope today's hearing will enhance our understanding of the challenges and shed some light on what further action we should take to address the problem. And I want all of our witnesses to know that this is indeed a bipartisan subcommittee, and we share a lot of concerns with regard to drugs, and we have worked very hard to make sure the government works effectively and efficiently using the taxpayers' dollars to address those problems. So we welcome you; we thank you. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. [The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.007 Mr. Souder. Mr. Mica, did you have an opening statement? Mr. Mica. Well, Mr. Chairman and ranking member, I thank you for convening this hearing today on law enforcement's efforts and the administration's efforts to fight the scourge of meth abuse and misuse of illegal narcotics. Having participated on this panel for some time--and I think I just heard the chairman recall a hearing that we held in California, when we saw the beginning of this problem in our country--I think I was never so shocked as some of the testimony we heard. I think one was of a mother who put her baby in a microwave when she was on meth, and we heard social workers talking about dozens of children that had been abandoned because their parents or guardian was hooked on meth. It made me realize that we had a very insidious problem, and also a problem that needed a multifaceted approach, and I am pleased the administration has what they call a national synthetic drugs action plan. One of the realizations from that hearing and from that time was that it is going to take a combination of effort. It is not just enforcement, which is important; it is not just interdiction of the chemicals, because meth can be produced with off-the-shelf ingredients; it is going to take education and treatment efforts. And I think people really don't realize and, fortunately, hearings like this can tell the damage that this is doing. Right now we are in the 20,000 range per year of individuals who die from drug overdose deaths; 20,000 Americans. It is a phenomenal number; it is a silent death. But that is only those from drug overdose. You are not talking about the murders, the suicides; you are not talking about the human toll, the families that are in total chaos and individual lives that are destroyed through narcotics. This is indeed our biggest social problem, the biggest problem in our society today, is the problem of illegal narcotics, now led by the meth epidemic. So I think you are holding the hearing today is important, and I think that the plan of action that has been proposed is important, and I think that we need to provide whatever resources are necessary in a concerted effort to deal, again, with this whole situation. So I thank you and I look forward to working with you, and applaud your efforts today in bringing this to the attention of the subcommittee and Congress. Mr. Souder. Thank you. Ms. Norton, do you have any opening comments? Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this hearing. It is not the first hearing we have had on methamphetamine, and I think the fact that we have had more than 1 year points out the concern of the committee and the Congress about the rapid spread of this drug, whose effects are quite pervasive, not only on individuals, but on the environment itself, because these labs require extensive cleanup after they are brought down. I recognize that drugs of choice differ based on location in the country, and that in big cities you don't hear as much about meth. You hear about very dangerous drugs, but not meth. And it is interesting, I guess whoever establishes a niche, that becomes the drug of that locale. But I asked about meth in the Nation's Capital, and, yes, to be sure, it is the kind of drug where the existence of labs and the like do not lend themselves as readily to bringing it in to the middle of a big city, so it is not a major problem here yet. I am very concerned that we catch it, because who it is a major problem with are teenagers and young adults. And we know about the use of young adults and the distribution at raves and at nightclubs of meth and meth-type drugs. So I am particularly concerned about the age group that is involved and that this could sweep everywhere. We already, it seems to me, have a major problem with meth, but it would appear to me that it has real attraction on a national level. There are a number of bills that have been pending for sometime in the Congress. The last time we took, I think, significant action was in the 106th Congress. I don't believe these bills are terribly controversial, and I certainly hope some of them will come to the floor. For example, a bill that would require that certain of the ingredients that can be used to make meth, which are readily available in a store or a drug store, be kept behind the counter of the pharmacy, so that you would have to make your purchase over the counter and show identification and sign a log. I think these are the kind of minimal steps that the Congress should take. At the same time that we are saying to drug enforcement officers around the country why don't you clean it up, we need to do all we can, and perhaps much more, to help you clean it up. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Souder. Thank you. Mr. Tiberi. Mr. Tiberi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having this hearing today. It is a real pleasure to have a constituent of mine on the panel, and friend, Domingo Herraiz, who has, in the past, served Ohio as the man in charge of the Criminal Justice Service Office in Ohio. Great reputation; did a great job in Ohio. Thank you for your work here in Washington and your service to our country. I yield back. Mr. Souder. Thank you. Ms. McCollum. Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a hearing that I think will help us be more effective in working with you and our local law enforcement on this very critical issue of methamphetamine. I just had some law enforcement in my office on Monday from our Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, and we have taken some of the steps to work toward reducing the number of small labs. Prompts come up when Sudafed is purchased and that, but law enforcement was sharing with me that the bigger problem--and it is in the testimony that is before us today--is really from the major labs that are producing methamphetamine in very large quantities. Law enforcement spoke of three generations of methamphetamine abusers in one family, and now arresting the grandchildren of meth users. So this is a very serious problem which needs to be looked at. The filling up of our prisons in Minnesota, as we do make arrests; the lack of any kind of treatment that is proven to help people who do want to change their life around is very serious. But I think the issue that concerned me most was the first responders and their concern about their own personal health. So I think if this is part of the war on drugs, we need to come up with protocols for what type of equipment will be available for rural, urban, and suburban first responders; what is the protocol when we find children for their health, well-being, which affects their ability to be good learners in school; and what we are going to do for our first responders for their health. We are now starting to see retirements come about as people literally have had their lungs destroyed when they have encountered labs that they didn't know that they were walking into. So, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the hearing and I look forward to working on this very important issue. Mr. Souder. Thank you. Judge Carter. Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I first encountered speed back in 1981. As a trial judge, we dealt with it a lot. I had an experience that I will share with you one time. We had a bunch of trustees that were moving furniture in the courthouse, and I was just listening to their conversation, and I discovered something that was very interesting: going to prison is the cost of doing business in the drug manufacturing business. If going to prison is not too harsh and the profits are great, then the results are that it is just the cost of doing business, and 2 or 3 years is not bad when you are making a million bucks a year, so you just take your time and go back, and you are back in business in 30 days and everything is wonderful. Now, we weren't dealing with the superlabs that you are dealing with today; we were dealing with the mom-and-pop operations. But, first off, an information program went out through the local papers about the problems with meth and the problems with speed, and what happens when kids get on it; and then the jury showed up and started issuing punishment, because in Texas you get to go to the jury for punishment. And people discovered that maximum sentences for those people who were manufacturing methamphetamine resulted, at least in our county, of no manufacture of methamphetamine. Methamphetamine generally, in those days, was manufactured in the suburban counties around the urban areas, and we happened to qualify as one of those suburban counties around Austin being the urban area. They weren't cooking meth in Austin; they were cooking meth in Williamson County and Bastrop County and Hays County and Bernard County that surrounded Austin. Within 60 days there wasn't anybody cooking in Williamson County, because everybody that got caught was going to prison for 20 years and up. And ultimately that problem got solved in our area, because everybody started looking at what happened. So I want to know what we are doing in the way of punishing people who are manufacturing this stuff, because I happen to believe that if the cost of doing business gets great enough, on the mom-and-pop labs, at least, the speed labs go elsewhere. And then ultimately we need to know what is being done internationally on these people that are cooking out of this country, and the harshness that we are dealing with those people who are transporting into this country large volumes of these drugs, because I think that also has a cost of doing business effect on drug traffic. I agree with everything that everyone says about the issue of treating people, but the bottom line is education. Making the business difficult, in my opinion, is the key to cleaning up the drug business. So I would like to hear your ideas on some of those things, and I thank you very much for being willing to come here and share with us. Mr. Souder. Thank you. We are going to insert into the record this tremendous Oregonian newspaper series, ``Unnecessary Epidemic,'' that has a very interesting map that shows, as this committee has watched it over the years, the track from west to east of the meth problem, starting in Hawaii, which is the oldest and deepest. We are now in the city of Honolulu. Some apartment complexes require cleaning prior to taking occupancy, because the leftover meth chemicals from the labs poison the children in the next group that comes in. We have seen it in the west coast, moving to the midwest. You can tell by the request for field hearings to this committee. Right now they are outstanding from members, from Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, southern Indiana, Tennessee, and North Carolina. And the hearing requests tend to come as it is moving east. We get the request from that group of members, and you can see the intensity of the problem coming. In the Speaker's drug task force, it is the No. 1 subject that comes up. The members from North Carolina showed up en masse last time regarding the meth problem as it has moved. As we have held the field hearings, we have seen the first signs of it coming into motels and other things in New Orleans, and in the southeast, Detroit, which would be the first hit in some of the largest cities, because up until now it tends to have been a rural phenomenon and to some degree moving into the suburbs. If it hits the cities, it could be like a crack epidemic, which is why we really need to work at both the rural and the urban side, and understand that this is something that is a widening threat; and when it hits a district, to the Member of Congress in that district, it becomes the No. 1 issue in his district, beyond any other narcotics issue. With that, we will have a few other things we are going to insert, but before proceeding, I want to take care of a couple of procedural matters. First, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to submit written statements and questions for the hearing record; that any answers to written questions provided by the witnesses also be included in the record. Without objection, it is so ordered. I also ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents, and other materials referred to by Members and the witnesses may be included in the hearing record, and that all Members may be permitted to revise and extend their remarks. Without objection, it is so ordered. Now, our first panel, Mr. Burns, Mr. Herraiz, and Mr. Rannazzisi, if you will stand and raise your right hands, I will administer the oath. It is the tradition of this committee, as you know, because it is an oversight committee, that it is our standard practice to ask all witnesses to testify under oath. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Souder. Let the record show that each of the witnesses responded in the affirmative. Mr. Scott Burns, Deputy Director at ONDCP. And we are also going to insert into the record your National Synthetic Drugs Action Plan. As we look into the next session, and what we can do here in Congress, this will give us a good layout. You have done a good job of pulling that together, and we look forward to hearing your summary of those remarks and what you have been working on in this area; and thank you for your leadership at the State and local level. STATEMENTS OF SCOTT BURNS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, STATE AND LOCAL AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY; DOMINGO S. HERRAIZ, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; AND JOSEPH RANNAZZISI, DEPUTY CHIEF, OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION Mr. Burns. Well, thank you, Chairman Souder, Ranking Member Cummings, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the efforts to reduce the problem of methamphetamine in America. I appreciate this subcommittee's longstanding support of the Office of National Drug Control Policies and our efforts against illegal drug use. The problem of methamphetamine use, distribution, and production, as you know and have discussed, is one with which I am also well acquainted. I was a prosecutor in rural Utah for some 16 years before being confirmed in my present position. Methamphetamine use and labs can take a significant toll on communities, but I am pleased to report that there is good news on the horizon. As discussed in the administration's newly released National Synthetic Drugs Action Plan, there are things we can do that we know will make the methamphetamine problem smaller and that we intend to pursue over the next 4 years. My written testimony discusses this in greater detail, and I request it be made part of the record. Our approach to methamphetamine must be market-based, focusing both on the supply and demand of the drug. Reducing the supply of methamphetamine is best accomplished by destroying the ability of methamphetamine cooks, both large and small, to make the final product; and this means making the acquisition of chemicals used to cook methamphetamine even harder than it is now. One of our successes in this area is Operation Northern Star, which is a DEA-led initiative to cutoff the supply to superlabs of pseudoephedrine, the key ingredient, again, as you know, used to make meth. By focusing on the diversion of these chemicals from Canada to domestic superlabs, we have now seen a shrinking in the number of superlabs within the United States, and that is good news. However, we believe that some of these superlabs are being pushed south of our borders to Mexico; and for this reason we will continue to work with our international partners, such as the Fox administration, to stop the flow of these chemicals into Mexico, and we fully support the efforts of the Fox administration to become more effective in controlling the methamphetamine threat in Mexico. In addition to the efforts of Federal law enforcement, we continue to be focused on disrupting the domestic market for methamphetamine. For example, the percentage of Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, or OCDETF, investigations in which at least one of the drugs involved included methamphetamine has steadily increased, from 19.2 percent in fiscal year 2001 to 26.7 percent in fiscal year 2004. Additionally, among the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, or HIDTA, initiatives that focus predominantly on a single drug, more have focused on methamphetamine than any other drug. Most of the remaining initiatives which were poly drug in nature included a methamphetamine focus. Among the many recommendations of the administration's Synthetic Drug Action Plan are those designed to cutoff access by methamphetamine producers to precursors such as pseudoephedrine. These including a lowering of the Federal limit on single sales of pseudoephedrine products and removing the so-called blister pack exemption that currently exists in Federal law. Federal legislation will be necessary to implement some of the recommendations set forth in the Action Plan, and we look forward to working with you to identify the right solutions. Additionally, some States have focused on limiting not only the amount of pseudoephedrine products that may be purchased, but also the location and manner in which the product may be purchased, and have imposed additional requirements for the process of the purchase itself. Over the next several months we will be closely analyzing the data and results in States where these innovative measures have been implemented. Many of these State actions were taken in the recent past, so over the next several months we will seek the best data and information possible to highlight which of those approaches are the most effective in reducing methamphetamine availability and lab numbers. In conclusion, as with the drug issue as a whole, it is important to remember that drug trafficking and production respond to effective supply and demand reduction measures, and the administration looks forward to working with Congress to effectuate a lasting reduction of the methamphetamine problem in America. I look forward to your questions and, again, thank you for holding this hearing. [The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.012 Mr. Souder. Thank you very much. Mr. Domingo Herraiz, who is the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice, arguably the most important agency to a lot of our local State and police agencies. We appreciate your coming today and look forward to your testimony. Mr. Herraiz. Chairman Souder and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here this morning before the subcommittee to discuss how the Office of Justice Programs provides support in addressing the problems of methamphetamine abuse, manufacturing, and tracking in the United States. As requested by the committee, I will also discuss the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, the COPS office, and their meth programs. As we continue to combat the deadly scourge of methamphetamine, I want to point out that our overall effort in fighting crime is succeeding. I am pleased to report to you that the violent crime rate is the lowest in 30 years. For the first time in a decade we have seen teenage drug use fall across all boards, with the 8th, 10th, and 12th grade. Although we are encouraged by this data, if we want to continue the decline in crime, we realize we must remain committed to preventing crime and holding accountable those who violate our laws. As BJA director, I now focus on the problems associated with meth from a national perspective. However, in my previous position as Director of the Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services I saw firsthand the toll that meth has had on Ohio families and children, as well as the Ohio criminal justice system. Mr. Chairman, as we both know coming from heartland States, the problems associated with meth production, distribution and abuse is of grave concern to rural areas. Through various BJA funding sources, law enforcement agencies across the country are addressing the prevention and treatment of meth abuse, as well as the production, distribution, and exposure risks to officers and citizens. Meth task forces and other anti-drug efforts investigate and prosecute drug crimes, as well as work diligently to ensure law enforcement officers' safety while encountering meth labs. BJA also provides valuable training and technical assistance to law enforcement on task force management and investigation. One of our primary funding sources for supporting efforts to fight meth abuse is the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, which is a partnership among Federal, State, and local governments to create safer communities. Through Byrne, BJA awards grants to States for use by the States and units of local government to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system. In fiscal year 2003 alone, at least eight States and partnering local communities made use of $2.76 million in Byrne Program funds for anti-meth efforts. For example, in Tennessee, Byrne funds were used to support both meth investigation and trafficking efforts, as well as prevention efforts. In Oregon, Byrne