<DOC> [108th Congress House Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:97398.wais] ICE IN THE OZARKS: THE METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC IN ARKANSAS ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ JUNE 28, 2004 __________ Serial No. 108-245 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house http://www.house.gov/reform ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 97-398 WASHINGTON : 2004 ____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 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 JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California NATHAN DEAL, Georgia C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan Maryland TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Columbia JOHN R. CARTER, Texas JIM COOPER, Tennessee MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnnesota PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio ------ KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont (Independent) Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director Rob Borden, Parliamentarian Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman NATHAN DEAL, Georgia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN M. McHUGH, New York DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois JOHN L. MICA, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri DOUG OSE, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, JOHN R. CARTER, Texas Maryland MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio Columbia ------ ------ Ex Officio TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California Nicholas Coleman, Professional Staff Member and Counsel Malia Holst, Clerk C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on June 28, 2004.................................... 1 Statement of: Bryant, William J., Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Little Rock, AR, Office (New Orleans Field Division) Drug Enforcement Administration................................. 8 Counts, Larry, director, Decision Point drug treatment facility................................................... 168 Cromwell, William M., Acting U.S. Attorney, Western District of Arkansas................................................ 24 Dufour, Bob, director of professional and government relations, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc............................ 178 Gibbons, David, prosecuting attorney, 5th Judicial District.. 76 Gunn, Mary Ann, circuit judge, Fourth Judicial District, Fourth Division............................................ 98 Hickman, Danny, sheriff, Boone County........................ 73 Hoggatt, Greg, director, Drug Free Rogers-Lowell............. 182 Howard, J.R., executive director, Arkansas State crime lab... 61 Hudson, David, Sebastian County Judge........................ 56 Leach, Merlin D., executive director, Center for Children & Public Safety.............................................. 186 Louie, Shirley, environmental epidemiology supervisor, Arkansas Department of Health.............................. 68 Macdonald, James, Federal on Scene Coordinator, Region 7, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency....................... 32 Pyle, Michael................................................ 192 Rutledge, Keith, State drug director, Office of the Governor of Arkansas................................................ 46 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Bryant, William J., Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Little Rock, AR, Office (New Orleans Field Division) Drug Enforcement Administration, prepared statement of.......... 12 Counts, Larry, director, Decision Point drug treatment facility, prepared statement of............................ 170 Cromwell, William M., Acting U.S. Attorney, Western District of Arkansas, prepared statement of......................... 26 Dufour, Bob, director of professional and government relations, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., prepared statement of.... 180 Gibbons, David, prosecuting attorney, 5th Judicial District, prepared statement of...................................... 78 Gunn, Mary Ann, circuit judge, Fourth Judicial District, Fourth Division, prepared statement of..................... 100 Hickman, Danny, sheriff, Boone County, prepared statement of. 74 Hoggatt, Greg, director, Drug Free Rogers-Lowell, prepared statement of............................................... 184 Howard, J.R., executive director, Arkansas State crime lab, prepared statement of...................................... 63 Hudson, David, Sebastian County Judge, prepared statement of. 58 Leach, Merlin D., executive director, Center for Children & Public Safety, prepared statement of....................... 188 Louie, Shirley, environmental epidemiology supervisor, Arkansas Department of Health, prepared statement of....... 70 Macdonald, James, Federal on Scene Coordinator, Region 7, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, prepared statement of 34 Pyle, Michael, prepared statement of......................... 194 Rutledge, Keith, State drug director, Office of the Governor of Arkansas, prepared statement of......................... 49 Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana, prepared statement of.................... 4 ICE IN THE OZARKS: THE METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC IN ARKANSAS ---------- MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2004 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform, Bentonville, AR. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., at the Northwest Arkansas Community College, White Auditorium, One College Drive, Bentonville, AR, Hon. Mark E. Souder (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Souder and Boozman. Staff present: Nicholas Coleman, professional staff member and counsel; and Malia Holst, clerk. Mr. Souder. Good morning, and thank you all for coming. This hearing continues our subcommittee's work on the problem of methamphetamine abuse, a problem that is ravaging the State of Arkansas and the entire Nation. I'd like to thank Congressman John Boozman for inviting us here to Bentonville and for his leadership in confronting the meth epidemic. In 2003, Congressman Boozman testified before our subcommittee about the meth problem in northwest Arkansas, and since then, we have frequently discussed ways to help communities like this one reduce drug abuse. Meth is one of the most powerful and dangerous drugs available, and it is also one of the easiest to make. It can be ``cooked'' using common household or agricultural chemicals and simple cold medicines, following recipes easily available on the Internet. The meth here in Arkansas and in other States comes from two major sources of supply. First, most meth comes from the so-called ``superlabs'' in California and northern Mexico. By the end of the 1990's these super labs produced over 70 percent of the Nation's supply of meth. These super labs are operated by large Mexican drug trafficking organizations that have used their established distribution and supply networks to transport meth throughout the country. According to recent news reports, these groups have introduced the form of meth called ``crystal meth'' or ``ice'' to Arkansas, which is very pure and extremely addictive. The second major source of meth comes from small, local labs that are generally unaffiliated with major drug trafficking organizations. These labs have proliferated throughout the country, and Arkansas has been particularly hard hit, with one of the highest rates per capita of lab seizures in the country. The total amount of meth actually supplied by these labs is relatively small; however, the environmental damage and health hazard they create makes them a serious problem for local communities, particularly the State and local law enforcement agencies charged with the duty to uncover and clean them up. In my home State of Indiana, for example, more than 20 percent of the labs raided by the police were discovered only after they had exploded and started fires. Children are often found at meth labs, and have frequently suffered from severe health problems as a result of the hazardous chemicals used in drug manufacturing. Our hearings during the 107th Congress were mostly held in Washington and looked at this problem from a national perspective. This year, however, we have taken a different approach. We have instead been holding hearings in specific regions that have been hardest hit by meth trafficking and abuse. In February, we held a hearing in northeastern Indiana, followed by a hearing in Detroit, Michigan, where large quantities of meth precursor chemicals like pseudoephedrine were being smuggled until very recently. In August, we will hold a hearing in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, where the use of crystal meth is growing rapidly and also takes the most money from the Federal Government for the meth problems. Everywhere we go, we hear about many of the same issues; the environmental damage caused by the labs; the high cost and long hours required for law enforcement agencies to process lab sites; and the heartbreaking stories of children exposed to drugs and chemicals and in need of emergency medical care and a safe place to go. We hear about how addictive and deadly this drug is, and how difficult it is to provide treatment and get meth users off drugs. The Bush administration, and especially its Office of National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP], has pushed for strong and effective action against meth abuse. We will need to take action at every level--Federal, State and local--to respond to this problem. Let me briefly mention three issues that need to be addressed. First, what do we need to do to reduce the supply of meth? In the late 1990's, the Federal Government responded to the meth problem both here and elsewhere with stricter laws against the precursor chemical trade and tougher enforcement. The proliferation of smaller meth labs, however, means that we probably will have to further restrict the ability of meth cooks to get precursor chemicals--especially pseudoephedrine. Already many States have acted to restrict sales of cold medicines and other pseudoephedrine sources. A major question Congress must address is whether to enact a national standard for these sales, and, if so, what form it should take? Second, how should we deal with environmental issues created in the wake of a meth lab seizure? We have to ensure that the toxic chemicals produced and dumped by lab operators are cleaned up, but these criminals rarely have enough money to compensate the Federal Government for those costs. If we impose the costs on unsuspecting land owners or landlords, however, we may give them a disincentive to monitor their property and report suspicious activity to the police. In California, for example, some farmers prefer to bury the remains of meth labs they find on their property, because if they report them, they will be liable for the clean-up costs. So we are having lots of unanticipated consequences. We will have to carefully consider how we assign the responsibility for this difficult and expensive task. Finally, how do we get meth addicts into treatment, and how do we keep young people from starting on meth in the first place? We can all agree that education and outreach are vital, but the hard part is figuring out what works best. What works for marijuana, ecstasy or cocaine may not work as well for meth. This hearing will address these difficult questions and hopefully bringus closer to some answers. Again, I thank Congressman Boozman for inviting us here, and for the assistance that he and his staff provided to our subcommittee in setting up this hearing. We will welcome in the first panel three witnesses who have joined us to discuss the Federal Government's response to the meth problem; Mr. William J. Bryant, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration's Office in Little Rock, AR; Mr. William Cromwell, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Arkansas; my understanding, that's his career position as acting district attorney second time through; and Mr. James MacDonald, the Federal On Scene