funds were used to support two different regional drug task forces for meth lab seizures, as well as the destruction of street-level distribution. A Methamphetamine Response Team was funded in Kentucky and Kansas used Byrne funds to support the development of intensive supervision and treatment alternatives to meth abusers and offenders. The Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Office for Community Oriented Policing Services prepared a program-level environmental assessment governing meth lab operations. Officers face unknown exposure, as you have already mentioned, when responding to homes, hotel rooms, vehicles, and other places where meth is being produced or consumed. In addition, when the immediate exposure risks are mitigated, the problem isn't gone. Officers and departments must then decide what to do with the vehicle, the home, the hotel room that would normally soon be returned to its owners or occupants or used by other consumers, even though contamination may still be at unacceptable levels. Our assessment describes the adverse environmental, health, and safety impacts likely to be encountered by law enforcement agencies as they implement specific actions under their meth lab operations. Another BJA source of support for these efforts to combat meth abuse is the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, which provides funds to units of local government to underwrite projects that reduce crime and improve public safety. The LLEBG Program, as it is referenced, allows funds to be used for various types of meth responses, including establishing multi- jurisdictional task forces, paying for law enforcement overtime, and acquiring specialized equipment. The funds can also be used to cover or defray costs of insurance for hazardous assignments, as may be required with this issue. In fiscal year 2004, LLEBG funds supported 12 projects in nine States, including Kentucky, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. For example, Richmond, Kentucky funded equipment purchases for a meth lab trailer that is used to process meth labs encountered within the county. Marion County, Oregon funded ``NO METH: Not in My Neighborhood'' program, and Washington County, also in Oregon, launched an Anti-Methamphetamine Education Campaign. Corpus Christi, Texas purchased meth response protective gear for its officers. Thurston County, Washington provided overtime for its officers to support anti- methamphetamine efforts within the county. The administration has proposed replacing the Byrne and LLEBG Grant Programs with the new, more flexible Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program in 2005. As you can see by these various funds, both the Law Enforcement Block Grant and the Byrne Program could be utilized for prevention, education, enforcement, and prosecution efforts. The Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program is another BJA- administered program which is a valuable resource for communities experiencing methamphetamine problems. Drug courts can assist those who abuse meth and other drugs by providing treatment, drug testing, sanctions, and transitional services to offenders. In addition to BJA's grant programs, I am placing an emphasis on providing training and technical assistance with regard to the complexities of the meth production and abuse. Just this past October, BJA, along with the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Alliance for Model State Drug Laws, a BJA grantee, sponsored a National Methamphetamine Legislative and Policy Conference. The summit produced concrete strategies and raised awareness regarding additional work we need to do to comprehensively attack methamphetamine throughout the Nation. Through the Center for Task Force Training, BJA provides training to law enforcement on basic investigation techniques and basic drug task force management issues such as personnel selection, handling confidential informants, and raid planning. After hearing from law enforcement about their need for additional training, we have more than tripled our number of methamphetamine training courses offered nationwide, for a total of up to 12 courses. These courses are offered at the State level, for the State themselves, to then bring in local law enforcement to provide them the opportunity to be trained. Most recently, we have scheduled a course, actually in Virginia, as the first pilot of this project. Other components of the Office of Justice Program are also addressing meth use and serving its victims. For example, the National Institute of Justice is working on a comprehensive review of methamphetamine-related research that will identify lessons learned about enforcement and treatment, as well as research gaps that need to be addressed. The Office for Victims of Crime has a bulletin available called ``Children at Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs: Helping Meth's Youngest Victims.'' It explains that the best way to help these children is through coordinated multi-disciplinary efforts such as medical and mental health treatment services, child protective services, law enforcement, prosecution, and public safety officials. As the subcommittee is aware, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services [COPS], operates the COPS Methamphetamine Program. The program is intended to support State and local clandestine lab cleanup efforts. In 2005, the administration requests $20 million for that purpose. Available on the COPS Web site is a problem-solving guide on clandestine drug labs and an evaluation of the COPS Meth Program. The guide is intended to help law enforcement develop proactive, prevention strategies and to improve the overall response to these incidents. The evaluation assesses the effectiveness of the community policing strategies employed by the various jurisdictions funded by the COPS Office under the Methamphetamine Program in fiscal year 1998. The evaluation report indicates successes among those agencies employing coordinated, proactive intervention tactics, including targeted enforcement strategies coupled with police and community awareness training regarding the production and distribution of the drug. Even though these collective efforts from OJP and COPS are helping address the Nation's meth problem, we recognize we need to work harder with all of our State and local partners to ensure that resources are used effectively and efficiently. Through our conferences, we have learned from the field that they would be better served by having a centralized resource, a portal, if you will, for information on meth abuse and strategies, including law enforcement and prosecution strategies, environmental briefs, research summaries, and funding information, and BJA is creating it. We appreciate the interest that you and your colleagues have shown in this critical drug abuse issue. I welcome the opportunity to answer your questions as it relates to the Office of Justice Programs. I would request that any questions related to the COPS Program be submitted to the COPS office in writing. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Herraiz follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.025 Mr. Souder. Thank you. Our next witness is Mr. Joseph Rannazzisi. I appreciate your work as the Deputy Chief of the Office of Enforcement of DEA. DEA increasingly plays not only an internationally important role, but in the United States working with our local drug task forces. So I am glad you came to testify today and look forward to your testimony. Mr. Rannazzisi. Thank you very much, sir. Chairman Souder, Ranking Member Cummings, distinguished members of the subcommittee, and fellow panel members, on behalf of Administrator Karen Tandy, I appreciate your invitation to testify today on the importance of law enforcement's fight against methamphetamine. Until the late 1980's, methamphetamine's popularity was primarily confined to the west coast and southwest. By the early 1990's, methamphetamine was gaining in popularity, spreading west to east across the country, and hitting rural areas particularly hard. No community is immune. There are three distinct components to combating the overall methamphetamine problem: first, enforcement; second, a comprehensive domestic and international precursor control program; and, third, the identification and cleanup of the growing number of small toxic labs, which we call STLs. As a result of our efforts and those of our law enforcement partners across the country and in Canada, since 2001, the United States has seen a 79 percent decrease in the seizure of superlabs. Enforcement efforts have also led to an 85 percent reduction in the amount of pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and other methamphetamine precursors seized at the Canadian border, and the price of black market pseudoephedrine in California has doubled. Internationally, the DEA is working with our foreign counterparts to prevent the diversion of pseudoephedrine from Europe, China, and India to methamphetamine producing countries. Specialized training is required to safely and effectively conduct these investigations, and our Office of Training has developed a program for our agents, State and local officers, and our foreign counterparts. Since fiscal year 2000, we have provided basic clandestine laboratory training certification to over 6100 State and local law enforcement officers. Additionally, we are providing clandestine lab awareness training to approximately 17,000 students per year. Heightened enforcement efforts have resulted in a dramatic increase throughout the country. To properly dispose of resulting waste, the DEA has enlisted the services of the private sector to help clean up these lab sites. The DEA's Hazardous Waste Program, with the assistance of the COPS Program, supports and funds the cleanup of the majority of the laboratories seized in the United States. Though the number of cleanups has increased more than 4,000 percent, the average cost per cleanup has continued to decrease. In addition to the drain on law enforcement resources, the demands on medical, social, environmental, and public health and safety services continue to grow. STLs account for the vast majority of clandestine labs and are often discovered in areas where children live and play. These STLs also generate toxic waste, which is frequently discharged on the ground, into the waterways, or down the drain. Clearly, given the problem of this magnitude, there is a need for new approaches and strong regulatory controls on precursor chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine. The regulation of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine is a vital overall strategy to combat methamphetamine abuse. State legislative measures have focused on limiting the amount of pseudoephedrine products that may be purchased, the location and manner in which the product may be purchased, the requirements for the process and purchase itself. Because State action regulating methamphetamine precursors is a recent development, the administration will wait for better data and information to emerge before commenting on the effectiveness and impact of any particular action in reducing methamphetamine availability or methamphetamine laboratory numbers and how they relate to Federal policy. The administration recently released the National Synthetic Drug Action Plan. In doing so, the Department of Justice, ONDCP, and DEA proclaimed the seriousness of the challenges posed by methamphetamine, along with other synthetic drugs and diverted pharmaceuticals, as well as our resolve to confront these challenges. The Action Plan outlines specific steps the Federal Government will take to accelerate our national efforts against these harmful substances. The DEA is energetically combating our national methamphetamine epidemic on several fronts: we are engaged in aggressive enforcement, comprehensive domestic and international precursor chemical control, the identification of cleanup of the growing number of STLs, and providing clandestine laboratory training to our law enforcement partners, as well as our foreign counterparts. In addition to our efforts in these areas, we also believe that stricter regulatory controls of precursor chemicals is one of the most effective tools available to assist in the fight against illicit methamphetamine production. Thank you for your recognition of this important issue and the opportunity to testify here today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Rannazzisi follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.032 Mr. Souder. Thank you. I want the record to show, too, that what our committee is finding is that the national EPIC number of 17,000 is tremendously understated. In northeast Indiana alone, in talking with our sheriffs, the number in my district exceeds the number for the State; and in Northwest Arkansas, they had more than was reported for their entire State; and in meetings that we had with Congressman Alexander in Alexandria and Monroe, Louisiana, with about 30 to 50 sheriffs and prosecutors, they just dwarfed the numbers that are reported. It doesn't appear that any one State is off; it is a process. But I think that explains some of the political pressure that we are hearing, because somehow our numbers aren't matching in the reporting, and I think it is just a lot of them are very small local police that are so overwhelmed. In my district we can't build enough jails to put the meth addicts in. Every single county outside of Allen County, where Fort Wayne is, has the majority of their jail spots filled right now with meth addicts. And the second they let them out, they are right back in it. They are the most immune group to treatment that we have faced in any of our drug questions right now, and it is partly why we are feeling this political pressure. But first I wanted to ask Mr. Burns and Mr. Rannazzisi, on the small meth labs, what is the main source of precursor supply? Do you feel they are buying it from pharmacies or stealing it? Do they get the anhydrous ammonia and other solvents by buying them or stealing them? Mr. Rannazzisi. Let us talk about the anhydrous ammonia first. Extremely dangerous chemical used in farming. A necessary tool for farmers. Basically, they are stealing it. They are walking in, looking at nurse tanks that are on farmland, waiting late at night, walking onto the farmland, tapping into the nurse tank, an extremely dangerous situation. Anhydrous ammonia is a terrible, terrible chemical as far as inhalation; severe medical damage to the lungs. There have been countless reports of police officers and people being injured or killed, citizens being killed because of anhydrous. If you remember correctly, I believe it was last year there was a meth lab operator who tapped into a high-pressure anhydrous line in Florida. It was a pipeline. It scorched 500 acres of land. I believe two residential developments were evacuated and a school. Obviously, they need the chemicals, and they go after the chemical that way. Mr. Souder. What about the pseudoephedrine? Mr. Rannazzisi. Pseudoephedrine is available in all different markets. I believe we have done a very good job in stopping the bulk flow across the Canadian border. We do know that pseudoephedrine is still sent out from, as you said, the European countries and China and India. There is that sector of bulk pseudoephedrine; there is also the retail sector. Obviously, you could walk into pharmacies and buy pseudoephedrine. Mr. Souder. There is no reason to steal it if you can buy it over the counter. Mr. Rannazzisi. Right. There are reports where people have done sweeps where they have actually walked into pharmacies with shopping bags and just swept the whole shelf, put them in the bag and ran out of the store. There are serious concerns about stealing as well. The profit margin is so high, though, if you think about it, why would you want to steal it and get caught, when you could purchase it. You could smurf it, go to five, six, seven pharmacies or other areas, purchase it, and make your methamphetamine. Mr. Souder. Because a lot of the mom-and-pop people are cooking for themselves, or maybe two people, and they can buy it. It is only if they maybe start to get a circle of 10 to 15 would you start to see---- Mr. Rannazzisi. I believe that is accurate. Well, I don't like to call them mom-and-pop labs; we call them STLs. As a gentleman in Kentucky told me, I've known my mom and pop for 43 years, and I have never gone home and watched them cook meth. And I really believe that is accurate. We call them STLs because that is what they are, they are very toxic labs. Mr. Souder. But there is a difference between those who are predominantly cooking for themselves and the immediate household, and those who are actually dealers as well. Mr. Rannazzisi. That is right. If you look at the people who are cooking in their houses, you are looking at small labs, probably no more than an ounce. Then you have the people who are cooking to support their habit and also to make money. They are going to be the multi-ounce purchasers. They are the guys who are going to be going out and smurfing large quantities of retail sales pseudo, and they are going to be going to 5, 6, 7, 10 retail distributors purchasing their packs, bringing it home and starting the process. Mr. Souder. Oklahoma has probably the toughest law at this point, and they seem to be making some progress. Do you believe that is because of the law? Mr. Rannazzisi. I am very cautious to discuss the Oklahoma law, and the reason is because, as you said, the statistics that are coming out now--let us talk about the CLSS first of all. I think you mentioned that the CLSS statistics are kind of off; and the reason is that there is always a time lag between when the lab is seized and when the paperwork is submitted. Now, on the CLSS, paperwork is submitted from all different areas. On the west coast it is submitted through WISEN, which is a collaborative intelligence center; there could be a 2 to 3-month lag time. But in these smaller departments, they have so much to do, they might not submit their paperwork for 3, 4, or 5 months. They are getting it in, they just are not getting it in on a timely basis. And I understand, I was a lab agent for many years; I still am a lab agent. I don't feel that blame should be put on those officers; they are doing their best. But that is why we don't look at those statistics. We don't look at the November statistics and say, look at this, this is where we are. We usually wait about 4 to 6 months from the month we are looking at to make a determination that is a good number. So what I would like to do, and I think what the administration and the Department wants to do, is sit back and wait about a year. Look at the statistics after a year to make a determination how much impact that Oklahoma legislation had. I think that is the prudent thing to do. Mr. Souder. Did you see the Oregonian, which has a cumulative chart that combines DEA data and a Rand Study that shows when we regulated ephedrine, the purity of meth dropped dramatically over a period of a number of years? Then as they figured out they could use pseudoephedrine, it went back up again. And when we started to put more regulations on pseudoephedrine, it dropped again. That is a long-term chart that shows some correlation to the regulation that uses some DEA data. Are you familiar with that chart? Mr. Rannazzisi. I have read that article numerous times and I am familiar with that. I am interested to see where the purity data came from. I am not familiar with the sources that they got that data from. Obviously, whenever we have a major enforcement push, an operation that cuts the flow of precursor chemicals, there is going to be less of a market, less methamphetamine on the market. If there is less methamphetamine on the market, the dealers that have the methamphetamine are going to cut their product to service more people, so you are going to see a period of decrease. That is an absolute. Mr. Souder. I would appreciate it if you could, since the footnote source is DEA and a Rand Study, get back to us with particulars. Because if that study is incorrect--I know the difficulty of determining purity, too. A chart makes it look very scientific, but that is actually good news, if we show that when we combine intercept internationally and control at the local pharmacy level, that we have a reduction in purity. But I would like to make sure that chart is accurate. Mr. Rannazzisi. Thank you, sir. I will take care of that. Mr. Souder. Mr. Cummings. Mr. Cummings. You don't believe that the numbers are accurate when it comes to people involved in using methamphetamine? It sounds like you and the chairman were in some agreement on that. In other words, the number of people, whether the stats that we get--he just talked about Indiana, and then you seem like you kind of verified it, that you don't believe that the stats. He said the jails are filled with methamphetamine addicts, and I thought you kind of verified it, but tell me. I guess what I am trying to get to is, first of all, we have to understand what our problem is and the extent of it, before we can deal with it; and if we are not getting numbers that are accurate--and you gave some reasons why they might not be accurate, but, first of all, I want to know you obviously believe that the problem is worse than what it appears to be, or what the information is being put out to be. Mr. Rannazzisi. Oh, absolutely. I believe there is a terrible problem with methamphetamine abuse, and I believe there is a very large population of abusers out there. I believe there is a large population of abusers that haven't been identified. That is absolutely correct. Mr. Cummings. I listened to you talk about things that the DEA was doing--and, gentlemen, you might want to chime in whenever you get ready to--and we are talking about training? Mr. Rannazzisi. Yes, sir. Mr. Cummings. Tell me just generally about the training. What does the training entail that is different than, say, dealing with other drugs? Mr. Rannazzisi. Well, there are several different training courses, but let us take you through what an agent goes through for training. You start with your clandestine lab investigation and safety course. That is about 2 weeks long. Once you get that course under your belt and you go out, learn a little bit about labs, then they send you back for safety officer school, which I believe is another 3 to 5 days. That is advanced training. You get to learn about the equipment and how to take it apart, how to check it, make sure it functions properly; how to set up a site safety; how to make sure that all the toxic substances are identified and removed. Then you go into your instructor class. That is basically the progression. It is quite a bit of training, and there is also a lot of on-the-job training. When we take our new lab agents into the labs, it is on-the-job training; we are teaching them what to do and what not to do. The problem with labs, unlike other law enforcement, is until you have done it, until you have seen a process go bad, you really just don't know. And you are working in very restrictive suits. You do an entry where a lot of times your vision is restricted because you are wearing respiratory gear. You have to operate in these big bulky suits; you have to be very careful. There is always an inhalation problem, where you could inhale toxic substances. It is just a different type of law enforcement. It is a very different type of law enforcement. Mr. Cummings. Let me ask you this. If you were up here and you got people in your district that are suffering tremendously with regard to meth addiction, and you see the labs all over the place, what would you do? I mean, in other words, is there something that we can do that we are not doing? Because that is the bottom line. Is there something that we as Members of Congress can do? We obviously have bad numbers, and the problem is worse than what we think it is. Clearly, this drug is destroying a whole lot of people. I am always amazed when I go into these various counties outside of urban areas and find out how many people are involved in drugs. And they serve their time, maybe they get caught; they can't get jobs, they can't support their families, and then they are back in jail again. Communities destroyed; families paying out money,; good, hard-working people trying to keep their kids going, trying to stop them from committing crimes, so they are coming out of their pocket with money that they could be paying their mortgages and buying food with and medicine or whatever. So it is a tremendous drain on our society. I am just trying to figure out what can we do to try to address this problem that is just really going out of whack? What would you do, more than what we are doing? And then just one tag-on question on that one. You were talking about the Federal Government should wait and see how these State laws work out, and I think that is not an unreasonable proposition. The problem is that there are too many people suffering in the meantime. And I am just wondering how long is long enough to wait? I am assuming we are going to get some people come up here saying how great their State law is working, and I am just guessing they may say the Federal Government ought to be doing this and helping out and maybe making this across-the-board so that you can help us in our communities. And since you won't be coming back up, I just want to get you to answer that. Mr. Rannazzisi. Well, personally, I believe that looking at the data for about a year, if we could look at a year's worth of data, I think that will give the statistics enough time to stabilize and we could make a good determination of what impact it is having on the community. Obviously, if the lab seizures significantly decrease within a year, then we should look at that legislation strongly. But what we do also see is peaks and valleys, and it might not stabilize down; there might be another source of that pseudoephedrine coming in somewhere. That is why we always like to wait to make a determination, to make an informed determination. For me to come back here and tell you I believe that this is the way to go, I think it wouldn't be prudent for me to say, at this point in time, this is it, this is what we need. Is it promising? Absolutely it is promising. But I don't think I could sit here today and tell you that, at this point in time, with what I have, the statistical data I have, that is necessarily the answer. It is a very promising piece of legislation. I know the legislation you are talking about. But at this point in time I don't think we have enough data to make that determination. Mr. Cummings. To the first part of the question, what would you do? Is there something that we can do more than what we are already doing? Mr. Rannazzisi. Well, obviously, there is an awareness issue, getting the retailers to understand that this is extremely dangerous; allowing people to walk into a store and buy 10, 15 packs of blister-exempt products. Obviously, if you are buying 10 to 15 packs of blister packs, I just can't imagine you have that bad of a cold; I think that you are doing something else with the drug. And if retailers would understand that, they would limit. About 3 years ago, when I was a section chief in the Dangerous Drugs and Chemicals Section, I sent two of my guys into a local place. I said, here is $500, see how much pseudoephedrine you can buy; and they basically came back with a bag full of pseudoephedrine. They paid $350 for it and no one looked at them, no one said boo. So I think the one component is the retailers have to be our partners. The retailers are going to have to stop allowing people to walk in and purchase quantities, large quantities. I think that is part of the issue. Mr. Cummings. I just wanted to leave you with this. I never thought I would go all the way back to when I was 16 with regard to this issue, but when I was 16 years old, I worked in a drug store, and I remember I didn't even understand Robitussin, but I remember people used to come in and buy Robitussin, I mean, like seven and eight bottles of it. Now, I knew people had colds and everything, but I thought that was a bit much. But I didn't know. Come to find out they were buying Robitussin to get high. And when I figured it out, I mentioned it to the fellow, who now is deceased, who owned the drug store, and he was saying you have to understand, I have to make a profit. I would hope that we would be able to get the kind of cooperation from the drug stores and whatever, but I am not sure that is enough. And I guess that is the frustrating part of all of this, as I listened to all of you, and perhaps the witnesses that will come later will help us, but I can't believe that we have to sit and wait while all this destruction is taking place. Maybe I am just too impatient, but we have one life to live; this is it. Mr. Rannazzisi. And I understand your frustration, sir. I have been working lab cases as a diversion investigator and agent since 1986, and I have watched the progression of this problem. I have seen them go from phenyl to propenol and phenylacetic acid to ephedrine to pseudoephedrine, and all the weird combinations in between. It is a very frustrating process, and no one is more frustrated than me, because I have to go out into the communities and talk to the local officers and hear their problems. And they are problems, they are serious problems, because they care about the people they protect and serve. At this juncture, though, we have to look at all different types of legislation; we have to see what is going to be the most effective thing before we can sit here and make a determination. Mr. Cummings. Do you think the Office of Drug Control Policy, for example, is doing enough in regard to prevention? I mean, when you hear the stories like Mr. Mica talked about, the baby being put in the microwave, we have heard all kinds of stories. If some people could just see films of things that people do on meth, I just wonder whether it would make them think twice before they even got involved in it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Souder. Ms. McCollum. Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to kind of talk a little bit about the training. And I want to say that the Department has worked very hard to expand the training opportunities, but there are still barriers to many law enforcement receiving the training. Do you have or can you make available to the committee how many--I will use my State for an example--how many sheriff's offices through the counties, how many municipalities have taken advantage of the training, the followup training that is involved in it? Because what we are seeing is people are going out and getting trained on it, but there are so many other demands, State cuts occurring in law enforcement and other things, that we don't have maybe as many people taking advantage of the training as we realize, just as Congressman Cummings was talking about really knowing the numbers of people who are incarcerated, as the sheriff pointed out; how many children are being impacted in social services and everything like that. We need to get a handle on this for the numbers, and I don't know if you have data available, if you could get it to the committee. Mr. Herraiz. Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman McCollum, we certainly would be happy at the Department to get you that information. I would like to followup, though, as to the training aspect and share with you just a better snapshot of what is actually happening. It is imperative, as I mentioned in my testimony about the rural jurisdictions. Too many times sheriffs' deputies will be going into a scene that they are going there for something else, and they have no idea that they are going to encounter a meth lab. It could be a protective service order or something that they are going to serve, and they do. And if they have been improperly trained, we have already put their life at risk. So what is important for us to look at is to get to Congressman Cummings' issue as far as what is it that we could do differently while you, in the meantime, continue to look at the legislative remedies. I think it is important for us to expand our training efforts. I mentioned to you, again in the testimony, that we are going to triple, and we are doing it currently, triple our methamphetamine training at a State level. It is at a State level in the sense of those who receive our funds, because that is our point of contact, to provide it for the locals. So if you can envision that in 12 States this coming year, for the first time, the Bureau of Justice Assistance will be able to offer that training to all local law enforcement through the State criminal justice entity, this is a huge step forward. For us to be able to, in that training, educate law enforcement officers on a traffic stop, as an example. When they pull over someone's car for a speeding ticket, what have you, and approach the car and they see these chemicals in the back, many law enforcement officers have no idea what they are actually seeing. So it is imperative that we educate the law enforcement officers. As was mentioned from DEA, it is imperative we educate pharmacists and clerks in facilities, whether it be a retail facility or a drug store chain, what to look for so that they can in fact alert law enforcement. Training is something that we can do more of, and that is public education as well. I think that so much of that can happen. In my own home State we found methamphetamine labs in the back of trunks at rest stops. So it is a pervasive issue, but I still think there is much more that we can do through training and education. You had referenced meth in the context of treatment, and when you are looking at facilities, Mr. Chairman, you referenced the county facilities in your community. In the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program that our agency runs, there are resources to actually invest back into the State and local communities so folks can receive treatment while they are incarcerated, so we don't maintain that revolving door. We can continue to make utilization of the Regional Information Sharing Systems that are out there that the Department of Justice funds because as we know if an epidemic occurs, if it is in Fort Wayne, IN, it will soon be in Van Wert, Ohio. So it is important for us to continue to educate, and the best way to do that is through law enforcement information sharing systems such as, in this case, the RISS network that is funded by the government and administered through our office. So, again, we can get you more specific details on who has been trained and what is available. I can tell you the LLEBG resources and the Byrne resources are heavily involved in training initiatives for law enforcement, as well as funding the majority of the law enforcement multi-jurisdictional drug task forces that are out in the country. Ms. McCollum. And that is good, and I support the dollars for doing that, but sometimes I have found that other law enforcement issues aren't funded in order to increase funding into another program, and we need to be cognizant of not turning our back on another potential source of crime to fund another one. I will use Minnesota as the example. Ten percent of the methamphetamine, to the best of our knowledge, is from the small labs; 90 percent is what is coming in. Now, of that 10 percent, we need to address it aggressively, we need to continue to work with our retailers on that. But to just focus overwhelmingly--and each State is going to be different--for that 10 percent, when 90 percent of it is what is coming in, and we are seeing an increase on that, what do we need to do to stop that 90 percent coming in over the borders? I mean, we are supposed to be at heightened alert for activity now with homeland security, with what is going on with our borders, and when we see 90 percent of it not being produced locally, but coming in, and the term ``farm Mexico'' was used by my law enforcement, I think we still have a huge problem going back to homeland security. So where is the integration going on with that? What do we need to be aware of in Congress to make that more effective? Because if we can't keep out methamphetamine, how are we keeping out terrorists? Mr. Rannazzisi. Well, ma'am, to start, I don't think we are concentrating just on the small labs. I think the small labs are important because the meth coming from Mexico or other countries is produced and it is in the marketplace. When these people actually make methamphetamine in STLs, it presents a great problem for the health and safety of the community at large, and then that---- Ms. McCollum. Sir, I understand that fully, and that is why I prefaced it. I don't take away the seriousness of the 10 percent. I have law enforcement officers who have had to retire early because of going into meth labs and literally having their lungs destroyed. I take this very seriously. I had a constituent who purchased a home, who ran a daycare in it, and it wasn't disclosed in their retail. I understand that. I support the actions that the committee is taking on this; we need to focus on it. But in Minnesota, when 90 percent of the methamphetamine is coming in, the prisons are full, there is no treatment facility, we have children who are now in our social network system. I also want to know what we are doing as a country to decrease the amount of methamphetamine that is coming in illegal into this country. Mr. Rannazzisi. Well, to begin with, we are working with our foreign counterparts at the chemical-producing countries. We are trying to track the chemical shipments from places like China and Germany and India into those chemical-producing countries. We are actually asking for voluntary stop of those shipments. We are notified of the shipments; we know where they are going and we know where the methamphetamine is being produced. Say Mexico, for instance. We know that Mexico has several production laboratories down there. We are working with the Mexican authorities; we are actually training the Mexican authorities in clandestine laboratory enforcement so they can go out, find and identify these labs, and dismantle them. Unfortunately, when the problem moves outside of domestic boundaries, we have to work in conjunction with our international partners, and we are doing that. We are doing that in Mexico and abroad. It is difficult to shut down the border for methamphetamine, just as it is for cocaine and heroin, because the trafficking groups generally don't send one huge load through one particular port of entry. What they do is they find very novel approaches to move a contraband into the country. If I produce 300 pounds of methamphetamine, I am not going to move them all through one port of entry; what I am going to do is split the load. That way, if I lose two components of the load, I still have two to make my profit. And that is what is happening. But we still do have superlabs here as well. Not to the extent that we had 2 years ago, but we still have production labs. So we are working the production labs domestically on an enforcement basis with DEA and our local and State counterparts, and then we are working abroad in the chemical- producing countries, where the precursors start, and then in the production countries, such as Mexico, where it is being manufactured. Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair? I think that because they are two very serious ways in which people access these illegal drugs, both the small labs here and, as the gentleman pointed out, there are some large labs here, but also the international trafficking of this over our borders, at a time when we believe in Congress that we are spending a lot of money trying to make our borders more secure. Both of those maybe need to be separated out, as well as this is such a big topic, maybe what we need to do, Mr. Chair, with your help, is to break the next set of hearings down into smaller components so we can really wrestle and get into what we need to do congressionally to put an end to this problem. Mr. Souder. I appreciate your suggestion, and as we pursue the meth problem, that is a good point. I want you to know, as well as the other members of the panel and those who are listening, that we are having a major internal battle which I think, based on everyday changes, that we have made some progress on. Speaker Hastert has been taking the lead. Obviously, border control and homeland security, the narcotics part and homeland security are totally interrelated; they are the same people on the border. And one of the arguments we are having on the so-called 9/ 11 Commission bill is a series of amendments that I had in the Homeland Security Committee that the Speaker is advocating to strengthen the Air and Marine Division inside Border Protection, which is danger of being gutted; to strengthen the Counternarcotics Office that didn't even have anything but a detailee there, even though Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Customs, those legacy agencies are the major part; and to also take a number of other steps. We have seen the Shadow Wolves in effect disbanded, which is a critical part on the Arizona border, and we cannot talk about how we are going to control the borders if we disband the anti-narcotics operations inside Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security has to understand that if they are in charge of the border, narcotics is part of their mission. And this committee has been taking the lead, and we need to continue to push that part of it. In addition, clearly, if we lose these court rulings on the drug dogs, this is a disaster at the borders. There has been a local hearing that is going up toward the Federal level that would challenge the propriety of drug dog hits at the border, and that is one of the only ways that we pick up the random, if we don't have a tip. And if we don't have control of the border, anything else we talk about becomes more or less irrelevant. I need to ask a series of questions here which we may not have all the answers, but I want to make sure some of these get in the record, and we will have some additional questions, because we are working toward a package and also what we should focus on in hearings in this next year. And I want to followup directly with one of the things that Ms. McCollum just asked Mr. Rannazzisi. The Oregonian newspaper reported that DEA has not actively sought information or cooperation from manufacturers or law enforcement authorities in India, one of the major pseudoephedrine exporters. The Indians, however, claim that they are very willing to work with DEA to address the diversion program, including by providing DEA with documentation about exports to third countries, such as Canada. Does DEA plan to increase its efforts in India and elsewhere to monitor and track the pseudoephedrine exports to third countries? Mr. Rannazzisi. We do work with the Indian government. We sit on numerous international committees where there is dialog between our staff and the Indian government regarding shipments of chemicals. I don't understand where that came from, but that is just not the case. Mr. Souder. Could you provide us with how many agents in India you have working on this, roughly? I realize agents do