Coordinator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Region 7. At a hearing like this, it is vitally important for us to hear from State and local agencies forced to fight on the ``front lines'' against meth and other illegal drugs. We welcome Mr. Keith Rutledge, the Governor's State drug director; the Honorable David Hudson, a Sebastian County judge; Mr. J.R. Howard, executive director of the Arkansas State Crime Lab; Miss Shirley Louie, environmental epidemiology supervisor of the Arkansas Department of Health; Sheriff Danny Hickman of Boone County; and Mr. David Gibbons, prosecuting attorney for the 5th Judicial District. We also welcome five witnesses who work in the field of drug treatment and prevention. They're of vital importance here in northwest Arkansas. The Honorable Mary Ann Gunn, circuit judge for the Fourth Judicial District, who has worked extensively with the Drug Courts initiative here; Mr. Larry Counts, director of Decision Point Drug Treatment Facility; Mr. Gregg Hoggatt, director of the Drug Free Rogers-Lowell; Mr. Michael Pyle, a recovering methamphetamine addict; and Dr. Merlin D. Leach, executive director of the Center for Children & Public Policy. Finally, we'd also like to welcome two representatives of the retail and trucking industries, whose assistance and expertise we will need to stop the problem of meth production and trafficking; Mr. Bob Dufour, director of professional and government relations for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; and Mr. Lane Kidd, president of the Arkansas Trucking Association. We thank everyone for taking the time to join us this morning, and look forward to your testimony. [The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.003 Mr. Souder. Now I'd like to yield to my friend and colleague Congressman Boozman. Mr. Boozman. Mr. Chairman, and staff members on the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, I want to welcome you to northwest Arkansas. I truly appreciate the committee taking the time to come to Arkansas to see firsthand the methamphetamine epidemic in our region. I would also like to welcome our witnesses. You're all on the front lines in the daily battle against methamphetamine in Arkansas. I appreciate all that you do, and I look forward to hearing your insightful testimony. Last, I would also like to recognize and thank you for coming, the many distinguished guests in our audience that are joining us today. The threat posed to our Nation by the traffic and abuse of meth is high and increasing. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center's 2004 national drug threat assessment, it was reported that meth is the second largest drug threat across the Nation according to State and local law enforcement. It is second only to cocaine. So although meth represents a small percentage of drug use in America, the repercussions of using meth make it the second biggest drug threat in our Nation. The highly addictive nature of the drug paired with the intense feelings of paranoia, agitation and depression cause extensive cases of child abuse, spousal abuse, robbery, and theft. The ripple effect caused by this drug is like no other. I took an informal poll around my district and heard overwhelmingly--notice I said ``informal.'' One of those words where I won't get rounded up by the chairman. But, anyway, when you visit with anyone that's related to law enforcement in a district, they'll tell you that over 70 percent of all crime in this region can be attributed to meth. We have another problem here in Arkansas, a technical problem, of not reporting all of our data to the Federal agencies. You may notice that the DEA statistics for meth lab seizures in Arkansas are significantly below the Arkansas State Crime Lab numbers. This is because we need to do a better job of reporting our data to the Federal agencies. If you'll notice, in the latest national drug threat assessment, Missouri was reported to have the highest number of meth lab seizures in the central States in 2003 with 1,075. Arkansas was listed at No. 2 with 656 seizures. These are the Federal statistics. However, if you compare that with the Arkansas State Crime Lab numbers, you'll see that Arkansas actually seized over 1,200 meth labs in 2003. This figure far exceeds Missouri's numbers. And, in fact, when you look at the State Crime Lab's numbers, we've experienced a 4,900 percent increase in meth lab seizures since 1995. That's not even 10 years. In 1995, Arkansas seized 24 meth labs, and in 2004, it's predicted that we will seize over 1,300 labs. We must get the word to the Federal Government so that we can get some help. I want to show you this real quick. This is a HIDA map. And I know you can't see it back in the back, but it illustrates where the HIDTA areas are, the high intensity drug traffic areas are as far as where the resources are put. The little dots represent resources that have been put in place with the HIDTA program. As you can see, we have this huge gap from Louisiana through Arkansas. This is something that we want to look at. Is there a reason that all of the sudden we don't have any trafficking in this area; it's all just home cooked labs? Or, in realty, do we need more Federal intervention in this area. Winning back our communities takes a balanced approach. The DEA can help make sure our laws are upheld, but effective treatment and education is equally critical. We must have adequate alternatives for those who are caught in meth's dangerous grasp. I'm impressed by the effectiveness of the drug courts. Many addicts do not realize they need help. Drug courts make them accountable and keep them clean. We can fight this problem together with local, State, and Federal resources working together. We can loosen the grip methamphetamine has on our Nation. Again, I'm looking forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses, and thank you to Chairman Souder and his staff for joining us in Northwest Arkansas for such an important hearing. Mr. Souder. Thank you. Let me do a couple of procedure matters. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to submit written statements and questions for the hearing record; that any answers to written questions provided by the witnesses also be included in the record. No objections, so ordered. Second, I ask in that extent that all Members present be permitted to participate in the hearing without objection. It is so ordered. Our first panel is composed of three representatives of the Federal Government. Mr. Bill Bryant of DEA; Acting U.S. Attorney William Cromwell; Mr. James McDonald of the DEA. It's our standard practice to ask witnesses to testify under oath. If you'll stand and raise your right hands, I'll administer the oath. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Souder. Let the record show that each of the witnesses has answered in the affirmative. Mr. Bryant, good to see you again. Mr. Bryant. Good to see you, Mr. Souder. Mr. Souder. You're recognized for 5 minutes. For those of you who aren't familiar with this, it should go yellow with 1 minute to go. We'll be a little generous, but want to be able to ask questions and get answers; and to do that, we'll be staying reasonably close as possible. Your full statements will be in the record. Anything else you want to submit will be in the record. But with three panels, I've got to make sure we get a wide variety. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. BRYANT, ASSISTANT SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, LITTLE ROCK, AR, OFFICE (NEW ORLEANS FIELD DIVISION) DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION Mr. Bryant. Good morning, Chairman Souder and Congressman Boozman. My name is William J. Bryant. I'm the assistant special agent in charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration in the Little Rock district office. On behalf of Administrator Karen Tandy and the men and women of the Drug Enforcement Administration, let me express my sincere appreciation for your ongoing support and for this hearing on Ice in the Ozarks, The Methamphetamine Epidemic in Arkansas. Before I begin my testimony this morning, Chairman Souder, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize you for your outstanding leadership in the area of drug law enforcement. As you know, I served as the Chief of Congressional Affairs under Administrator Donny Marshall and also under Administrator Asa Hutchinson. During my time in this position, I had the opportunity to work with you and your committee on issues both domestic and internationally. You are a true leader, and you've taken your position as chairman of this subcommittee very seriously. I want to recognize you for your outstanding work that benefits all law enforcement, not just Federal law enforcement, but you always took the extra time to see what State and local law enforcement is doing. And for that, I applaud you. I would also be remiss if didn't recognize Congressman Boozman. Upon my return to Arkansas, Congressman Boozman came down to Little Rock, and because he sought me out. I'd didn't have to seek him out. He came to Little Rock, and he wanted to be briefed on the methamphetamine situation in Arkansas, because he has a true concern for the people in the State of Arkansas. We had a week of discussion, and he committed his support to law enforcement in this community. He followed up with this commitment by Congressman Boozman by having this hearing today, and I thank you for that. Mr. Chairman, as I mention in my written statement I submitted for the record, the No. 1 problem in Arkansas is methamphetamine. The methamphetamine problemin Arkansas is a twofold problem. It's very similar to your situation in your home State of Indiana. The twofold problems are small toxic labs and Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Small toxic labs are local independent operators who produce one to two ounce quantities of methamphetamine. Locally, over 90 percent of these small toxic labs operate and produce methamphetamine for personal use and local distribution. Unfortunately, methamphetamine is a simple drug to produce. The ingredients are not only readily available but also inexpensive. Items such as cold medicine, such as ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, lithium batteries, camp fuel, match striker plates, starter fluid, and iodine crystals are some of the items needed to manufacture methamphetamine. Unfortunately, year after year the small toxic labs seizures continue to increase in Arkansas. According to statistics from the Arkansas State Crime Lab, a total of 16 clandestine laboratories were seized in 1993 for a total of 1,208 seizures in 2003. So far in 2004, we are on a pace to exceed the 2,000 lab seizure statistics. Meth labs create a environmental hazard with enormous clean-up costs. The DEA assists State and local law enforcement agencies with the clean up of meth labs for funding supplied by Congress. In 2002, the DEA assisted Arkansas law enforcement agencies in 545 lab clean-ups which totaled $1.8 million with an average cost of $3,300 per lab. In 2003, DEA was able to negotiate a new contract with hazardous waste and disposal companies to reduce the cost of clean-up. In 2003, DEA in Arkansas assisted law enforcement with 810 clandestine lab clean ups for a total of $1.3 million with an average cost of $1,725 per lab. Due to the increase in the number of labs, DEA opened a second response site for the hazardous waste contract in Fayetteville, Arkansas, in January 2004. This resulted in a cost savings for State and local law enforcement agencies on overtime costs. These laboratory operators known as cooks typically have no chemical background or training, which leads to these laboratories resulting in fires and explosions. In 2001, the State of Arkansas EPIC stats revealed we had 15 fires and explosions. Unfortunately, it continued to increase. In 2002, we had a report of 20 fires and explosions and then 28 fires and explosions in 2003. DEA has taken the lead in the law enforcement area of clandestine laboratory training. I'm glad to report DEA has trained over a total of 451 State and local law enforcement officers in Arkansas with clandestine laboratory training, which includes the State and local certification school, site safety