multiple tasks. And also, in particular, the question of third countries. In other words, often we are looking directly at us, but a lot of this is coming from Mexico and Canada. Also, do you and Mr. Burns believe that we need new import quotas or controls to prevent diversion of pseudoephedrine? Mr. Burns. I didn't get the question. Mr. Souder. Do you believe we need new import quotas or other controls to prevent diversion of pseudoephedrine? Mr. Burns. Yes. I think that is something that would be very helpful to address some of the questions that you have asked and Congresswoman McCollum and Ranking Member Cummings. Let me just try and briefly state this: You have been very helpful. Ranking Member, you asked if we need to step back and look at the overall picture, and at the Office of National Drug Control Policy, that is what we try and do, and rely on good numbers for sound policy. You require it, the President requires it, Drug Czar John Walters certainly requires it. And what we know from the household survey and from monitoring the future is that there are currently 19.5 million illegal drug users in this country. Some of the most recent numbers. Seventy-five percent singularly or co-use marijuana; about 6 million are using illegally prescription drugs. That is a 150 percent increase in 5 years. That is a problem. About 3 million cocaine; about 1.5 heroin; and about 1.5 methamphetamine. So why this hearing today and why the Federal Government's response so aggressively to methamphetamine? For all the reasons that you have stated. We could be here all day, and I could try and respond to you what we have been doing in the State of Minnesota. I have been there three times in the last year. I flew with your senator to small towns all over the State; we had hearings. I called them talk-listen sessions. Senator Rosen has been very aggressive in gaining the ear of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. With your Governor, I recently flew around to several small towns and we listened again, trying to fix problems one at a time with respect to training, literally getting on the phone with law enforcement agencies, hooking the up with the Midwest HIDTA, which is located close by, and demanding that training information and access be made available. Ranking Member Cummings, you have one of the best HIDTAs in the country, with Director Tom Carr. I know that you have been wholly and fully engaged with Director Walters and others not only on this problem, but others. But the one point that I would like to make, and Mr. Rannazzisi has talked about the need to look at the numbers, it is because you demand good policy. This National Synthetics Drug Action Plan came out less than a month ago. It has taken us a long time to define what the issues are with all synthetic drugs and to come up with a plan so at some point we can come to you with numbers and with recommendations that are appropriate. And I am going to chair a synthetic drug working group; the Plan requires that be set up within 30 days, and the first meeting will take place within the next couple of weeks. And then I hope, and I say this to all of you, that we will be able to come back, as Mr. Rannazzisi has said, with good numbers so that you can make good decisions based on sound policy. Mr. Souder. We need to get to our second panel, but I have some very specifics that I want to have on the record. Did DEA support new import quotas or controls to prevent diversion? Mr. Rannazzisi. I am sorry, sir, could you repeat that question? Mr. Souder. Do you support new import quotas or other controls to prevent diversion of pseudoephedrine? Mr. Rannazzisi. I believe that is in the National Drug Synthetic Action Plan, and I do believe we support that, absolutely. Mr. Souder. Another question has to do with Glowtel. There have been lots of news stories around the country that says when Glowtel is added to anhydrous ammonia, it dyes it bright pink. Apparently, the bright pink color transfers to any meth made with anhydrous ammonia and actually stains any users of the drug. Should the Government promote the use of this additive? Mr. Rannazzisi. I know about the additive, I just don't know enough to promote or tell you that it is a good program. I do know that there are a couple of other studies out there, including University of Iowa---- Mr. Souder. Are you investigating this or is ONDCP or Justice? Mr. Rannazzisi. I believe our lab program is investigating it, our forensic laboratory program is looking into it. Mr. Souder. Can you have somebody respond to the committee on any investigations on Glowtel? Mr. Rannazzisi. Yes. Mr. Souder. Also, The Oregonian newspaper said Pfizer has announced it would soon introduce a new form of Sudafed which contains, instead of pseudoephedrine, a compound called phenylephrine. And you, earlier, just referred to some acid that sounded like it was the same basic component, you said phenyl acid? Mr. Rannazzisi. Phenylacidic acid. It is a different precursor. It was one of the primary precursors used way back. Mr. Souder. So do you believe that such chemicals like that could prevent meth use, or will they be able to transfer like they have transferred from ephedrine to pseudoephedrine? Mr. Rannazzisi. If we are talking about the drug phenylephrine, our lab has done studies with phenylephrine, and they do not believe that you can manufacture methamphetamine from that substance. Mr. Souder. So that becomes a very interesting question, because there may be more than one way to tackle this problem. We have some other written questions I want to submit, but I want to say both to the Department of Justice and the CTAC Program that what we have heard in State after State from law enforcement officials is they appreciate the training. Their No. 1 problem right now is not the training. They don't have cleanup equipment. In CTAC or from Bureau of Justice Assistance, these mobile labs are very expensive. What is happening is we are freelancing in the appropriations process. I, for 2 straight years, have gotten money for Indiana that way; Tennessee has gotten money for their State; Hawaii has gotten money for their State. What is happening, because, bluntly put, the administration is not responding, in my opinion, to what local law enforcement is asking, individual Members of Congress are freelancing and earmarking your appropriations. And we need to look at and listen at the grassroots level; otherwise, we are going to have chaos in our appropriations process. With no national drug control plan, we are going to have individual Members of Congress responding to what they are hearing from the grassroots level; and that is one thing that we need to look at in the mix of the equipment and how to do that. Does anybody else have anything on the first panel? Mr. Cummings. I just have two questions. And I will submit some written questions, gentlemen. I want to thank you for your testimony. Mr. Herraiz, do meth addicts present any unique problems with regard to treatment, being amenable to treatment? Do you know? Mr. Herraiz. Methamphetamine? Mr. Cummings. Addicts. In other words, I am thinking about treatment. I was just listening to what the chairman was saying, different ways to try to approach this whole issue. Do they present any unique problems with regard to being amenable to treatment? If you know. You may not even know. Mr. Herraiz. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Cummings, yes. Meth is highly addictive. And those statistics are available. If you look at data from CSAP and others, SAMHSA, you will find statistics that will show that. That is a correct assumption. Mr. Cummings. The reason why I mention it is because I am trying to figure out the drug courts and all the things that we are trying. I am just wondering if we need to look at that. An maybe the folk coming up will mention something about that. But I was just trying to figure out whether they are more difficult to treat. Because I have been a big proponent of treatment. I just want to make sure that we are doing what we need to be doing in the area. And I am sure somebody will address that. Mr. Burns. Congressman, if it is helpful, your appropriation to the President's Access to Recover Program, a grant was made to the State of Tennessee, and pursuant to that grant they are in the process of answering the question that you just asked. Currently, everything is anecdotal. As I travel the country, programs are from 7 days to a year and a half. Mr. Cummings. Thank you all very much. Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, to followup on that, maybe we can, if you have the time to break this down and out a little more, have someone in from CDC and NIH. And I just handed Mr. Cummings two articles. They do not feel that any of the treatment programs that are currently out there are successful at all in really addressing hardcore addiction on this. So what we are doing is we are just recycling them through the prison population. They come back, more crimes are committed, and it is a never-ending cycle. That is why, as I mentioned earlier, law enforcement is starting to see literally in families three generations of abuse on this. So treatment and that does become a key thing we need to talk about. Mr. Souder. Thank you. We have been the only State that has a 10-year tracking on this. Congressman Case asked us to do a hearing in Hawaii, because they have the biggest earmark, I think it was $5 million for meth, in the appropriations process through Senator Akaka, or I believe, Inouye. And they have actual data of different types of patterns in meth at their schools over a 10-year tracking; they have it in treatment programs as well, and they have one. We are trying to find even programs that are geared specifically toward meth treatment, but they are hard to find. It has been hard, at this point, even to get a hearing cluster enough together to treat it, but that would be one of our goals for this coming year. I appreciate your help with that. And it is a good idea to get CDC and some of the other groups in. I very much appreciate your patience. We will have additional written questions for you, and thank you for your continued work in this field. We have made progress, and we shouldn't deny that, and marijuana has been fairly dramatic, which is a precursor drug for all meth users. We have made progress, and hopefully that will pay off over time. But short- term we have an exploding problem across the country that is growing faster than even our statistical ability to keep up with it in meth, and we need to respond to that. We appreciate your willingness to come today. Mr. Rannazzisi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Souder. With that, could the second panel come forward? Mr. Lonnie Wright, Sheriff Bundy, Lieutenant Colby, Mr. Heerens, Dr. Suydam, and Ms. Wagner. Thank you. We have a new panel to swear in. Could each of you stand and raise your right hands? [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Souder. Let the record show that each of the witnesses responded in the affirmative. We have been joined by our distinguished colleague from the State of Kansas, who has been very concerned with this issue for a long period of time, Mr. Moran, and he would like to personally introduce one of the witnesses, and we will start with that witness today. Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Cummings, thank you very much for the honor of joining you on the dais today, and I am here to commend you for your subcommittee's work. I know, as a Member of Congress from a very rural district, that this is a significant issue for my constituents, for my State, and, in fact, I have fought long to bring to the attention of the administration, as well as Members of Congress, that I think challenges we face with drugs in this country are often thought of to be an urban problem. Woefully not true, and particularly not true with methamphetamine. So I am honored to be here today to join you and to particularly introduce one of the witnesses on this panel. This issue receives significant attention in Kansas. In 1994 we had four meth busts; in 2004 we will have between five and 600. When our former colleague, Mr. Hutchinson, was at DEA, he has been to Kansas to meet with law enforcement. I had the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime come to Kansas and conduct a hearing on rural issues related to methamphetamine. You have before you today one of our experts, our sheriff from Rice County, KS, Sheriff Bundy. The sheriff is highly regarded in law enforcement circles in Kansas and has been actively involved in law enforcement for more than two decades, and he comes from a county that, in some ways, has a larger population than many of my other counties, with, I would guess, a population of around 10,000 people in the entire county. This is one of my urban sheriffs, and we are delighted to have his perspective. And I welcome him and thank him for taking the time in his dedication to the cause to be here today. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Cummings, for allowing me to join you. Mr. Souder. Thank you. Sheriff, you have the floor. STATEMENTS OF SHERIFF STEVE BUNDY, RICE COUNTY, KS, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; LONNIE WRIGHT, DIRECTOR, OKLAHOMA BUREAU OF NARCOTICS AND DANGEROUS DRUGS; LIEUTENANT GEORGE E. COLBY, DIVISION COMMANDER/PROJECT DIRECTOR, ALLEN COUNTY DRUG TASK FORCE, ALLEN COUNTY, IN, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; JOSEPH HEERENS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, MARSH SUPERMARKETS, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE; DR. LINDA SUYDAM, PRESIDENT, CONSUMER HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION; AND MARY ANN WAGNER, VICE PRESIDENT, PHARMACY REGULATORY AFFAIRS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHAIN DRUG STORES Mr. Bundy. Congressman Moran and Chairman Souder, Raking Member Cummings, and other distinguished members, I am very happy to be here today, and hope to provide some insight into some tough decisions you have to make in the near future. As Congressman Moran stated, I have been in law enforcement for about two decades in Kansas. I am a certified meth lab investigator. Matter of fact, I was at a meth lab for 9 hours right before flying out here to be with you. So I think I might be able to offer you some insights that may be helpful. We are a very rural county; we have a population of about 10,000; we are 750 square miles. There is myself and four officers who provide service for those 10,500 people, which is representative of about 75 percent of Kansas law enforcement. And I think if we would look at it even beyond the boundaries of Kansas, that is not so non-typical for western United States once you leave this fine area. We do have a serious methamphetamine problem. One of the reasons is the very qualities we enjoy is our agricultural nature, the wide open spaces. The things that are most appealing to those involved in producing methamphetamine draws them to our county. We don't have the resources to do a lot with that, given the five people, so we came up with a program that is called Meth Watch in Kansas. I may briefly tell you how that works for us. And it simply was a recognition and an admission by myself that my resources were overwhelmed with the problem. We went to the community and said, we need your help. We educated the citizens on the very problem with methamphetamine for our area. And once we had got them to partner with us and see how large of a problem this was, the very scope of it, how it affected them and their taxes, and overwhelmed the resources of law enforcement, that we weren't responding to them in a timely manner they wished, they were very eager to partner with us in this battle against methamphetamine. The next group we brought into that were the retailers. And the interesting insight to that was that they actually were calling me, asking what can we do, because we had such tremendous support from the community, as well as from the local media, on really detailing, covering all the problems that we were encountering and just the frequency and the amount of work we were having to put into methamphetamine investigations. So retailers came on board very easily and anxiously, and wanted to partner with us. And the community had an expectation of those retailers to partner with them and law enforcement in this very program. We made cases through that with great regularity. If it is not just the retailers reporting suspicious transactions or odd purchases, or they recognize just the very ingredients you have talked today in the shopping carts coming through the lines, if they aren't calling, we are getting calls from the citizens of Kansas that have been trained. And when they are in line, they notice these shopping carts behind them, or they will notice the peculiar behavior of a multitude of individuals coming in and splitting up and buying these purchases and then lining up in the checkout line. So it has been very effective for us in Kansas to approach it at the community level through a very strong education piece that was only possible by a small grant through the Kansas Methamphetamine Project of $3,000 is really what initiated this Meth Watch program. So I don't want you to underestimate the value of the Federal dollars coming down the State levels, and from the State level to the local level, and what $3,000 can be, because it has had a huge impact in my county. My neighbors to the south, the great State of Oklahoma, have introduced Schedule V, and I know the early data says that is working well for them. I know there are some border counties in Kansas that are reporting an influx of Oklahoma residents coming up to purchase that, and I hope it works. I am a little guarded, as you have heard earlier, on that, because my experience in 20 years, it is very hard to regulate or legislate addiction; and relocating products, limiting products, it is still a very hard thing to take away from these people, because I work with them everyday. Truly, a portion of every workday is dedicated to methamphetamine work in a county my size, which hinders the civil process and the jail operation, and all the other services that a sheriff's office is forced to provide. So any tool we can come up with that helps is great. The grants were great, not only on the education front for the Meth Watch, but also in my training. I am the only meth investigator for clandestine labs in our county, which puts me at safety risk, as well as the citizens to only be able to provide one officer for that service. And, unfortunately, there has not been funding available in our State to train any more of my officers, so I can't partner up with another officer in these dangerous situations. So I encourage you to expand the grant portion of your investigation here, because it is critical to local law enforcement. You asked earlier about Glowtel. I would very much support that. We take an anhydrous ammonia theft daily and we recover anhydrous ammonia in any kind of container imaginable. So anything you can do to help the rural America on that front would be greatly appreciated too. In summary, it is just truly all my life has become is an officer. When I started in 1979, I was in uniform like this now. More often than not I look like a spaceman working for NASA in a suit with breathing apparatus and testing equipment, things like that. So I would encourage you to listen carefully today and be very open-minded, and come up with a comprehensive approach that would assist rural law enforcement. And I would be happy to answer your questions at the conclusion. [The prepared statement of Mr. Bundy follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.039 Mr. Souder. Thank you. And as I earlier stated, all of your written statements will be submitted in full of any witness. I want to depart from our normal procedure just a little, because we have not, in a Washington hearing, had anybody in detail explain who does it here. We have done it in the field hearings; we hear it all the time. You said it took you 9 hours. Why did it take you 9 hours? Mr. Bundy. Because it was a small lab, honestly. There have been labs that I have been at for 30, 32, 35 hours without a break, without stopping. It is just the complexity of the process; the hazards that are left behind that need to be remediated correctly; to collect new evidence. Most of these scenes have hundreds of pieces of evidence that have to be photographed and documented and collected. There are disposal orders that have to be sought from the judicial system to allow us to get rid of some evidence that is just too hazardous to store for trial. It is just a very large undertaking, and that is even further complicated by the rural nature of Kansas, in that oftentimes these sites are 15, 20, 40 miles from other resources. So when you do get a contracted company to help with the final disposal of the identified hazards, it just pretty much eats into an entire day. Mr. Souder. Well, I thank you for that, because we have heard testimony across the country that particularly in small, 10,000, up to 80,000 counties, 4 to 9 hours. Mr. Wright told me out in the hall earlier 12 hours; and Oklahoma has been as long. You can go out there, your entire drug task force is tied up, in some counties your entire police force is tied up all day long. It means nothing else is protected while you are out there dealing with one tiny lab. And we clearly have to have some way to kind of look at this problem in a macro way, as well as in the micro way. Now I would like to recognize Mr. Lonnie Wright, who is the director of the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. Mr. Wright. Thank you, Chairman Souder, Ranking Member Cummings, and the rest of the distinguished members here. I am probably the only guy that will be able to give you good news today. In Oklahoma we have regulated pseudoephedrine, and methamphetamine labs have dropped off dramatically. But before I talk about that and the law, I would like to tell you why we took such a step as regulating pseudoephedrine and making it a controlled substance. Like many other States, in our region, anyway, beginning in 1994, we have seen a steady increase in methamphetamine laboratories. I think the last few years we have worked over 1200 laboratories. And I know you have discussed methamphetamine lab reporting. In my opinion, these numbers are grossly under-reported. I can tell you that in many cases, when deputies in rural areas encounter boxed labs and trash that is often dumped by people who manufacture every few days, they don't wait 19 hours or 12 hours or whatever, they simply dump it in the trash. So those kind of statistics typically aren't reported. We don't see superlabs in Oklahoma; we haven't since the late 1980's. All we see are addict-operated laboratories. These laboratories are operated by people who are simply supplying their own addiction, and that of a few of their close friends. This is an addiction-based crime that we are encountering, not an economic-based crime like in years past. These are not laboratories with giant flasks that look like a chemistry department at a university like we have seen in the past; these are a few fruit jars, some coffee filters, and some household products. And at the onset of this epidemic, I think a lot of times law enforcement stumbled across these products and didn't really know that they were in a meth lab. Sometimes it is difficult for the untrained person to tell. In Oklahoma we have spent countless millions of dollars. We have done all the traditional things that we thought were necessary to treat the symptoms of this problem. But, yet, every year, as you can see from our graph, those numbers just go up and up and up, and seem to have no end in sight. Our jails are full of methamphetamine addicts; our treatment beds are full; our resources are strained to the hilt. We were pretty desperate and simply didn't know what to do. We initially had a 20-to-life sentence for manufacturing methamphetamine. We had to reduce that in part to accommodate the vast numbers of people that were apprehended in methamphetamine laboratories. One thing that I think is very important to note here, and it made a difference when we had these sort of hearings in Oklahoma, for understanding purposes: you don't mix a number of household products together and get methamphetamine. You start with pseudoephedrine that is molecularly very similar to methamphetamine, in fact, it is one O-H molecule different than methamphetamine. And you use those household products to burn that O-H molecule off in just a few short hours with this household apparatus and these products. In reality, a methamphetamine addict looks at these cold medications on the shelf like it is methamphetamine, not like we look at it, as medicine. So that is the single key issue to focus on if you want to solve the problem. You have to keep pseudoephedrine out of the hands of those who would simply convert it in a few hours. One of the differences, I think, between superlaboratories and addicts who buy methamphetamine from distribution networks, and those who manufacture their own is those who purchase it from distribution networks have to come up with the money. They are limited somewhat in their addiction and their ability to get as much methamphetamine as you want. When you can manufacture methamphetamine in your home for a fraction of the cost of what it would cost to buy it on the street, you can have all of it you want and it is basically pure. There is nothing to limit your addiction. So what we see is these people that are able to make as much as they want; their addiction becomes chronic very quickly. This is a terribly addictive drug, as you well know. Prolonged chronic addiction leads to something that we have been told is called the methamphetamine psychosis. A person who has methamphetamine psychosis is clinically indistinguishable from a paranoid schizophrenic, as we are told by our medical experts in Oklahoma. They are, of course, unpredictable, and violent behavior is often a result of that unpredictability. In that sense, in the past few years in Oklahoma, with this epidemic reaching a terrible state, the violence and the carnage associated with methamphetamine manufacturing and addiction has really resulted in a public safety problem and an issue. I think that is one of the reasons that we focus on that in State and local law enforcement more than maybe Mexican drug cartels and the like, because it is such a public safety issue. About a year ago we had an interim study in our legislature, much as you are holding here, and we brought in experts from all of the various disciplines to try to understand this. One thing was clear: what we were doing simply wasn't working. We basically, in essence, concluded that as long as methamphetamine addicts have access to pseudoephedrine, there won't be any diminution of methamphetamine labs, the mom- and-pop type labs that we are talking about. Our challenge, what we became: How do you keep pseudoephedrine out of the hands of those who would turn it into methamphetamine in a few short hours, while not restricting access to those who have nasal congestion? Pseudoephedrine is a nasal congestion medicine. We came up with the only solution we could, and that was to regulate it. What we did in Oklahoma, to make a long story short, we regulated all pseudoephedrine as a Schedule V controlled dangerous substance. We moved those starch-based tablets and hard gel caps behind the counter at the pharmacy. Those are the products that we see in methamphetamine laboratories. We require customers to show a photo identification and to sign a log book. We limit sales to nine grams of pseudoephedrine per running 30-day period. We ask individual pharmacists to look at that log book and not sell individuals more than that nine grams. And we are presently, pursuant to a COPS grant we are very grateful for, developing an online, State-wide, realtime log book that would enable pharmacists to access that data and know whether or not that person had purchased more than the nine grams in that 30-day period, thus having the ability to limit that and not let people have more pseudoephedrine than is necessary. We made exceptions. We exempted products that we have not seen in methamphetamine laboratories that contain pseudoephedrine. Those products are the squishy liquid-filled gel caps--we haven't encountered that--and all of the syrups. In total, the products that we moved behind the counter, say at a typical Walgreen's store, would be about 100 products, including their Equate brands. So this was really a quite doable deal. Our legislature passed this idea on April 7th of this year. The only opposition we had after great State-wide debate was the industry; and they opposed it. The citizens of the State of Oklahoma were pretty much tired of methamphetamine and problems associated with it, and I believe supported it. I have heard very few complaints from anyone, and we think that it is quite reasonable to have a minor inconvenience to treat nasal congestion, compared to the carnage that is associated with continued methamphetamine addiction. As you will note, and others here agree, these are preliminary numbers that we are seeing. But just instantaneously, the number of methamphetamine laboratories submitted to our State's crime laboratories dropped off by about 50 percent, and have steadily continued to drop in the months following. For example, our 27 drug task forces that are Byrne funded and very important, by the way, around the State do the lion's share of methamphetamine laboratory investigations. In 2003 they averaged 92.4 meth labs per month; they presently, as of August, reported 32 meth labs. That is about a 65 percent reduction. The same sort of reductions have been seen in our metropolitan areas. The Oklahoma City Police Department numbers have dropped off from an average of 14.5 per month to I think September they worked 2 meth labs; I think in October they worked 4 meth labs. And so on. So we are real encouraged by this. The bottom line is if these addicts can't have access to unlimited supplies of pseudoephedrine, they can't manufacture methamphetamine. You cannot manufacture that without having pseudoephedrine. The key to what you are trying to accomplish here is how do you keep that out of the addicts' hands. If I could say, there is a lot of anecdotal information. Mr. Souder. You need to conclude. We have given you generous time here. Mr. Wright. Sir? Mr. Souder. Make a concluding statement, because we have a 5-minute clock, and I have let you about double that. Mr. Wright. OK. I am basically finished, and I apologize, sir. We are looking at where pseudoephedrine presently comes from. Obviously it is coming from adjacent States and areas close to the border. We see people going from pharmacy to pharmacy, signing the log, and that is called smurfing. We hope to close that gap. And we have a few pharmacies that are yet to become compliant. So we are real excited about our results. And all these Federal programs you have talked about here, particularly Byrne and COPS, are very valuable to us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.044 Mr. Souder. Well, thank you. And I wanted to make sure you had a full description of the program in, because we probably had five hearings in the country now and description, and almost everywhere we go Oklahoma's program comes up. So we needed to have a full and thorough explanation of the Oklahoma program. And we are going to have a number of witnesses here who have concerns about how we do this at a Federal level, so I think that helped lay the groundwork for it. Lieutenant Colby is from my hometown of Fort Wayne, IN, which is a city larger than most areas that are affected by meth, as he states in his written testimony. But he has been the chief narcotics person in our region for many years, and not only has the city of Fort Wayne, but coordinates the drug task force that goes beyond the city. You have been through crack, you have been through all different types of narcotic challenges in Fort Wayne, including just a few years ago we had this boost up in LSD, and things come and go. This one appears to be different. You have talked to me before about the importance of the Byrne Grants, about RISS, and the information network, and I just wondered if you could share some of your thoughts about what is happening in Indiana and some of the historical perspective with what we are looking at here. Lieutenant Colby. Thank you very much, Chairman Souder, for asking me to share my views on State and local meth enforcement today. I commend you on drawing attention to the meth enforcement challenge by holding this hearing. We are in the midst of a crisis; last year in Indiana, law enforcement seized 1,260 clandestine meth labs. The total in 2004 will almost certainly be larger. In fact, just last Friday the Indiana State Police reported to me the State Police alone has responded to 973 labs so far this year. I can tell you that this problem, at the moment, affects rural areas more than it does affect our larger jurisdictions. The sky-high costs of taking down and dismantling meth labs is being carried by agencies with relatively very small budgets. We have learned to be very efficient in what we do, but we know we could do better if we had some more resources. To do better, we need your help. Alongside the devastating physical impact of meth on abusers, the saddest aspect of the meth problem is the so- called drug-endangered children issue. Investigators in Indiana often encounter children in clan lab sites. We remove these children from immediate danger and take them to local child protective agency services to make sure that these children are tested for the presence of meth and any other toxic chemicals in their bodies. Parents who subject their children or kids to these toxic waste sites are being held accountable by the use of child endangerment laws. More than other illegal drugs, meth enforcement requires a high degree of training and specialization for the officers who deal with it. Many of our officers have received specialized training and equipment provided by Federal agencies such as DEA. This training enables us more effectively to size and dismantle clan labs. We especially appreciate the training on how to enter operating labs, taking control of the sites and halting production. Let me give you an idea of the costs that we have been bearing in dealing with this problem. Specialized vehicles and equipment are very necessary to protect officers responding to hazardous sites and are very expensive. Appropriate training absolutely is essential, but is time-consuming and expensive. Waiting for qualified cleanup companies to arrive on the scene of an active lab takes 2 to 4 hours, during which officers who are on the payroll clock have to guard the site. They use part or almost all of a shift responding to just one meth lab. The real impact is on the bottom line. Hazardous material must be disposed of under strict government regulations. Faced with the nature of the meth problem, we cannot afford to just stand by; we have no choice but to attack the clan labs. But the costs are enormous. We are left with little choice but to appeal to our State leaders and you here in Washington to give us a hand. Narcotics officers throughout the State of Indiana are supporting efforts in our State legislature to pass a bill that would require Indiana retailers to demand photo identification and signature in a register book in order to purchase over-the- counter products containing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. I can tell you that we have closely watched the efforts of the State of Oklahoma, and we are aware that meth lab seizures are down about 50 percent from a year ago. We think that something can be learned from this lesson. I believe that based on the experience from States moving ahead with proposals that place common-sense restrictions on how certain products are sold, stored, and displayed can cause a significant upset in clan lab meth production. I think you should consider a Federal law that addresses these issues. You just might cause a real disruption in meth production at the small town mom-and-pop labs that are plaguing rural America. As a drug task force commander in Indiana, I can tell you that funding that comes from the Edward Byrne Memorial Formula Grant Program is critical in helping us tackle the meth problem. I know there are proposals to change the Byrne program, but I want to strongly urge you, Mr. Chairman, to fight to preserve the focus on Byrne and on Drug Enforcement efforts. Task force operations that Byrne funds are absolutely essential and effective pieces of overall illegal drug enforcement strategies. As echoed by the National Narcotics Officers Association's Coalition and the Indiana Drug Enforcement Association, Byrne Formula grants must continue, and the focus must remain on drug enforcement activities. Providing the means for police officers across the United States to work in multi-jurisdictional drug task forces has created thousands of drug-related intelligence leads, gang- related intelligence, and huge numbers of arrests. Neighborhoods are safer because of these efforts. In Indiana alone, we have 34 drug task forces funded by Byrne and a task force of over 200 full-time narcotics officers. State and local enforcement spends billions every year on drug enforcement, but the funding provided by Byrne is the magnet that attracts different agencies to give them incentives to cooperate. In the meth investigations, we found that importation for methamphetamine from superlabs located outside the United States is a major problem. As local law enforcement, we fully support the Federal anti-drug trafficking efforts of the southwest border. We also understand that California is a very significant source of meth production in huge superlabs. Because of a lot of the meth that makes its way to Indiana, we support these efforts to halt major production and trafficking activities. Effective methamphetamine enforcement means a strong support for training and equipment, but it also means reinforcing task force cooperation throughout the Byrne program, it means robust funding for programs such as the Regional Information Sharing System [RISS] that dramatically improve cooperative efforts, and the specialized meth training provided through the program such as the Center for Drug Task Force Training. RISS is the information-sharing intelligence highway that is available to thousands of enforcement agencies across the country. This program has proven effective over many of the years and the investment as a result of the cooperation of more effective enforcement. The State of Indiana established the Methamphetamine Abuse Task Force, of which a copy is attached to my testimony for your review. This Task Force was organized in July 2004 and represents law enforcement agencies, youth services, and family and social services. As law enforcement officers, we are sworn to protect the citizens. As we continue to fight the growth in meth abuse and production, strong Federal support for meth enforcement, training, and equipment is absolutely critical. By now most of the people understand the meth problem, but we in law enforcement know what it takes to make real progress against it. Thank you, Chairman Souder, for seeking our input, and I look forward to continuing to provide any guidance you and your staff needs. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Lieutenant Colby follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.067 Mr. Souder. Thank you. As we tackle this difficult issue, as we have done in a couple of other hearings, it is important we hear what impact it has on others as well. Not everybody, in fact a very small percent, who use pseudoephedrine are in fact drug addicts. And our first witness in this group is Mr. Joseph Heerens, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs for Marsh Supermarkets, on behalf of the Food Marketing Institute, another Hoosier, and representing a Hoosier firm that is a long-time family grocery business that has expanded across the State of Indiana. Mr. Heerens. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Joseph R. Heerens. I am the Senior Vice President of Government Affairs for Marsh Supermarkets, headquartered in Indianapolis, IN. My statement today is on behalf of Marsh Supermarkets and the Food Marketing Institute. To effectively combat the illegal diversion of chemical precursors, we need a comprehensive strategy and partnership between law enforcement, our regulatory agencies, manufacturers, and the retail community. But we have serious concerns about imposing stringent controls on precursor chemicals at the retail level. I am specifically referring to the Oklahoma law that relegates cough and cold products to Schedule V status. Under the Oklahoma model, only stores that have a pharmacy department are allowed to sell these products, and these products must be kept behind the pharmacy counter. For our industry, a Schedule V approach is very troublesome. That is because an overwhelming majority of grocery stores in the United States do not have a pharmacy department. For example, my company currently operates approximately 120 supermarkets in Indiana and Ohio, but only 46 of them have a pharmacy department. Therefore, under the Oklahoma model, more than 60 percent of our stores could not sell pseudoephedrine products that our customers expect us to carry to meet their shopping needs. At the national level, 79 percent of grocery stores do not have an in-store pharmacy. In other words, four out of every five grocery stores in the United States would be taken, in large part, out of the cough and cold business. Of our 46 stores with pharmacy departments, store hours are quite different from hours of operation in the pharmacy department. Most of our stores are open 24 hours to serve our customers who shop at all hours of the day and night. In comparison, our pharmacy departments are typically open less than 12 hours on weekdays and less than 8 hours on weekends. Therefore, even if the store is open for business, if the pharmacy department is closed or if the pharmacist is not on duty, sales of cough and cold products would not be permitted and our customers would have to shop elsewhere to meet their needs in this respect. This causes us great concern. A Schedule V approach would also present a number of operational challenges for pharmacy departments in grocery stores. For example, the average Marsh Supermarket typically carries on its retail shelves more than 150 types of cough and cold products. If we have to keep these products behind the pharmacy counter, my company would likely have to reduce the number of these products to no more than a few dozen. This is due to space limitations in the existing pharmacy departments. As such, Schedule V classification would mean less choice for our customers, as well as dramatically reduced customer access. It is also likely that Schedule V would force my company to spend a lot of money on construction to reconfigure our store layouts to make the pharmacy departments larger in order to facilitate new work flow and to accommodate the relocation and placement of these products behind the pharmacy counter. Additionally, Schedule V restrictions raise quality-of-care issues for our pharmacy operations. Under Schedule V, only the pharmacist or the pharmacy technician would be permitted to sell these products, which means less time for them to carry out their primary professional duties of preparing and dispensing prescriptions and consulting with customers about the safe and effective use of their prescription medications. Schedule V poses problems for supermarket companies and their customers who have a legitimate need for these products in order to treat their coughs and colds. There would be reduced customer access and customer inconvenience because their local grocery store, which they shop more than two times each week, would not be allowed to sell these products, or, if it contained a pharmacy department, would be allowed to sell these products, but only behind the pharmacy counter. Schedule V may also mean higher prices because sales will be restricted and the pharmacist would be required to ask for photo ID and have the customer sign a written log. Finally, Schedule V could not come at a more inopportune time, with the current flu vaccine shortages here in the United States. The supermarket industry applauds the work of the law enforcement community in its efforts against methamphetamine, but we do not believe Schedule V is the right solution. Instead, we advocate for a more comprehensive approach for reducing methamphetamine production, trafficking, and abuse. In this regard, the supermarket industry strongly supports the following initiatives: first, elimination of the blister pack exemption; second, a national uniformity threshold sales limit of six grams; third, greater regulatory authority, controls, tracking and quota limits over imports and the sale of bulk chemicals of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine; fourth, a ban on Internet sales of precursor chemicals; fifth, promotion and funding of educational training programs for store employees concerning suspicious pseudoephedrine purchases (i.e., the Meth Watch program); sixth, stiffer penalties for the manufacturing, distribution, and possession of methamphetamine; and, seventh, greater Federal regulatory authority, including licensing and inspection at the distributor level, especially secondary wholesalers. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and thank you for allowing me to participate in this important hearing. [The prepared statement of Mr. Heerens follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.071 Mr. Souder. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Dr. Linda Suydam, president of the Consumer Healthcare Products Association. Thank you for coming today. Ms. Suydam. Thank you. Chairman Souder and Ranking Member Cummings, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee today. I am Linda Suydam. I am president of the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, a 123-year-old trade association representing the manufacturers of over-the-counter medicines and nutritional supplements. Methamphetamine is a serious problem that plagues entire communities. And as we have heard in earlier testimony today, pseudoephedrine is a necessary ingredient in its manufacture. CHPA is deeply concerned that safe and effective medicines that are purchased by millions of consumers each year to treat symptoms of colds, allergies, asthma, and the flu are being diverted to manufacture meth in small clandestine labs. We are committed to the need for strong action to prevent the diversion of these important medicines to the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine. According to the DEA, these small clandestine labs account for about 20 percent of the meth supply in this country. Yet, that small number causes significant problems for communities. We believe, however, that the only way to significantly address the meth production and abuse is through a multifaceted approach that empowers communities to deal with all aspects of the problem. We encourage tough comprehensive measures to attack the meth problem at every level of its manufacture and abuse, including limiting the number of packages a consumer can purchase at one time; enacting severe penalties for those manufacturing and selling meth, especially those endangering children; strengthening law enforcement resources and providing them with the tools to take action against the major traffickers who fuel the meth supply and, as well, the meth cooks who threaten the safety of communities; and we need more programs focusing on prevention and education like Meth Watch. Mr. Chairman, we know you support Meth Watch, and we applaud the introduction of your bill, which would authorize Federal funding for this effective program. Implementation of Meth Watch has resulted in a dramatic reduction in theft of products used to make meth. It is now established in nine States, and more are on the way. Comprehensive efforts are working in other States facing this epidemic. According to EPIC data, meth lab busts have decreased since 2001 in Washington, Oregon, and Kansas, all of which have Meth Watch programs in place. And California has seen a dramatic reduction in labs due to an aggressive system of tracking and monitoring of meth precursors, mandatory registration of wholesalers and distributors, retail sales restrictions, and aggressive law enforcement and prosecution. These proven approaches should be adopted by all 50 States. At the Federal level, we need to put more resources into stopping the demand for methamphetamine and stopping meth from coming into this country. The ONDCP recently issued a plan to address meth. CHPA applauds the administration for the development of that plan, and we agree with many of its recommendations. All of these efforts are encouraging and will help reduce the meth problem in our communities. It is imperative that we work together toward achieving the same goal. Some, however, are now calling for a different approach. They propose to make pseudoephedrine a Schedule V drug. At first glance, putting these medications behind the counter might sound sensible, but before we embrace a single-step approach that ignores the totality of this abuse problem, and restricts access for consumers who need these medicines, we need to make sure that it is truly an effective solution. We believe it is not. Like everyone who has testified here today, I believe that any decrease in meth lab busts is commendable. The OBN lab numbers are important if they continue to go down, but the Oklahoma law has only been in effect for a few months, and there are conflicting statistics that indicate it is too early to draw sweeping conclusions. Compared with the concrete data that indicates significant lab reductions in Kansas, Washington, Oregon, and California, it begs the question on the effectiveness of the Oklahoma approach and the long-term effectiveness on reducing meth use in general. Over-the-counter medicines remain important to our healthcare system. A recent study by Northwestern University concluded that OTC cough and cold medicines saves the U.S. economy and our healthcare system almost $5 billion a year. Furthermore, OTC medicines serve a critical public health need, a fact that will likely be drawn into sharp focus given the flu vaccine shortage this year. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, as great as it might sound, there is no quick fix to this complex problem. We must take a comprehensive approach that works, not half measures that have a greater impact on sick kids, caregivers, and flu sufferers than on criminals. We must all work together with all the resources that are available to us. We look forward to working with you and continuing our efforts to fight methamphetamine at every level. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Suydam follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.075 Mr. Souder. Thank you very much. Our cleanup witness, so to speak, would be Ms. Mary Ann Wagner, vice president of the Pharmacy Regulatory Affairs, National Association of Chain Drug Stores. Ms. Wagner. Good morning, Chairman Souder and Ranking Member Cummings. My name is Mary Ann Wagner, and I am Vice President of Pharmacy Regulatory Affairs at NACDS. I am a pharmacist licensed in the State of Indiana. I think I am the third Hoosier up here on the panel. I served as a member of the Indiana Board of Pharmacy from 1988 to 1996. NACDS commends Chairman Souder for his leadership in addressing the methamphetamine problem. We appreciate the opportunity to testify today before this committee as you examine ways the Federal Government can assist law enforcement in the fight against methamphetamine. Our membership consists of more than 200 chain community pharmacy companies operating over 33,000 pharmacies. Collectively, chain pharmacy comprises the largest component of pharmacy practice, with over 100,000 pharmacists. Our pharmacies fill over 70 percent of the 3 billion prescriptions dispensed annually in the United States. Our membership is deeply concerned about the problems of methamphetamine production and abuse. We have ongoing calls and meetings to discuss this issue and to develop solutions to this devastating problem in our country. The majority of our members have taken voluntary proactive steps that go beyond what is required by their State laws to reduce the theft and illegitimate use of pseudoephedrine products. Among other things, they have initiated voluntary sales limits of these products, participate in voluntary education and theft deterrent programs like Meth Watch, train their employees on methamphetamine abuse, and work with law enforcement by reporting suspicious activity in their stores. We want to continue to work with DEA and law enforcement to reduce the illicit meth production in the United States, but we also want to balance those efforts with our ability to provide access to OTC products for legitimate consumers and to optimize the skills of pharmacists and the pharmacy staff that our members employ. The new Oklahoma law is not only operationally difficult for our members to comply with, but we also have some very serious concerns as to why the law appears to be reducing the clandestine labs in the State, when in fact the same results could be accomplished without the extreme measures that were taken in Oklahoma. Since other States are now looking to Oklahoma and Schedule V as the model, we appreciate the opportunity to State our reasons why we question the effectiveness of the Oklahoma law and oppose making pseudoephedrine a Schedule V controlled substance. First, we have found no reliable statistics or data to support the statements that the law has been successful or is the optimal approach. For this reason, we are pursuing independent verification of the anecdotal statistics that appear to point to a reduction in methamphetamine labs. Second, under the law in Oklahoma, those who have been arrested for methamphetamine-related crimes must appear before a magistrate, judge, or court, who are likely to deny bond. Had this law been in effect a year ago, the addict who killed the State trooper there would have been behind bars, rather than back on the streets to commit a senseless killing. Third, we are concerned about the effect that classifying pseudoephedrine as a Schedule V controlled substance would have on the practice of pharmacy and the services that we provide. Requiring pharmacists to perform the duties of a sales clerk would not be an efficient use of their time, training, or knowledge. Time spent tracking cold medicine sales is time not spent practicing pharmacy. We believe that any benefits achieved under the Oklahoma law could be replicated in other States without the unnecessary burdens of Schedule V requirements. Registration of non- pharmacy retailers who sell pseudoephedrine products would drastically reduce the caseloads of product being sold at the back doors of rogue convenient stores and gas stations. Raising barriers for consumers to access pseudoephedrine products is a short-term solution to a long-term problem. The methamphetamine problem in this country goes beyond toxic lab investigation and cleanup. And we don't mean to minimize the seriousness of the problems these labs pose for law enforcement and the communities affected; however, we must also pursue long-term solutions to the methamphetamine problem that reduce the demand for illicit substances. So, in conclusion, if the Federal Government is serious about reducing the methamphetamine problem, we would recommend a number of opportunities be explored, some of which are: stiff penalties for those arrested or convicted of methamphetamine- related offenses; encouraging States to register non-pharmacy retailers that sell pseudoephedrine products; significantly increasing funding for methamphetamine abuse, prevention, and treatment programs; working with the State Department and officials in chemical-producing countries to more closely track every sale of pseudoephedrine into the United States; providing incentives for drug companies to develop an effective decongestant that cannot be converted into methamphetamine; providing more funding and resources to DEA for enforcement activities and to local law enforcement for lab cleanup. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. We thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing, and we look forward to working with all present today to find effective solutions to the methamphetamine problem. We look forward to sharing with you the research and data that we are pursuing in the hope of providing further evidence to help us develop meaningful solutions for addressing these problems. [The prepared statement of Ms. Wagner follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.084 Mr. Souder. First, I want to thank everybody for their testimony, and since this is narcotics enforcement, and arguably one of the hottest debates that is occurring at the State and Federal level, it is really helpful to have all of you on the same panel. Too often we have disconnects; we hear something on one side and hear something on the other side, and you go to one place and go that sounds really good, and you go somewhere else and that sounds really good. This gives us a chance for a little extended discussion. I have some other questions beyond this for this panel, but let me plunge right into this. Mr. Wright, clearly, you heard these discussions in Oklahoma as you went through the law. There were a whole range of concerns, from pharmacy hours and the impact on the grocery store to pharmacists being professionals. Let me just stick with those for a start here. Did you look at treating this more like cigarettes, where it would be behind the counter, but not have to be a pharmacy, and somebody might have to show a license and be limited in the quantity they buy, as opposed to treating it as a Schedule V and putting it in a pharmacy? Mr. Wright. Yes, sir, that was discussed, but not seriously considered. We already have an industry and an institution in Oklahoma, that is the pharmacy, where we regulate drugs. All drugs and pharmacies are regulated by government because of some sort of need. We thought that pseudoephedrine belonged in a pharmacy. Mr. Souder. Did you hear, when you were developing the law, the concerns from the grocery stores and from the pharmacists, as well as the pharmaceutical companies? Mr. Wright. No, sir, we didn't hear so much from the retailers in Oklahoma. Initially they were a little bit concerned, but we had a number of instances where independent convenient store operators were making as much as $70,000 in a 6-month period, when they made $5,000 selling Coca Cola products. Some of those stores are clearly making an awful lot of money selling pseudoephedrine to methamphetamine addicts. We don't regulate those people, and it appeared to us to be very difficult to do that. Mr. Souder. Mr. Heerens, compared to a small one-person convenient store or grocery store, your firm would be huge; compared to some other supermarket chains, you are small. In looking at the challenge here, we heard from a representative at the hearing in Hawaii that was very concerned because there they have lots of small towns and, by definition, every pharmacy and grocery store is small; they don't even have scanners. At the same time, in Indiana, one of the problems we see with pseudoephedrine and ephedrine precursors, we have even seen at least one case in my district of somebody getting a pharmacy license predominantly to be able to deal with biker gangs; and that much of like what we see and just heard about Oklahoma is coming from a lot of wherever they see a vulnerability, they will go and hit that store. How do you respond, specifically, to what Mr. Wright said, that in fact it is undeniable that there are certain places where they are loading up? Mr. Heerens. No, there is no question it is a serious problem, and Indiana does have a problem like many States. We had, this summer, in July 2004, the creation of the Meth Abuse Task Force, which is making recommendations to the Indiana General Assembly, many of the recommendations that have been discussed at this table today. But I think, as you have heard, I know I was encouraged to hear what Sheriff Bundy had to say because he said that the retail community in his State was very cooperative. As we have become familiar, especially over the last year, of a serious problem in Indiana, our community, the retail community is stepping up and trying to be a part of the solution, and one of the things we have been talking about an organization in Indiana called the Indiana Retail Council, which is a trade organization for retailers--we talked about this actually last month, as well as earlier this week--is what can we do to try to have a positive impact; and you have heard some of the things that we have outlined: elimination of the blister pack, limiting the amount of products to six grams, maybe stronger sentencing. Those are some of the things that we think will make a difference here, constructive, positive steps, but not drastic steps that may not be warranted. But in terms of rural areas, in terms of specific pockets of problems, I am not sure. In the State of Indiana, as you know, it is mostly an agricultural State with few large cities. In terms of dealing with pockets or I think you talked about a license in the biker gangs, I am not sure what the solution to that is except enforcement of the law once that becomes known and putting those kind of people out of business. And then in Indiana one of the things that I think is coming is, again, a limitation on the amount that you can buy, two or three products per transaction, as well as elimination of the blister pack and some other things. Mr. Souder. I think you also have in your recommendations with wholesalers? Mr. Heerens. Yes. Mr. Souder. How do you see that? Rather than ask you that question, Mr. Wright, do you believe this problem could be addressed by wholesalers looking at unusual quantities going out of proportion, like the person that said they were selling more than Coca Cola? How much of an auditing problem is that? Mr. Wright. That is a tremendous problem for us when it is widespread, and it apparently is. And also I might add that I don't think three-pack-per limits work. We have that self- imposed by Walmart in Oklahoma. We have videotape after videotape where people get out of a car, four or five of them, they all go buy three packs, they go back to the car, they go buy three more packs, they come back, they go to some other Walmart, they are doing the same thing. We really work just trying to keep pseudoephedrine out of the manufacturers' hands, and we don't think that is a viable solution. Mr. Souder. Can they do that through a Schedule V drug by going to different pharmacies? Mr. Wright. Right now they can, but when we implement our Statewide computer system that will authorize those threshold limits, they won't be able to do that. And as we speak, pharmacies in small communities particularly are networking with each other and showing their log books to law enforcement or comparing names to see who is presently trying to purchase more than the nine gram limits, so we are making some arrests already. Mr. Souder. Have you seen anything move to internet? Mr. Wright. No, I have not. Mr. Souder. Mr. Cummings. Mr. Cummings. I am so glad that we had both. I agree with the chairman. I was feeling pretty good about you for a while there, Mr. Wright. Then these folks came along and it just was a clash, because I can see both sides of the issue. So when I look at Mr. Heerens' recommendations, I was trying to figure out what can we do to try to, at the same time, maintain the convenience for customers for you, Ms. Wagner and you, Ms. Suydam, but at the same time deal with the problem. And as I was listening to all of you, I can understand why you all may have had the success that you had in getting this passed, and not so much opposition. Part of it is what Mr. Heerens said, that is, that they are figuring out what happened and they see the effect. The other part of it is that probably the problem was so overwhelming in your jurisdiction that people said, well, we don't care about the convenience, we would rather deal with the problem. I am just guessing. But now we are at a point where, in some kind of way, we are trying to find a solution to this problem. We usually don't have this kind of exchange, so I have to take advantage of it. You have heard the arguments here. What is your response to that? You understand what they are saying. Mr. Wright. Yes, sir. Mr. Cummings. And it is reasonable. Do you agree? Mr. Wright. I don't think that it is. Mr. Cummings. You don't think it is