officer school and tactical training. No only do these meth labs pose a danger to the law enforcement community, they pose a danger to the children of our State. In 2001, EPIC statistics showed 121 children were affected here in the State of Arkansas. Unfortunately, again this number increased in 2002 reporting 207 children and in 2003, 219 children. The secondfold problems are Mexican drug trafficking organizations here in Arkansas. We have definitely seen an increase in the Mexican drug traffic organizations in Arkansas, primarily involving the distribution of methamphetamines. DEA investigations have found Mexican drug traffic organizations transport multi-pound quantities of methamphetamine to the State for distribution. DEA intelligence in Arkansas indicates that some of these organizations are capable of distributing 20 pounds or more of methamphetamine in a 1-month timeframe. I thought the name of this hearing was very appropriate, Ice in the Ozarks, due to the fact that this past 12 months DEA has observed a significant amount of methamphetamine ``ice'' being distributed in the State of Arkansas by methamphetamine drug trafficking organizations. As you know, ice is a colorless, odorless form of d-methamphetamine. It resembles glass fragments or shiny blue-white ``rocks'' of various sizes. Ice typically has a high purity level, particularly if smoked using a glass pipe. Ice is also compared to crack cocaine. Crack cocaineabusers experience a high of about 20 to 30 minutes, while ice may last 12 hours or more. I've noted several significant investigations in my written statement that outlines a significant amount of methamphetamine and methamphetamine ice being seized in our State. DEA has joined forces with our State and local partners to address methamphetamine-related trends from large traffic organizations down to small time producer operating out of their homes. Placing emphasis on DEA priority target programs, eliminating small toxic labs, combining Federal regulations with local initiatives to reduce the availability of pseudoephedrine in the illicit market and enforcing more chemical controls on meth. In conclusion, the seriousness of the problem resulting from methamphetamine threat cannot be overstated. Perhaps more than any other drug, methamphetamine puts all of us, users and nonusers alike, at risk. The innocence of children, the fortitude of law enforcement and the pristine state of our ecosystem are not immune to meth's dangers. As a single mission agency, DEA will continue to devote its resources to identify, investigate, and dismantle the organizations responsible for the spread of meth across Arkansas and our country. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee, and I will be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Bryant follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.015 Mr. Souder. As you can see, we have no yellow. You can tell you've worked in Washington a little bit because you had to lose a Southern accent to get that much in, in 5 minutes. Mr. Cromwell. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. CROMWELL, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY, WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Mr. Cromwell. I'll try to get us back on schedule. Chairman Souder, Congressman Boozman, members of the committee staff, thank you on behalf of the Federal law enforcement presence in the Western District of Arkansas for convening this meeting, for calling, I hope, the public's attention to this problem. And it definitely is a problem. I believe you'll hear from every level of law enforcement, whether it be a police officer on the city beat, the deputy sheriff in the county, Federal law enforcement from DEA or other agencies, that methamphetamine and ice definitely cause a significant hazard for not only life, but economic hazard for the well-being of the United States. The resources that are required to be spent by all levels of law enforcement combating the problem are significant and could be used in other areas. And I applaud the efforts of the drug courts and other avenues of trying to treat the problem as opposed to incarceration. I think both avenues deserve exploration. This problem has gone on in our district for a number of years. In August, I will be in my 17th year with the U.S. Attorney's office, and the problem has grown exponentially throughout my tenure there. And it's one that even though resources are being used at every level, we have not yet found the solution. And as Mr. Bryant said, we have two primary sources of production for distribution of that product in our district. One, are the local cooks who definitely pose a problem, as Mr. Bryant said, not only to those around them but to first responders, too. Law enforcement, indeed post-September 11, have grown together and oftentimes the first responders will be the first at the scene of a fire or explosion, and they're exposed, perhaps not knowingly, to chemicals and other situations which this drug brings with it. In addition to the hazards posed to the children, the first responders and police, of course, we've already talked about the costs in terms of addiction, which you will hear about later on. I want to emphasize one case in my remarks deals with a case that started on the streets of Decatur, Arkansas, with a traffic stop. And a police officer made a felony arrest for an individual who was in possession of drug paraphernalia. That can be as small as a marijuana bong. But he had information which led to a ring which was producing methamphetamine in California. It was determined through investigation that approximately 100 pounds of methamphetamine and ice had been transported by this one individual from California to the streets of northwest Arkansas. This was a collaborative effort between the DEA, many law enforcement areas of concern here locally, Benton County, Washington County, but the impact of it was they were working together. They were sharing information. And what went from a very minor State arrest, led to a very large seizure in terms of quantities of methamphetamine, money, weapons, including automatic weapons, and the arrest of an individual who was connected to a large traffic ring in California. Although that is a significant case in our district, it was not the final case. This is an ongoing fight. And as Mr. Bryant can attest, we just recently had another case which led to the arrest of 12 individuals who are now in custody who were, again, importing multi-pound quantities of methamphetamine from California to Arkansas, and specifically to northwest Arkansas. And the States that we primarily have to deal with in the importation of the drug, California and Texas, both share one thing in common, and that's the boundary of Mexico. And, obviously, law enforcement of the U.S. variety cannot reach into Mexico, we have to be effective here. And I want emphasize to you that I think the OCDETF program has a significant impact in bringing State and local law enforcement to the Federal table to work together. Mr. Bryant has a resident agency in Fayetteville, Arkansas, just minutes down the highway from here. But it's staffed in large part by State and local officers who are part of the solution in bringing the manpower that's necessary to fight the problem. And so I would like to emphasize that I think the impact and the benefit of the OCDETF program as it works here in northwest Arkansas. And as you said, my written remarks are part of the record, and I will save time and be ready for questions. Thank you. Mr. Souder. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Cromwell follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.021 Mr. Souder. Mr. MacDonald. STATEMENT OF JAMES MACDONALD, FEDERAL ON SCENE COORDINATOR, REGION 7, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Mr. MacDonald. Good morning. I'm Jim MacDonald. I'm an On- Scene Coordinator with EPA Region 7. Region 7 covers the States of Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa. The written testimony submitted is more of a national perspective on the EPA activities in general, but I would like to just talk a little bit about EPA Region 7 activities that we've done here in the midwest. In the mid 1990's, we started getting quite a lot of calls from people in different situations associated with methamphetamine. They would start to say, ``My child was crossing this neighborhood resident's yard, and we've noticed them dumping some chemicals. I think it's a drug bust happened. Could you tell me if it's safe for my kids to cross this yard?'' Or, ``I just rented an apartment, said there was a drug bust occurred here previously. Is it safe for my children to live in this particular residence?'' we started getting enough of these that we started to get more involved in this situation. Methamphetamine is different from the other drugs in that it involves chemicals and labs. The other chemicals in terms of the drug situation, we have not been involved. But methamphetamine pulled us in because of the chemicals. In the late 1990's, we started a work group with our counterparts in the States. Our counterparts in Missouri, just like the Department of Natural Resources, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. We started a work group with our Missouri Department of Natural Resources on the methamphetamine situation to see what our involvement should be, what their involvement should be. And both DEA was a part of this and the highway patrol. And we started looking at ways that we could be actively involved. To the EPA, that became quite evident that training needed to be done for first responders. Not just the fire departments that we'd normally been involved with, but for law enforcement, because their entrance into these labs for a person with protective equipment. We also realized that we needed to get some samples from residuals of these drug busts, so we did a grant to the Missouri Department of Health, and we went out and sampled over 70 different residences that had drug busts, some immediately after drug busts, some days after, some weeks after, months after. Homes, trailers, apartments, all sorts of places that these drug busts had occurred for methamphetamine. We submitted all this data. These were wipe samples, air samples from sewer cannisters, built-in pumps, soil samples, water samples, to the Missouri Department of Health, tried to develop some standards that we might go for clean up. Typically, EPA works with our risk assessment folks, our health folks, to get these standards for us to do our clean up. For instance, the dioxin clean ups, one part per billion lead and mercury, all have standards developed by the health folks that we can go in and get clean ups. We submitted these analysis to the Missouri Department of Health, and they came up with a booklet Cleaning Up Former Meth Lab Guidelines. We couldn't find anything specifically. You know, which chemicals? These are household chemicals, as was stated previously, that you can go out and buy at different stores. You might have some industrial ammonia, but most of them you can purchase yourself readily. So Missouri developed the guidelines, Kansas Department of Health used that and developed some guidelines also for clean up. There's still no national standards for clean up of meth, but we're still looking and still possibly doing some more sampling in terms of these residuals. On the training issues, EPA and Region 7 has always been has doing its HAZWOPER training, 40 hours HAZWOPER, based on the OSHA 1910,120. So anybody involved in emergency situations, hazardous materials needs to take this 40-hour training. We tailored it to law enforcement to bring law enforcement with the ability now to use first protective equipment. We also developed a 16-hour HAZCAT, hazard categorization, for methamphetamine so that the fire departments and other folks would be more aware of what chemicals associated with the meth labs. In Missouri they decided to develop collection stations scattered around the State of Missouri where the law enforcement could bring the chemicals to the collection station, which was usually fire departments, would do a waste minimization and neutralize, clean, whatever, and then reduce the amount of waste necessary for disposal. So in training those folks in terms of how to do this. The third thing we were involved with was a $2 million grant that is facilitated by Senator Bond that went through our WICKER program which I am the project officer for, was given to the State of Missouri. For 5 years, approximately 400,000 per year to help not only with collection stations but equipment, and salaries associated with that. As I stated we have submitted the written testimony, but I'll be glad to answer any questions that you have. [The prepared statement of Mr. MacDonald follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.024 Mr. Souder. I thank you each for your testimony. Let me first see if I can get a little bit more specific about Arkansas and where the different types are. We were handling questions before the hearing started describing what we saw in other areas, and I want to see if this is true for Arkansas. And, Mr. Bryant, maybe you can kind of do an overview. Would you say that the 70/30 Mexican drug trafficking versus small lab holds here in Arkansas, or is the percentage coming from small labs a little higher? Mr. Bryant. I would say it's comparatively the same, yes, sir. Mr. Souder. And then would the pattern of where the Mexican drug trafficking organizations distribute be different? In other words, is meth in Little Rock? Mr. Bryant. Yes, sir. Mr. Souder. More like 90 percent from the Mexican drug trafficking organizations than in Fayetteville, versus, say, the northern regions or the more mountainous regions or more rural regions. Mr. Bryant. I think right now, Congressman Souder, that northwest Arkansas, most of our investigations are on the Mexican drug trafficking organizations as compared to Little Rock. So we have a larger population that we work on up here in northwest Arkansas as far as Mexican drug trafficking organizations. All our significant investigations have been focused mostly in Benton and Washington County. Where in Little Rock what you also see is we'll have regular methamphetamine distributors, the white males, or whatever, their source will be in California, and they'll travel out to California to hook up with a source and supply in California, the Mexican drug trafficking organizations, and then transport the meth back to Little Rock. But what we see here in this section of Arkansas is most of our significant cases have been against Hispanics involved in these Mexican drug trafficking organizations that live in this area. Mr. Souder. Are both aspects of the meth problems, both the Mexican drug organizations and the smaller labs, concentrated in northwest Arkansas as opposed to the rest of the State? Mr. Bryant. No, sir. Unfortunately, northwest Arkansas does have its fair share of the small toxic labs. We also have a tremendous amount in, say, for example, Little Rock. Little Rock Police Department actually had its own clandestine lab group to address the issues. And I think most of our lab seizures, small toxic labs are seized in like the Pulaski County, Saline County area surrounding Little Rock. Southern Arkansas, we do have some small pocket labs, but I would say for like Little Rock all the way north between to like Jonesboro and other parts of the northeast part of the State we also have a tremendous small toxic lab problem. Mr. Souder. From your perspective, what would be the difference in the northern part of Arkansas, Missouri area from southern Arkansas and into Louisiana? Mr. Bryant. What we are seeing, we're seeing a trend coming down south. You're starting to see Louisiana and Mississippi and Tennessee develop their own meth problems which are a little bit below ours but continue to rise. When we first saw this meth problems--I've been stationed in Arkansas from 1991 to 1999, saw it slowly start in Missouri, eased its way down to northern Arkansas, and since that time period, it's slowly moved throughout the State. It's just been more time period up in the northern part of the State where they're used to manufacturing meth. Mr. Souder. We were in New Orleans just a few weeks ago, and their DEA says it was coming into New Orleans, and also that the HIDTA had always been located in the southern parts of trafficking regions, but they were seeing a fair amount going through Louisiana in the northern part. I'm not sure what interstate that is that it was going through, and that it'd stop off. Mr. Bryant. I think it's Interstate 20 and Interstate 10 also. Mr. Souder. And it'd come back. And they thought the center was in Atlanta bouncing back to the south. Do you see any of that in Arkansas and Louisiana and Mississippi or southern Arkansas, bounce back from Atlanta? Mr. Bryant. What we're seeing a lot of in the State of Arkansas, we're a relatively small State, and we have three major interstate systems. We have Interstate 40, we have Interstate I-30 coming out of Texas, and we also have Interstate 55 which runs off I-40 near Memphis up through the State of Arkansas to Illinois. So a lot of the State police do these highway interdiction stops, and we're seeing a lot of loads where the people cooperate, and we'll do a controlled delivery. We're taking a lot to Atlanta, we're taking a lot to Chicago, and we're taking a lot to North Carolina is where a majority of these loads seem to be going. A large load of methamphetamine from 15 to 25 pounds of methamphetamine. Mr. Souder. Now, you had in your written testimony that one of your big busts came out of Tijuana. Has that been a pattern over on the west side with these super labs in the Mexican west side in the California, or are you seeing any out of McAllen and down across from Corpus? Mr. Bryant. The majority of our cases have come from California and also just across the border in Mexico in Tijuana. A lot of them are sources of supplies that we see are Hispanic from Mexico residing in California. Mr. Souder. Why doesn't it come up from the southeast Texas portion? Why way over a couple of thousand miles west? Mr. Bryant. It just seems like maybe the influx of the Hispanic population we have here in northwest Arkansas, may be relatives or friends from that area of the country is the only thing I can explain. Mr. Souder. In Indiana, we were trying to figure out, and apparently DEA is working on a case from a particular family because we're seeing Yakima and the Tri-Cities areas of Washington State, Indiana, and Winette, Georgia, and then learned that there was a migrant pattern of I think it was tomatoes actually, that was working through that zone because it made no sense that we were getting things from Yakima, coming from Tijuana to Yakima and across because they were adding double the mileage route. Is DEA looking more directly? I know Ms. Tandy has said, ``Let's get to the bottom of the organization.'' I'm trying to figure out the trucking routes and stuff they have, because, clearly, it's not a logical ``What's the closest point?'' There's got to be some other kind of networking trafficking pattern of that. Mr. Bryant. Well, Arkansas is a State has a lot of farms, migrant worker situations over the State, but the seizure we're making are vehicles equipped with hidden traps where they've put it in gas tanks or they have hydraulic hidden compartments. And the organizations are using those to transport the methamphetamine from California to Arkansas. We're not charting any, like, 18-wheelers with cover loads of lettuce and tomatoes. What we're seeing a majority of are regular type passenger vehicles within hidden compartments. Mr. Souder. Congressman Boozman. Mr. Boozman. As you've alluded to, we have all these interstates,I-30, I-40, I-55, 71, the north and the south. And yet--I've got to use this. I carried it all the way from Washington. But when you look at the map, as far as the high intensity drug trafficking areas, the resources are lacking, and I'll show the chairman in a second--literally from the west, Fort Smith, through almost half of Tennessee, there are no resources. There are no resources north and south. Again, we probably have as much truck traffic, because we've got so many trucking firms in the region, which, again, this is associated with truck traffick. It just seems like we should have some resources concentrated someplace in that area. I've heard reports from some of my sheriffs that they're so busy dealing with their own problems, the fact that they're understaffed and under resourced just dealing with the problems in the county, that they really have no interest in trying to help with anything passing through there. Can you comment on those kind of things. Mr. Bryant. Yes, sir. I'm glad you brought it you up. We do have a working group now of chiefs and sheriffs in the State that, as you know, in 2002, Arkansas tried to get a HIDTA here in Arkansas itself. Unfortunately, no new funding was available, and what we've done now is we have a working group here in Benton and Washington County composed of chiefs and sheriffs and also down in Pulaski County and near Jefferson County in the Little Rock area, but they've formed a working group to form a HIDTA commission to join another existing HIDTA so we can get some of those resources. As we talked when I briefed you on the methamphetamine situation, we're coming to Members of Congress here in the State of Arkansas for your support, or we can join possibly an existing HIDTA, maybe the Gulf Coast HIDTA down in New Orleans to be able to get some of the funding to be able to address these Mexican drug trafficking organizations in Arkansas. Mr. Boozman. Is it possible that we are under reporting this type of activity as we are the meth labs in the sense, again, that we're putting so few resources--I know that you-all are doing a tremendous job, but the local folks are putting so few resources that they really--again, because of their funding problems, just don't want to deal with it. Mr. Bryant. It's very difficult funding a difficult problem here in the State of Arkansas. I know the State police are like a hundred troopers down themself. What we try to do is, Arkansas has no State wire tap law, so if any Title 3 intercepts take place, it's going to be up to the DEA to do that. It's a very effective tool to attack these Mexican trafficking organizations, and we work closely with Mr. Cromwell's office to be able to do that, but the sheriffs and local police do not have the resources or funding available, even if they had the law to be able to pursue this Title 3 capability. Mr. Boozman. Mr. Cromwell, also, Missouri, I believe, has a law, a reporting law, as far as when they seize a lab, that by State law they have to report it. Do we need to change anything in Arkansas? I know both of you are working very hard to try and get the labs that our cities and such reported. Do we need to do anything different legislatively at the State level or the Federal level? Mr. Bryant. Just so you know, DEA has kind of established a new program for us to better track this. I've assigned personnel to contact these State and local agencies when they do seize a clandestine laboratory for them to complete the EPIC form 143, send it to us. That way, we make the checks and balances to see that it is done, and then we forward those on to EPIC. Next week, we are going to meet with Mr. Rutledge in his office, and the ACIC, maybe we can start doing this electronically by computer with a current system called the Justice Exchange Computer System here in Arkansas. But a lot of sheriffs office use them, so we want to see if we can connect that with EPIC to be able to do this electronically to make sure we're capturing all this data. Mr. Cromwell. I know the DEA does an excellent job in tracking their statistics, and I feel very confident that they're gathering all the information and data that you can put into the system. As far as whether there needs to be a State law fixed at that level, I would defer that to somebody close to that level. Mr. Boozman. Very good. Thank you-all so much. Mr. Souder. Mr. Bryant, we're going to be meeting, I think, in the morning over in El Paso, and we've had this constant discussion about the reporting. Is it your stance that almost every State is underreporting? Mr. Bryant. Yes, sir. As you know, it's up to the local and State agencies to do it themselves. It's not DEA's responsibility, but in this State