reasonable? Mr. Wright. No, sir. Mr. Cummings. OK, why don't you go ahead? Mr. Wright. I have been a policeman for 25 years. I go back into those phenylacetic acid laboratories. I have seen the carnage associated with the abuse of methamphetamine, and you clearly understand it. What we are really weighing here is treating the sniffles versus solving this problem, in my opinion. As a police officer, personally speaking, I would rather solve the problem at minor inconvenience to people with nasal congestion. I think it is a very good trade. The people of Oklahoma seem to think so. Mr. Cummings. Sheriff Bundy, the Meth Watch program, as I listened to you, I just tried to think like these manufacturers think. First of all, they understand that it is truly a thin blue line. And if a person is a manufacturer knowing there is a thin blue line, and it is even thinner in rural areas, it seems as if they would say to themselves, well, this is a situation where we probably have more of an opportunity to get away with it. I am not saying that is true, but that is what they may conclude. Mr. Bundy. It is true. That fact is just really enhanced by the truth that we don't have 24-hour police patrol; we are abutted by more urban areas. Rural counties are attractive to these individuals for all those very reasons, and the honest answer is, yes, more often than not they are able to come to rural areas of America and get away with it. Mr. Cummings. And then when I hear you go into a small lab for 9 hours, the overwhelming nature of that on a small police force has to be just absolutely devastating. We are all reasonable people, and I am just trying to figure you all listened to Mr. Heerens--I don't know why I can't pronounce your name. Mr. Heerens. Nobody can. Mr. Cummings. Oh, OK, good. I feel better now. You heard his suggestions and you heard Ms. Wagner and Dr. Suydam, and I understand what you said, Officer Wright, and I respect that. I support police officers. I really do, because I know how important your job is. So how do we now, with all of this, come up with--I mean, you heard the suggestions. I mean, what is reasonable? What do you all suggest we do, hearing everything that you have heard, I mean from my police side? Because these arguments are going to be made, I can tell you; I can hear them. They were, by the way, extremely well done, both sides extremely well done. We have two major problems, and I guess it all depends on who is observing. One may feel like one problem is worse than the other and far outweighs the other, so we have a certain solution; then there is the other side. So where is the middle? What do you see that we could do to try to meet all of your hopes and dreams that we deal with this problem, but at the same time not inconvenience folks to the degree that it might be unreasonable? I know where you stand, Mr. Wright. Sheriff. Mr. Bundy. I believe there are a lot of pieces that have to come together, and I think there can be some very productive partnerships formed from law enforcement, from retailers, to communities. I think everybody is coming to a greater appreciation of the scope of this problem, and we recognize it as being a true problem. And the Oklahoma approach is working for Oklahoma; it may work other places. Something of a smaller scale may work other places. I don't know the answer any better than you do, I guess, or anyone here at the panel, but it is my belief and my experience after all these years, and just the countless cases, there is going to have to be a partnership that involves the community and law enforcement and retailers that all play a big role in this comes together to formulate a workable solution that we can all be happy with. Mr. Souder. Just for the record, I come from a small town of 700, but it is in a big county. The smallest county I represent is about 40,000 people. You said your county had 10,000 in it total? Mr. Bundy. Yes, sir. Mr. Souder. Is it a somewhat unique situation in a sense? Do you have much mobility in and out of the county? I mean, do you pretty much know everybody in the county? Mr. Bundy. Yes. Mr. Souder. So it becomes a little bit easier challenge to work with a grocery store or a pharmacy where you know everybody. Is that fair to say? Mr. Bundy. That is the tremendous strength in programs such as Meth Watch, yes. A long time ago I remember, early in my career, a sheriff from Wichita, which is our urban area in Kansas, talking about how the best way to really solve problems starts just like that, it is a neighbor-to-neighbor thing and then it is a block-to-block thing, and then it goes from community-to-community to encompass the county was the story he related. And that is very much how it does work and that is my experience, that I have to sell the neighborhoods on it, then they sell the blocks, and then the blocks the communities, the communities the counties, and the counties the States, and right up the chain to where we really come up with some tremendous solutions. But that is the grassroots approach I take with problems. In this instance it has proven to be really effective in trying to manage our methamphetamine problem. Mr. Cummings. You know, Mr. Chairman, I am a lawyer, and before I came here I practiced for about 19 years in a small practice, but the way most people got caught in criminal situations is somebody told on them, or else they told on themselves. And I was just thinking we have to maximize that cooperation. I guess the Meth Watch program aims at doing that. And I was thinking about the drug-free communities piece. Maybe we need to look at that and see. I just have to go back and look at it, whether there are things that we can do to enhance that to help some of this prevention and addressing these community needs, because we have to, sheriff, going back to what you just said, we almost have to try to do everything in our power to do this almost by community by community. And perhaps having the drug stores and others who may sell these products help us in any way that they can to try to address this problem. You know, Martin Luther King, Jr. said you cannot lead where you do not go, and you cannot teach what you don't know. That is why I appreciate what the law enforcement side said so much, because I know that when you see the carnage, when you see the jails filled, it is like this is what you have to deal with everyday. And I guess after you have seen it, Sheriff Bundy, for 20 years plus, and then you see generation after generation, you say, well, I've got to do--and I don't want you to give up. And I am just imaging somebody sitting right now, watching this on C-SPAN and saying, OK, let us go and do this, because there is this thin blue line. So I just think we have to figure out a way. We in the Congress have to just try to figure out how we can empower communities more and at the same time try to bring folks together, both the retailers and others who may have a problem with some of these solutions, and you all so that we can lift our whole communities up, because we can't just sit here. I am not saying that we are not doing things, because we have already heard the testimony, but I just can't believe that we can't do more. So I just don't believe it. So anybody may want to comment, and then I will be finished. Ms. Wagner. You are absolutely right, we need to do more. Two of the suggestions that we made I think are something that could be done quite easily and would make a difference. One is limiting or eliminating the blister pack rule as it stands today, and starting sales limits within retail stores. But even more than that, limiting the number of stores that carry the products. Right now all pharmacies are licensed by their State board of pharmacy. They know who those pharmacies are, they go out, they regularly inspect them. When it comes to selling this particular product, we find it in convenience stores, in gas stations, and that is where some of the real problems are happening. We don't necessarily believe in limiting stores that can carry it, but at least if they are not licensed by the board of pharmacy, let them register so that some entity in the State knows who is selling it and can go and inspect those premises, look at their invoices, look at their records. Right now there is no one body overseeing the non-pharmacy retailers, and that is something that could be done quite easily, quite quickly, and it would at least give us more knowledge of where these problems are occurring. Mr. Cummings. Does that hurt you, Mr. Heerens? Mr. Heerens. I don't believe it does. I happen to think that is probably a good idea. Mr. Cummings. So that still would allow Marsh to--you said a large percentage of your stores don't have a pharmacy. Mr. Heerens. Right. Mr. Cummings. So products that would fall under that category, in your suggestion, they would have to still register because they don't have a pharmacy. And the ones that have a pharmacy, they are already regulated. Ms. Wagner. Given the opportunity to register. But I would imagine that the rogue operators aren't going to do that. They do not want regulators knowing who they are and that they are selling caseloads out the back door. So this would legitimize those retailers who carry the product. They could still have it available for legitimate customers, but at least an entity in the State would know who and where these people are that are selling it. Mr. Cummings. Well, I just want to again thank all of you for what you are doing. This is a major problem. It is one of the reasons why I agreed to do this subcommittee, because I see the pain of drugs everyday. We don't have the methamphetamine problem in Baltimore too much, where I am from, but no matter what the drug is, it is just so painful to see how people are destroyed. So we are going to do the best we can. We want to work with you. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can revisit, a year from now, Oklahoma's situation. And one of the things, too, that I saw as a problem, and you alluded to it, Sheriff Bundy, is that when you have an Oklahoma law, then does that force people into the next State or surrounding States? Therefore, what would happen is you would almost have to have a national law, because then people just move from State to State to State, and then possibly an adjoining State gets a bigger problem. I don't know, I am not sure about the answers to that, but I know that in almost everything else, just like most States, when they look at something like cigarette tax and things of that nature, they worry about those things because they force people into another State. So I think those are the things that we have to consider. And the fact is that there is a role for the Federal Government to play. We want to play our role, but we also want to be supportive of our States and our locals. So we will give it the best we can, and we just thank you all very much. Mr. Souder. Thank you. Dr. Suydam, do you agree with eliminating the blister pack? Food Marketing said they did, the Association of Chain Drug Stores. What is your association position? Dr. Suydam. Yes, we agree with that as well. In fact, I agree with all of the points that Ms. Wagner made and Mr. Heerens. We believe that registration will be an important factor in limiting sales to the legitimate groceries and to the legitimate pharmacies, and will get rid of these rogue places where the product is going out the back door. But, you know, one other thing we haven't mentioned, Mr. Chairman, and I know this is a law enforcement hearing, but I do think we have to focus on prevention as well. And I think we have done some work with the Partnership for Drug-Free America that looks at how do you raise awareness about the problem of methamphetamine addiction and, in fact how you can raise awareness with parents and with pediatricians and children, to get people to stop using this, because we have heard from all the law enforcement people how addictive this drug is and how you cannot, in many cases, be treated because there is not an effective treatment. So we think a major effort needs to be in the prevention area as well. But we also agree that we need to enforce the law; we need to strengthen our laws, and we need to make the other retail restrictions that we have talked about and registration. Mr. Souder. I want to comment just briefly on what you said, because probably 60 percent, at least, of our work is with narcotics, so we have lots of different things, even segment further the meth in future hearings. But I want to touch briefly on the prevention side. I talked to Director Walters just last Friday about this very subject, about using some of the ad campaign on meth, but here is our fundamental problem: there is no meth addict who didn't start with marijuana, period. We have had multiple testimony around the country about poly drug use and other things. But if we don't get hold of the marijuana problem, we don't tackle the meth problem. And everybody likes to talk about meth, but they don't want to talk about marijuana. The fact is that our National Ad Campaign, combined with other efforts, have reduced marijuana use in the United States the last 2 years in a row. So guess what Congress is about to do in its infinite wisdom, and to my great frustration? And the problem is the ``other body'' as we say here. They are reducing the National Ad Campaign. We have consistently reduced it now for 3 straight years. Ranking Member Cummings and myself, along with Speaker Hastert, have worked, and Chairman Istook has held a higher number in the House, but we are battling to keep that program alive. The Partnership for Drug-Free America does a great job, but without some of this National Ad Campaign funding, if we further divide a limited amount of dollars in basic advertising, which you all know in your industries, if you go below a certain threshold, you might as well not do the program, because there is not enough repetitions and enough penetration of the market. So if we segment this by drugs, we will lose the momentum we have in one and not get the other one started. And I am exasperated, and I hope the Speaker succeeds here in the next 48 hours of getting this dollar amount back up, or we are in big trouble in our No. 1 prevention program. Our second big prevention program, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, has been so watered down in so many districts. They use it for any after-school program because maybe it will make the kids think that they are not going to get involved, and it was supposed to be an anti-drug program. So when we actually talk about prevention programs in the United States, we don't have many. Partnership for Drug-Free America is a great program, the community drug coalitions are, but we have reduced the thrust of what we have been doing at this, in spite of this committee's efforts to highlight it. Now, I have a couple of other specific questions. I wondered, Mr. Wright, what was your reaction to the licensing of a lot of these smaller operations? Would they go out if they were monitored more closely, and would that give us another way to handle it? Mr. Wright. I don't really know the answer to that. What we looked at is we already have a body where we keep drugs that need to be protected, and that is the pharmacy. It might be worth exploring. Mr. Souder. So you basically knocked out convenience stores and anybody else from being able to sell the type of products you described if they didn't have a pharmacy. Mr. Wright. Yes. That still left liquid gel caps and liquid preparations in the convenience stores. Those are products that we don't see in methamphetamine laboratories. Mr. Souder. This is a huge question, and we are talking about meth today, but we had a hearing in Orlando on OxyContin and oxycodones; similar argument, similar debate. As DEA consistently reports, the No. 1 cause of drug deaths in the United States is legal drugs, and that there is continuing pressure to try to figure out how to get hold of this. We have this rash of OxyContin. We picked up the main guy or group in my area on OxyContin. In Orlando it went through one high school and killed 10 kids, just like that. How do you balance that with pain relief? These are huge questions, not just in the meth precursors. I want to make sure I get on the record here, Lieuenant Colby, because we got mostly on this subject, but this hearing is also dealing with a broader range. Byrne Grants are proposed to be cut, and I don't believe at the end of the day they will be cut. Could you describe what would happen if Byrne Grants were cut, as it relates to you? And I would be interested in hearing the other law enforcement say that too. Lieutenant Colby. Certainly. As I said in my statement, we have 34 drug task force grants in the State of Indiana that are multi-jurisdictional. This is one of the requirements through the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute that sends out the Byrne moneys. One of the problems is one-third of the narcotics officers in the State of Indiana will be unemployed if the Byrne Grants go away. I am personally from a large county of Allen County. We have 350,000 people in our county. My unit is seven people. It is our responsibility. Plus, I picked up Huntington County, Huntington City, and two other counties that work with us on knocking off meth labs and so on. We don't get involved in their meth labs as much as they take care of that and we try to help them take care of their cocaine and crack head problem. So it is kind of a tit-for-tat thing. Their funds are getting eaten up because of it. I try to help them out, out of the drug task force funds. So the Byrne Grants are doing a multi thing in everybody's area, and the Indiana Drug Enforcement Officers Association is saying one of the problems we have with meth is, as officers, as all of you know, law enforcement officers really don't see a lot of gray, it is black or white, and you either go to jail or you don't. And I think that is one of the stances that Oklahoma took. It is not a patch, it is a fix, and they are getting results; and it is not tomorrow or a year from now, it is today. And I think that is one of the big problems that you are going to see with the battle that you people have, unfortunately, and I don't have to mess with that. Mr. Souder. Mr. Wright, could you describe what would happen if Byrne Grants would go away or get dramatically reduced? Mr. Wright. Byrne Grants are essential to Oklahoma. More than half of the narcotics agents in our State are funded by Byrne funds. They operate 27 independent drug task forces, particularly in rural areas. That has been the single group that has fought this methamphetamine epidemic for the last decade. Those guys do more meth labs in Oklahoma than anyone else, and we are going to be in real trouble if we lose Byrne funding. We lobby for that hard every year. It also funds a wire intercept project that we have at my agency. We don't just work meth labs, we work Mexican drug cartel cell groups that are operative in Oklahoma, and we do wire tap after wire tap after wire tap on those organizations, and all of those cases lead back to Mexico. That is also Byrne funded. We very much appreciate Byrne funding. Mr. Souder. One of the things that is happening that we have to watch is that the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, the HIDTAs, had a very specific goal. That goal was to work in high-intensity drug trafficking areas to keep the drugs from getting to other areas. And as Congressmen figured out and Senators figured out that they could get HIDTAs in their home area, the HIDTAs became in some areas like the drug task forces. And as the HIDTAs proliferate, the support for Byrne Grants has declined because HIDTAs became the new trend. And even though some of their functions are the same and some of them aren't, what is going to happen is if we reduce the Byrne Grants, we are going to see a demand for HIDTAs everywhere. HIDTAs, in effect, will merely become a reconfiguration of the drug task forces, which is starting to happen in some areas already in the country. And the whole point of border control high intensity distribution networks will be undermined and will have undermined the existing drug task force structure, trying to reinvent another one because we have a new hot name. And it is has been interesting because we haven't really looked at that interrelationship between where the Byrne Grant money is going and where the HIDTA money is going. Oklahoma is kind of interesting because don't you have a new HIDTA? Mr. Wright. Yes, sir. We are an extension of the North Texas HIDTA out of Dallas. Mr. Souder. Which is a relatively low-funded HIDTA, so you don't have as much pressure. Mr. Wright. A very low-funded HIDTA. Mr. Souder. But it is that type of trend, that as that expands, there will be more attention on that money and trying to get that money, and we just move it from one to another and don't get a net in a reconfiguration. So I wanted to make sure we got onto the record here about the Byrne Grants. And we are similarly looking at RISS versus EPIC, and so on. Did you have something, Sheriff Bundy? Mr. Bundy. Just real quickly about the Byrne Grants. I just met with the director of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation last week, and the trend has become that it is the only way that KBI exists, and 46 percent of that budget is from Federal funding now. And in a State like ours that is so rural, where 75 percent are representative of me, we don't have narcotics offices or detectives, we rely on the State agency, being the KBI, for that type of support for the entire State. So the elimination of Byrne Grants wouldn't so much impact narcotics investigations or