we work very close with our State and local counterparts. But we've got to think of a better system to gather this information. Because right now there's no check and balance system for us to make sure that all the States are reporting this. Mr. Souder. Let me ask a question of Mr. Cromwell. One of the challenges we have, and I know this has been true in Indiana, as we put the DEA in, is that many State laws either you can't extend to Arkansas that's not a wire tap law that the State uses, or increasingly we're federalizing some of the cases. Are you Federalizing cases that if they have similar laws in the State that they could utilize, you wouldn't Federalize. Mr. Cromwell. No, sir. The investigative technique of the Title 3 relief is the only instance in which I would see a case being brought to our office that wouldn't normally fit our guidelines. And, normally, we're looking at quantity and multi- state connections and money laundering aspects, and as a result, I feel the State drug laws are very adequate to prosecute individuals. And we have an excellent, excellent relationship, I believe, with our State counterparts in working with them if they believe a case has connections outside their jurisdiction. They're very good to bring those cases to us so we can allow the DEA to work across State lines. But I think our State drug enforcement laws are very adequate. Mr. Souder. Do you see any growth in the Federal court pressure on meth. Mr. Cromwell. Absolutely. Yes, sir. Mr. Souder. What are your staffing situations? Mr. Cromwell. Our most recent additions to staff were for gun initiative projects, safe neighborhoods, and for an anti- terrorism slot. And those both were filled 2 years ago. So as far as even though the methamphetamine problem has grown, manpower has not gone along with it. Mr. Souder. So do you have more of a backlog or do you not take certain cases? How are you dealing with that? Mr. Cromwell. No, sir we have not raised our guidelines on the quality of cases we're taking. I'm just having more assistants who do other types of criminal work being assigned to drug cases. Mr. Souder. Let me ask, Mr. MacDonald, are you primarily working right now in Missouri, or you're working the whole region? But where you have the most experience is in Missouri? Mr. MacDonald. Yes. That's true. Mr. Souder. Is Arkansas moving similar in guidelines that you've mentioned for clean up with Kansas and Missouri? Mr. MacDonald. I really don't know. Mr. Souder. OK. We'll ask that question later. When you look from an EPA standpoint, have you seen any where you have these concentrated areas of labs in northwest Arkansas, southern Missouri, places in Kansas, have you seen this impact water quality? I mean, is it more a very localized ``I'm worried about the house I'm in,'' ``I'm worried about the yard''. Have you seen any dangers hitting aquifers yet? Mr. MacDonald. No, we have not. Most of the ones we deal with are the smaller labs. And, yes, there has been some dumping, and we've sampled, we've tracked it, and there's some, of course, biodegradation going on. We haven't seen any significant impacts, you know, overall to the environment. There are concerns about any residuals inside the houses, and that seems to be the primary concern for the child endangerment issues. But right now, they're following the guidelines with the States with the cleaning process, removing porous materials, filters and things like that. That should take care of the problem. Again, we're dealing with the smaller labs, not like in California that we're dealing with the large labs. Mr. Souder. So, if we give adequate funding to clean up and stay on top of the labs, are we making people more aware? I'm used to being down in Columbia, and you can see flying overhead, the Amazon basin, you can see the chemicals going into the river from all the cocaine labs and that type of thing. So even in the fairly intense small lab zone, as long as we tackle them individually and implement the right procedures, it's not pouring into any of the sink river basins or anything. Mr. MacDonald. We're not seeing that. We've been working with the forest services, too, as they're picking up some labs there, and we're trying to track those. But we have not seen any what I would consider major environmental problems from this. Again, we're dealing with what we consider household chemicalsused improperly, stored improperly, disposedimproperly. But, again, you know, small cases. Mr. Souder. There's a little bit of this in California, but even in California with the super labs, they aren't concentrated together like what we see in Columbia where there's much of a danger. And I want to say one thing for the record that when we're trying to figure out how we allocate funds and move through, one of Congressman Boozman's challenges as he argues for Arkansas is every place has different kinds of drug problems, and it's a big battle and the matter of limited budgets trying to figure out how to do it. For example, in El Paso, we did their hearing there, the local doesn't even pick up anybody, hold anybody if they have under 200 pounds of marijuana, and DEA testified 500 pounds. We are so overwhelmed along the southwest border that unless we can seal off to a better degree the southwest border from the crisis of terrorism, the rest of the country is extremely vulnerable. And the amounts and the quantities we're dealing with down there, at each stop off point along the Interstate, they're dumping more out. And so the degree we can get the bigger whole semi-loads down at the border, and then often they'll come to a regional distribution center, like Atlanta, and it will bounce back into the Gulf Coast HIDTA. So even in our HIDTA's, we're trying to figure out, OK-- which is the what part we're dealing with with the legislative bill, is even if you have a HIDRA, most of the HIDTA's dollars should go to the southwest border where the things are biggest, and then the next group of HIDTA's, and then the question comes is where are the next HIDTA's? So one possibility would either be to hook up with the plainstates HIDTA or the Gulf Coast HIDTA. They don't get as much money as the others, but it gets you into the sharing networks of information networks of what are similar trafficking patterns. Are you a pass-through State, are you a central distribution point, like Atlanta, which then--it's still extraordinary to me, the test ones that we've got, that they go to Atlanta, then they come back almost all the way, but, hey, that's the way trucking companies work, that's the way distribution centers work, it makes sense that the larger drug trafficking organizations work that way, too. Do you have any further questions. Mr. Boozman. No. I just want to thank you-all again for your efforts. I've gotten to work with Mr. Bryant and Mr. Cromwell some, and they're doing a tremendous job in the interim capacity, and I really do appreciate that. And I have not gotten to work with Mr. MacDonald as much, but, again, I know all of you-all are really fighting a battle. One of the frustrations I see, as far as what Mr. Souder was alluding to was that it seems like with drugs, you do a good job, and you chase it off to a surrounding State or surrounding county or whatever. And something I would like to see, perhaps at some time, is maybe some sort of a drug task force that, you know, if you have the high intensity drug plan set up, they do a good job. They shut it off there. Meth's a little different than some of these other drugs, because it's not like it's coming from Columbia or necessarily from Mexico, it's something that could be made anyplace. And so as a result of that, what I would like to see, is perhaps some sort of a situation where we have a mobile task force that, you know, went to an area chased it out of there and then maybe followed it as it went to another area. But I do appreciate you-all, and appreciate your efforts. Mr. Cromwell. Thank you. Mr. Souder. One of the things we're trying in Congress is Ose has a bill, and what's happening in the appropriation process, because there isn't a systematic way to deal with meth, individual members have been getting in about task forces and things, like in Missouri, and we've got to figure out how to coordinate this so that they can get interrelated, and that there's a separate way to deal with meth by Congress. I have a few followup questions I needed to ask. One for Mr. MacDonald on the EPA. Do you know, has EPA ever taken legal action against a land owner or a landlord for damage. Mr. MacDonald. No, sir, not that I know of. We've been called in to do some sentencing enhancements dealing with the Clean Water Act and RCRA. On two occasions I've involved with that. You know, they kind of fit in with guns and child endangerment and then the environmental enhancements. Mr. Souder. In Missouri, those cases? Mr. MacDonald. One was in Iowa and one was in Kansas. Mr. Souder. Can you get us some information on that for the record? Mr. MacDonald. Sure. Mr. Souder. Also, the guidelines to Missouri where you said Kansas was based off Missouri? If we can insert that into the record since you referred to that, it would be helpful. Mr. MacDonald. Yes, sir. Mr. Souder. In the enhancements, were those against land owners or were those against the actual cookers? Mr. MacDonald. Against the cookers. Mr. Souder. OK. And we talked a little bit about this, and we'll followup this more on the precursor restrictions on the regulations. Oklahoma has the toughest law in the country, and I wondered if Mr. Bryant and maybe Mr. Cromwell could discuss a little bit that Oklahoma law and what impact that's had on Arkansas and whether you think that's the way we ought to be looking at controlling pseudoephedrine. Mr. Bryant. As far as the Oklahoma State law, I can give you a thumbnail sketch of my knowledge of it. But, basically, it requires to make pseudoephedrine a Schedule 5 controlled substance. It's required to be sold in a pharmacy, a person has to present a driver's license and sign a written log, or the store has to keep receipts that they've sold that pseudoephedrine. They let them sell gel caps without a restriction. Basically, from the news reports I've seen out of Oklahoma, the first month it was enacted, it was like a 29 percent reduction in the lab seizures in the State of Oklahoma. What we're seeing DEA intelligence and from our sources is that we're having a lot of the methamphetamine laboratory operators, they're coming over to Arkansas to get their pseudo because it's a less stringent law. So we definitely need to look at that situation. I briefed some State legislators here in Arkansas, but we really need something nationwide to address this issue. Because if we don't do it nationwide, what you're going to find is the traffic's going to go to the bordering States who do not have the laws to secure their pseudoephedrine. Mr. Souder. I believe we have an individual testifying later, and one of the things he said, my understanding, is that he said that people even go up to Chicago to get it. In other words, if you don't have some kind of a Federal law. Well, there is another thing that's in his written testimony that I wanted to ask you about. He says that sometimes, particularly for the larger even home-type labs there's a witness--not witness--well, it's kind of a witness intimidation. In other words, these labs come into the area, as they get larger, it describes people in the trees as guards and stuff, and the neighborhood people leave because they're afraid to report. They're intimidated in the neighborhoods. Have you seen much of that and do you do anything? One of the things in our new ONDCP bill, Congressman Cummings is the ranking member of the subcommittee, the senior Democrat, put in a thing because there's a family there whose house was torched, the Dossen family. The mother and all the kids were burned to death. Do you see much witness intimidation here? Is it a growing problem? And are there any programs to help protect people? Mr. Bryant. What we've seen here, Congressman Souder, is we have seen some type of witness intimidation. Most of these meth abusers, they use it, they stay up for 2 or 3 days at a time and get very little sleep. They're very paranoid. They see policemen behind every tree