specialized services, but the most basic type of services to the citizens of our State would be impacted that day the Byrne Grants are lessened. It plays a huge role in rural States, and I would hate for you not to know of that. Mr. Souder. Well, I thank you all for your testimony today, for your participation. We and many other Members of Congress and the Speaker's drug task force are trying to put together a package here. We are trying to work with everybody involved as to how we do this at the national level. We all know that Internet and international sales complicate all these questions, so we don't just move it to another place. We want to work with the industry, we want to work with law enforcement to make sure that we can try to keep the meth problem from expanding. While we are focused on this for this particular task, we are working with the industry as well on the other over-the-counter legal drugs that are used and abused by individuals, both for distribution and leading to the death and destruction of many families and individuals around the country. So, once again, thank you again. If there any additional materials you want to submit, please do so. We will probably give you some additional followup questions both for the record, but as we develop the package together, I am sure that the Narcotics Officers Association, which is a key part of the support for this committee and represents the people on the front lines, as well as trying to balance that with fairness for the people who need legal drugs to relieve their pain and suffering in many different ways. Thank you all for participating. With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1:06 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] [Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.164 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.165 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.166 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.167 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.168 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.169 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.170 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.171 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.172 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.173 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.174 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.175 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.176 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.177 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.178 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.179 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.180 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.181 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.182 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.183 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.184 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.185 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.186 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.187 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.188 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.189 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.190 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.191 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.192 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.193 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.194 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.195 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.196 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.197 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.198 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.199 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.200 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.201 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.202 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.203 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.204 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.205 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.206 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.207 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.208 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.209 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.210 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.211 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.212 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.213 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.214 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.215 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.216 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.217 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.218 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.219 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.220 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.221 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.222 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.223 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.224 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.225 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.226 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.227 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.228 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.229 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.230 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.231 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.232 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.233 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.234 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.235 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.236 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.237 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.238 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.239 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.240 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.241 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.242 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.243 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.244 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.245 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.246 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.247 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.248 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.249 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.250 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.251 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.252 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.253 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.254 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.255 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.256 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.257 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.258 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.259 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.260 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.261 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.262 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.263 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.264 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.265 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.266 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.267 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.268 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.269 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.270 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.271 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.272 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.273 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.274 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.275 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.276 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.277 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.278 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.279 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.280 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.281 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.282 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.283 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.284 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.285 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.286 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.287 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.288 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.289 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.290 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.291 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.292 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.293 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.294 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.295 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.296 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.297 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.298 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.299 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.300 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.301 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.302 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.303 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.304 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.305 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.306 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.307 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.308 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.309 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.310 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.311 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.312 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.313 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.314 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.315 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.316 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.317 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.318 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.319 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.320 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.321 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.322 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.323 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.324 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.325 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.326 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.327 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.328 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.329 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.330 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.331 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.332 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.333 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.334 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.335 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.336 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.337 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.338 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.339 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.340 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.341 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.342 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.343 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.344 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.345 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.346 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.347 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.348 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.349 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.350 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.351 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.352 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.353 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.354 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.355 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.356 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.357 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.358 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.359 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.360 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.361 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.362 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.363 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.364 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.365 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.366 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.367 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.368 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.369 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.370 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.371 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.372 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.373 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.374 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.375 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.376 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.377 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.378 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.379 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.380 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.381 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.382 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.383 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.384 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.385 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.386 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.387 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.388 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.389 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.390 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.391 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.392 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.393 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.394 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.395 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.396 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.397 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.398 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.399 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.400 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.401 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.402 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.403 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.404 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.405 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.406 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.407 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.408 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.409 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.410 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.411 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.412 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.413 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.414 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.415 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.416 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.417 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.418 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.419 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.420 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.421 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.422 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.423 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.424 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.425 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.426 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.427 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.428 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.429 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.430 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.431 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.432 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.433 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.434 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.435 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.436 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.437 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.438 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.439 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.440 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.441 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.442 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.443 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.444 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.445 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.446 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.447 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.448 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.449 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.450 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.451 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.452 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.453 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.454 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.455 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.456 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.457 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.458 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.459 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.460 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.461 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.462 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.463 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.464 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.465 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.466 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.467 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.468 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.469 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.470 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.471 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.472 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.473 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.474 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.475 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.476 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.477 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.478 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.479 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.480 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.481 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.482 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.483 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.484 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.485 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.486 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.487 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.488 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.489 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.490 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.491 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.492 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.493 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.494 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.495 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.496 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.497 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.498 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.499 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.500 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.501 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.502 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.503 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.504 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.505 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.506 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.507 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.508 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.509 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.510 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0084.511 <all>