or every car that they see, they think it's a policeman following them. Almost all the labs we did have firearms. We've done several murder cases, contract hire to kill in Arkansas on methamphetamine violators. We also filed some RICOs on some laboratory operators. They can file witness intimidation charges on them. Part of the meth business is the violence. Like I said before, they're very paranoid, they're all armed, and they use violence as a necessary technique. And also employ counter- surveillance techniques as, you know, they put security cameras on the property, on the roadways. Especially in the rural area, if their house is set way back where the lab is, they'll have a camera on the gate so they can see law enforcement coming, you know, half a mile before they ever get to the house and make entry. So we are seeing that in the State. Mr. Souder. On the murder for hire active cases, can you talk about it for a second? Mr. Bryant. One, I believe, was over in Searcy in White County. They killed a young lady. We prosecuted them. I believe we never did get the body, but we were able to prosecute them for the capital murder conviction on that. They killed her because they thought she was going to testify. We also had another case in the Pope County area, was a murder for hire where they killed a witness in front of his two children. Shot him in the head with a deer rifle the day before he was supposed to testify. We were able to clear that several years later and then prosecute that gentleman. Mr. Souder. Can you provide us a little bit more on those cases, particularly when they're federally related? We have an obligation--there's no way we're going to get people to cooperate with us if they think they're in that much danger. Could you describe the RICOcase, how your RICO case. Mr. Bryant. This gentleman in White County, and you're going to have a witness later today, J.R. Howard, and he was one of the case agents on this case. Mr. Souder. OK. We'll follow with him. Mr. Bryant. And he can give you all the details because he was one of the investigating officers on that. Mr. Souder. OK. Congressman. Mr. Boozman. Very quickly, I see that we've got some of our distinguished judges here. Mr. Cromwell, you mentioned the problem of not having enough personnel. How about as far as you know--I know that you-all have that problem. What about as far as our judges? This is your chance to---- Mr. Cromwell. Shine. Mr. Boozman [continuing]. Shine. Mr. Cromwell. Or fail. Mr. Boozman. I just know you're back there taking notes. Mr. Cromwell. I believe that the statistics in the Western District of Arkansas definitely justify additional judicial resources as well as our Department of Justice resources in this district. I know that last year we were far in excess of any year we worked previously, and this year we're ahead of that already. So I believe both at the Federal bench and from the Federal prosecution standpoint, we could use additional resources. Mr. Boozman. Thank you. Mr. Cromwell. If I might add one thing. I wholly endorse a Federal law, just as Mr. Bryant said, addressing access to pseudoephedrine, but I think one of the things that needs to be addressed, too, is that Canada is a large source both by trucking and on-line orders of ephedra. And that needs to be addressed between the two countries. Mr. Souder. Just so you know, because I agree with you, and if you have any further specifics you want to add to that, at the Detroit border, we're getting more cooperation at the border, and they have some new laws, and they took down a load of pseudoephedrine. It was equivalent of 40 percent of what had previously ever been seen. This has been in the last, like, 60 days, something like that. Which is just incredible, because if you take 40 percent in one load of what we had seen in the U.S. total in pseudoephedrine gives you an idea of the quantity of this stuff pours in. Annually we have the U.S./Canada problem interest exchange, and I'm the drug point person, so I was Mr. Unpleasant raising the pharmaceutical question, which is getting very caught up in prescription drug questions. Bottom line is, either we have an FDA and we have drug laws or we don't have drug laws. And given the way we're headed right now, which looks like a relaxation of pharmacy laws with Canada, we're going to have a big problem here. Because politically it's becoming very difficult to sustain a differential price structure because in America we're a little tighter on pharmaceuticals. We may get a compromise that says if they go through an FDA type approval, then they can go through the pharmacies, but as DEA will testify, and as you certainly know in prosecution, nothing is tougher than the Internet. And I am very worried about where this is headed with Canada unless they'll tighten up with Antwerp and Belgium. And their argument is they've tightened some, and at our last Washington hearing, DEA has not been able to identify where, if indeed we have made progress at the Canadian border, Belgium and Holland have not reduced the production; therefore, where is it coming in? And we're wondering whether it's Bahamas or somewhere south, maybe even New Orleans. Somewhere, if you seal off one border, they're going to push. And so we're pushing the Canadians, but this a strike at a perimeter. But we're going to have to watch our south as well, where we have less actually control of our border than the north. I thank you all for your testimony. Puts the full testimony in the record. And if the next panel could come forward, Mr. Keith Rutledge, State drug director of the Office of the Governor of Arkansas; the Honorable David Hudson, a Sebastian County judge; Mr. J.R. Howard, executive director of the Arkansas State Crime Lab; Miss Shirley Louie, who's the environmental epidemiology supervisor, Arkansas Department of Health; Sheriff Danny Hickman, Boone County Sheriff's Office; Mr. David Gibbons, prosecuting attorney for the 5th Judicial District. As soon as you-all get seated, we'll have you stand and take the oath. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Souder. Let the record show that all the witnesses responded affirmative. Thank you-all for participating this morning, and we'll start with Mr. Rutledge. STATEMENT OF KEITH RUTLEDGE, STATE DRUG DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF ARKANSAS Mr. Rutledge. Mr. Chairman Souder and Congressman Boozman and the staff, on behalf of the Governor and the people of the State of Arkansas, I want to tell you how much we appreciate your being here and inviting us to participate. My name is Keith Rutledge, and I'm the State drug director for the State of Arkansas and work out of the office of the Governor. And I'm also in that role the chairman of the Arkansas Alcohol and Drug Abuse Coordinating Council, which is a body of 25 people, State agencies and private people who deal with education, planning, prevention, law enforcement, the entire spectrum of the drug and alcohol problems in the State of Arkansas. First off, I have submitted my written testimony previously, and so you have that. And I want to briefly go through that with some high points that I think are important from the standpoint of the State of Arkansas, and as it relates to what's already been testified to. As I see it from the State Drug Director's position, we have two problems with methamphetamine. One is the major super labs and the trafficking problem that comes in from the Mexicans and the California connection, but the 1,200 or so labs that we're talking about are all home grown. That's all local stuff. And that's the ones that really are concerning our local sheriffs and our police and our multi-jurisdictional drug task forces, which also come within my purview. And I had noticed by looking at the data and the treatment people, you'll hear more from those people shortly, but in the past 10 years or so, there's been 1,100 percent increase in the number of methamphetamine admissions to those public facilities for treatment, which makes it No. 1 in the State of Arkansas, outside of alcohol treatment. It passed crack cocaine, and all these other things. And 97 percent of those people are Caucasians, which means that this is a real cultural drug. But what really concerns me here, last summer when I took this job and previously I'd been a prosecutor and a circuit judge, and knew that, you know, that this was a problem in domestic violence and other crimes, and we've had all this tremendous increase in the number of people in the Arkansas penitentiary. But the first person that called me--or one of the first people that called me after I took this job on July the 1st last year was the head of the Federal Government's rural housing--I forget what they call it. They used to call it Farmer's Home Administration. We've got a new name for it. But, anyway, he'd known me for a long time, and he came to me, and he said, ``Keith, we got a potential problem with our office and the HUD office in that we get back a lot of properties that are''--where they've had loans on them, and they were concerned about the liability where the meth has been manufactured in those homes. That's something I hadn't thought about. But I know that both HUD and the rural development people are really concerned about that. And so I got to looking at that, and I thought, well, you know, that is a new aspect of this that I hadn't thought about. And then I got to looking at the other aspects that I saw as a circuit judge, and one of those was the domestic violence thing that we really are seeing. And, also, the children in the homes where meth is being manufactured, we don't have a real good tracking system, and I noticed that ONDCP has some estimates on those kind of things, but I have talked to the juvenile judges across the State about that particular problem, because those children end up in their courts a lot of times, having to take them, and this is a real significant problem. Also, the environmental damage, you know. And so I look at all these things, and my job is broad based in that sense. What I would like to do is recommend to this body, and, Congressman Boozman, this is something that I think you alluded to a while ago, but I would like--and I've got some recommendations in my prepared statement, and as Mr. Bryant said, we're going to meet with DEA and ACIC on trying to figure out a better way to get the EPIC forms in. But also the one thing that I have looked at, and as a recommendation, is trying to come up with a system in the State of Arkansas, and it may need some Federal funding, where we can approach this as an epidemic. In other words, the word is right; it is an epidemic. Where we could go in, for instance, at the State level and assist these local prosecutors and law enforcement and treatment people and prevention people and bring in some assets. In Mr. Gibbons district down there and bring in for 60, 90 days and say, just swarm that place with law enforcement and others, treatment people, prevention people, and try to move those people out of that area and then go on to the next one, leaving a long term program in place. And I would certainly be amenable to any questions that you may have, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. Mr. Souder. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Rutledge follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.031 Mr. Souder. Judge Hudson. STATEMENT OF DAVID HUDSON, SEBASTIAN COUNTY JUDGE Judge Hudson. Thank you, I'll be making comments relative to the written statement from myself with attachments from the Fort Smith police chief, Randy Reed, and the Sebastian County prosecutor, Steve Tabor. My concerns related to drug use focus on our jails. Our jail's capacity to hold inmates, crowding due to drug offenders, jail expansion and related capital expenditures, and, most significantly, the increased ongoing operating cost from larger facilities. We simply cannot afford to incarcerate all drug offenders. The distinction must be made between criminal violators we are afraid of and those we are mad at. Lock up those we are afraid of and use other programs to deal with those we are mad at, such as drug courts. It is widely acknowledged that 80 percent of the individuals in the Sebastian County Adult Detention facility are directly or indirectly incarcerated due to some form of drug abuse. Sebastian County is currently in the process of expanding its jail at a cost of $3\1/2\ million with an increased operating cost projected at $400,000 a year. The county has been able to plan on jail expansion without requiring a tax increase. However, any further jail expansion will require additional revenues. The methamphetamine drug abuse problem is considered a major issue in the future expansion of the jail, continued crowding of the existing facility and the need to increase taxes to operate such a facility in the future. Our law enforcement officers and agencies do a great job in apprehending drug abusers, and the prosecuting attorney's office and judges are effective in administering judgment and sentencing these individuals to jail and prison time. However, for a certain category of these offenders, this solution is an expensive proposition with a high probability and likelihood of repeat offenders continuing to exacerbate the flow of arrests, crowding of jails and prisons, and related expenditures. The expenditure of tax resources to deal with the methamphetamine drug abuser in the areas of education, awareness, and the drug courts' use of judicial sanctions to help rehabilitate, is an effective national public policy partnership with our State and local governments. Law enforcement in western Arkansas has experienced a dramatic increase in the number of clandestine methamphetamine laboratory seizures. Each year, methamphetamine arrests and drug seizures double those of the preceding year. This has had a profound effect upon law enforcement, manpower and asset allocation. Combating this growing epidemic has become a complicated process which crosses traditional jurisdictional boundaries and requires investigators to consistently share information, specialize abilities and enforcement strategies. High intensity drug trafficking area programs expand and organize investigative methods and abilities among local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies. HIDTA programs coordinate law enforcement efforts to target those responsible for the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine distribution and transportation. Recent Federal, State, and local investigations uncovered drug routes leading directly from Mexico to environments within Arkansas and surrounding communities. A collaborative effort promoted by HIDTA programs would prove extremely beneficial to the State of Arkansas and regional law enforcement agencies. Assistance from the Federal Government with regards to developing a HIDTA in our region would encourage collaboration and intelligence efforts and would dramatically affect direct interstate distribution of methamphetamines in the State of Arkansas. The widespread use of methamphetamines is the single worst contributor to crime in the State in this area of Arkansas. Not only are large numbers of people arrested each year for the use, sale, or manufacture of this drug but many more are arrested for other crimes directly related to the use of methamphetamines. For example, a methamphetamine user is more prone to the commission of violent offenses while under the influence of the drug. Many assaults, homicides, and robberies occur as the direct result of methamphetamine use. In addition, large numbers of methamphetamine users resort to the commission of property crimes in order to support their habit, because they're unable to successfully maintain employment and fund their addiction. Because of a disturbing trend for methamphetamine labs we have in residential areas, increased attention has to be given to the State for clean up of laboratory sites. Every dollar spent in the drug court is an outstanding investment which will reap untold savings to the system. For every person who successfully beats their addiction through the efforts of drug court, many thousands of dollars are saved is the long run in the cost of investigations and incarceration. I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I wish you well as we fight this very difficult issue. [The prepared statement of Judge Hudson follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.034 Mr. Souder. How big is Sebastian County? Judge Hudson. We have a population of 115,000. Mr. Souder. Thank you. Mr. Howard. STATEMENT OF J.R. HOWARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS STATE CRIME LAB Mr. Howard. Thank you, and good morning. The Arkansas State Crime Lab was established in 1977, and it's the only forensic laboratory in the State. The primary function of the crime lab is to provide forensic services including drug analysis to all local, county, State, and some Federal agencies. I might add that within the State there are over 450 police departments, 75 county sheriffs departments, and about 80 State police and investigators, and not even taking into account the other State law enforcement agencies that use the crime lab. So we've got many folks out in the State loading our wagon for us. Illicit methamphetamine labs were relatively unknown in Arkansas until the mid 1990's. About that time, the simplified recipes for methamphetamine manufacture became available and the availability of the recipe as well as the accessibility of components resulted in an explosion, sometimes literally explosions, in the number of meth labs beginning in 1995. And that increase continues through today. The 400 percent increase in meth lab seizures from 1995 to 1996 kind of signifies the beginning of the upward spiral of the meth lab seizures in the State. Initially, the evidenced seized from the meth labs was processed in the drug section of the crime lab. However, an 1,800 percent increase in the number of meth labs seizures from 1995 to 1998 resulted in an illicit lab section of the crime lab being established. And it's established specifically to handle analysis of evidence from methamphetamine labs. At the time, three analysts staffed the illicit lab section. Currently, the illicit lab section is staffed by six analysts, and they're tasked with handling the 1,208 meth seizures that were accomplished in 2003 and are also tasked in handling anticipated--1,305 labs anticipated to be handled this year. And in addition to analyzing the evidence, the analysts are also tasked with responding to the crime lab sites at the request of local or other law enforcement agencies, and they provide safety information to officers at the scene; they assist in rendering the site safe; they collect evidence samples; they wind up testifying in court; and also they provide training to law enforcement officers regarding the meth lab. Cases we receive each year continue to outnumber the cases processed which results in an unacceptable backlog of almost 1,000 cases in the illicit lab section. And this backlog is not a result of any inefficiencies on the part of our lab personnel, but it's due primarily to the sheer number of cases coming into the lab. Although additional analysts are needed, current budget constraints hinder the hiring of the additional analysts. And just as the illicit lab section has no control over the number of hours spent in court, we also have no control over the number of man hours spent in responding to meth labs, because it's totally dependent on calls we receive from outside law enforcement agencies. And on average since January 1, 2004, illicit lab analysts have spent 74 hours in court, which is almost 2 weeks in court, and 187 hours responding to meth lab scenes. And that's over 4 weeks. And each hour they spend in court or at the scene takes them away from the laboratory condition where they analyze the evidence that's needed for court. And since 1995, the number of meth labs seized has increased by almost 5,000 percent, while the number of illicit lab analysts has increased from three to six. The backlog of cases, as well as the congestion of the judicial system contributes to another unique problem. In many instances, persons charged with manufacture of meth will bond out of jail and may be arrested additional times for manufacture of meth prior to going to trial on the first charge. The illicit lab section assists the Criminal Justice Institute in Little Rock by providing instructors over the methamphetamine awareness first responders course, and clandestine laboratory evidence sampling preparation for this course. It is through this training that analysts hope to educate officers in the proper response techniques to meth labs for safety service and to instruct officers in proper techniques for evidence sampling and handling. By achieving this goal, the analyst will decrease the call outs to lab sites and increase efficiency of the cases submitted to the lab because proper packaging and submission procedures have been followed. Of course, as a result, it allows the analyst more time in the laboratory. And in conjunction with the need for training law enforcement personnel and increased manpower, I, again, believe that changes in the law to restrict the availability of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are much needed. I believe Congress should attempt to address this problem by listing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as a scheduled drug that either requires a prescription or at least restricted availability. As pertains to the State Crime Lab, we're in need of additional chemists to enhance the staff of the illicit lab section and to support these chemists, we are going to need additional vehicles and equipment as well as environmental training for our people. Despite our manpower situation and our backlog of cases, our analysts, I would like to say, will continue to produce a quality product the criminal justice system can utilize in continuing the fight against methamphetamine in Arkansas and across the Nation. Again, I'd like to say thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak. Mr. Souder. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Howard follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.039 Mr. Souder. Miss Louie. STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY LOUIE, ENVIRONMENTAL EPIDEMIOLOGY SUPERVISOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Ms. Louie. Gentlemen, thank you. I'm Shirley Louie. I'm chief environmental epidemiologist for the Arkansas Department of Health. And I thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you the potential dangers to human health associated with exposure to hazards that you find in areas where there have been clandestine methamphetamine laboratories functioning, and also to discuss the complexities of cleaning up those properties. In Arkansas, as well as in other parts of the country, we've heard that sites where meth has been produced are shifting away from rural areas and oftentimes into more densely populated and urban areas. In homes, trailers, apartment complexes. These laboratories are not laboratories the way we look at a lab. There's very little control. There's very little attention paid to safety. Oftentimes there are fires and explosions, and the chemicals are not handled in a judicious way. Law enforcement here in Arkansas has done an outstanding job of doing what we call primary clean-up, which is going in and taking out the chemicals, the paraphernalia, and then turning the--after processing the site, they turn it back over to the property owner. And then it becomes the property owner's responsibility to finish the clean-up detail. Almost all of these sites are contaminated with residuals of the meth process. In many cases, the property owner, however, will just turn around and have people reoccupy the property without much attention paid to where the contamination is or how much there is of the contamination. And depending upon the methods used to clean up, you can run into residuals of solvents or heavy metals or acids or bases, or sometimes even chemicals that we don't have any way of being able to identify. Persons can be exposed through a contact with contaminated surfaces or breathing in the dust. You can have rashes associated with this sort of exposure, irritation to your eyes, your nose, your skin, headaches, dizziness, and a myriad of respiratory and central nervous system problems. Children are particularly vulnerable because of their activities, especially smaller children crawling around on the floor, putting things in their mouths. Their skin is very, very sensitive, and they have developing nervous systems. And because of that, they are very vulnerable. At this time, there are no rules and regulations in Arkansas that cover what we call secondary clean-up. That's clean-up that we state should be necessary before you reoccupy a space. However, the Arkansas Department of Health has developed what we call guidelines to help property owners, tenants, and people who control real estate, to help them figure out what to do. These are general guidelines, they're not meant to be all encompassing, and they are guides and recommendations to help the public. They are not rules and regulations that are enforceable. Arkansas Department of Health does understand that enforceable rules and regulations may be required to insure the quality and uniformity of what we called secondary clean up. There needs to be an adequate oversight if there's going to be proper reports. There also needs to be adequate and continuing funding for any program that's developed. I think relying on existing personnel and resources, as from already overburdened law enforcement and environmental protection and public health infrastructure will not be adequate to address this problem. And you as law makers, as you continue these discussions and establish regulations and policies and programs to help us address these problems with secondary clean up of contaminated sites. I hope you'll ensure that these programs will be adequately funded, they will be scientifically and technically sound, and also that they will be protective of public health and the environment. Thank you. Mr. Souder. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Louie follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.042 Mr. Souder. Mr. Hickman. STATEMENT OF DANNY HICKMAN, SHERIFF, BOONE COUNTY Mr. Hickman. Thank you for inviting me here today. Boone County is in northwest Arkansas, and Harrison's the county seat. My county is 35,000; small county. We see many problems. We border Branson, MO. And we're a very rural county. Some of the meth problems we're seeing, we hear of people buying the precursors every day, we just don't have the manpower to maintain it. We're starting to see more violence in these meth cases. She'd showed you a picture of a gun there; that particular case, the gentleman that we had a 90-minute standoff with him. He had a 4-year-old boy. It was very ``touch and go'' for quite some time. This man had been up for days on meth. And it ended in a good resolve, the situation there. But, also, you've got a picture of a--the gentleman spoke a while ago of monitors. We're running into a lot monitors that they know we're coming before we get there. In every lab situation, every lab has weapons. We run into that every time. It's a very dangerous situation. Myself and the Drug Task Force, our case loads have increased about 50 percent over the past 5 years, and I may add that my jail is overcrowded. I have a small 35-bed jail, and I've had as high as 80 people in my jail. And we're seeing about 80 percent of my inmates are drug related. I'm very high on education. I educate my staff as much as possible. And I'm very high on any educating the public, which we do a lot of seminars to the public, and we connect well with the businesses. And the result of that, these businesses are able to call us and tell us whenever there are people buying precursors. And as you can I work real close with the Criminal Justice Institute, which I've got graduates from the Crime Scene Tech school, which has helped our small department greatly. I'm just fortunate to have sent two of my officers to the FBI Academy, the national academy, which is, again, the education. Once again, I do think that education has helped us out a lot as far as prevention. I do think the blister packs, the cold medicine, we should continue on with the limited amount that are able to be sold to them, but I think it should be in--I believe they should be made to sign for these and give us a means to--a legal means to collect data from the businesses whenever they sign for them and such as that. We get data from pawn shops where people pawn stuff off. We need to be able to get data so that we can continue dealing with our drug cases that way. Once again, thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. Mr. Souder. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hickman follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.044 Mr. Souder. Mr. Gibbons. STATEMENT OF DAVID GIBBONS, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, 5TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Mr. Gibbons. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Boozman. I'm truly honored to be here. I'm prosecuting attorney for the 5th District. The 5th District is comprised of three counties: Pope County, Johnson County, and Franklin County. We're at the foot of the Ozark Mountains. I-40 traverses us from east to west, west to east, and the Arkansas River is our southern boundary. I didn't know if y'all know where that is. Our title for this subcommittee hearing, Methamphetamine Epidemic in Arkansas, accurately reflects the situation in the 5th District. It truly is an epidemic, and it's a growing epidemic. In 2003 and 2004, the first 5 months of 2004, 52 percent of all felonies filed were directly related to methamphetamine. Now, when I say, ``directly related to methamphetamine,'' I mean it's possession of methamphetamine, manufacture of methamphetamine, possession of paraphernalia, the attempt to manufacture or deliver. That, of course, doesn't take into account the forgery, the hot checks, the burglaries that people do to support their habit. Unfortunately, this epidemic, at least in the 5th District, appears to be in large part an epidemic of our own making. In 1997 when I first took office, 9 percent of the cases filed, and these aren't arrests or searches or labs uncovered, these are actual felonies filed, there were nine manufacturing felonies filed in 1997. Last year, in 2003, there was 67 manufacturing felonies filed, and that includes not just straight manufacturing, that's also paraphernalia with intent. We don't have the product, but the intent is definitely there to manufacture. So far, the first 5 months of 2004, there have been 36 manufacturing felonies filed in those three counties. The manufacturing cases that we have are not truly super labs. These are what have been called mom and pop labs, and probably accurately reflects the way they are. Most of these labs in one generating period will produce less than an ounce, maybe a little bit more than an ounce, but what I would like to drive home to this subcommittee today is that the impact that those mom and pop labs have goes way beyond the actual drug, the actual product in this way. It takes a lot more manpower and a lot more resources to investigate a lab. You've got to have the people, you've got to work informants, and you've got to do the search warrant. You've got to go in and execute the search warrant. That area has to be secured. It takes a lot more manpower. The clean up, there's been reference to clean up. Approximately 95 percent with that specter of perjury looming over me, I don't want to--but approximately 95 percent of all of our labs require clean up. We have a company from out of State that comes in and does that. And then, with methamphetamine labs, the crime lab, we put a tremendous amount of work on them because you have a simple possession case or a distribution case, you've got one substance that needs to be analyzed. That is the meth. With a lab, you've got to analyze all those other things so that I can take it to a jury and say, ``Well, this is red phosphorus, this is iodine,'' this is this, this is that, plus they've got to testify because they've got to tell the jury how all this combines. It puts a tremendous strain on the crime lab. But the trials themselves take long on these mom and pop labs. A simple possession case or a distribution case, you've got a day, day and a half. A lab case could take 2 to 3 to 4 days. And, finally, it puts a tremendous strain on the prisons because--and I want to hasten, the meth manufacturing cases absolutely justify that these people go to prison. And in Arkansas, they have to serve 70 percent of their time before they're eligible for parole, which is correct, and that's the way it should be. Nevertheless, that's the impact it has. One thing that I do want to bring out to this, this subcommittee already knows that no matter the technique that's used to produce this methamphetamine, there's one common ingredient and that's pseudoephedrine. Pseudoephedrine is to methamphetamine production in the 5th District as ball bearings were to Nazi war production in World War II. That is their point of vulnerability. Mr. Bryant's already made--Bill Bryant, already made reference to the Oklahoma law. That law was passed in March. It's House Bill 2176. Basically, it says that pseudoephedrine has to be dispensed by a registered pharmacist or a registered pharmacy technician. This doesn't apply to gel, this is just the solid form. But the receiving person has to have a photo ID and sign a log, which the sheriff alluded to, and no person can have more than 9 grams within 30 days without a valid prescription. Jim Talley, a writer of the Associated Press in the Fort Smith paper, Southwest Times Record on June 22nd said that Oklahoma--this is what the report is--in Oklahoma, the lab production dropped 70 percent since that law went into effect in the early part of April. He went on to say that 90 meth labs were reported to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation in March. The figure fell to 64 in April and then dropped to 29 in May. Now, that's their figures, but when you think about it, these people that run the mom and pop organizations, they don't plan good, so that can very well be accurate, and I assume that it is. There's no question that you have to attack this methamphetamine problem on all fronts; the drug courts, treatment, interdiction on ice--or interdiction. But in my opinion, to restrict the access of pseudoephedrine would drive a stake in the heart of methamphetamine production, in the 5th District. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.051 Mr. Souder. I'm going to make an absolute. One thing that's very discouraging and what's absolutely clear is that the growth rate expense, we don't have the money to deal with it the way we're dealing with it. So I want to ask a couple of questions in that vein. Let me start with Ms. Louie and Mr. Howard, maybe, but start with Ms. Louie. The chemicals that they're using in the labs are clearly dangerous. Don't take any of my questions otherwise. Do we have any hard evidence of people getting sick or being treated or problems occurring at homes where a lab was previously, and now somebody else has moved in, and they've gone to the hospital? Do we have any hard evidence, or is this mostly a concern or looking at what could be? Ms. Louie. Some of the information is anecdotal in that a mother or father will bring their child into an emergency room, for instance, and they will have symptoms that are consistent with exposure to chemicals. But it's oftentimes they don't even know that they've moved into a facility or a home or an apartment that was once used as a meth production facility. Physicians don't make that cause and effect oftentimes. They treat the symptoms, they try to make the child well, but without that kind of information, and since these chemicals can also be used in other areas, too, it's not always clear cut why. We know from experience, and in occupational settings, in accidental exposure settings that if a child is exposed to those chemicals which clearly can be and oftentimes are detected on those properties, they can and will be sick. And so I think even though that hard evidence is not there, it's not because it isn't real. Perhaps it's because we haven't looked hard enough to find it. Mr. Souder. Yes, we have a huge problem here because even in Arkansas, what we're hearing is that the labs aren't producing large quantities and that the--if we're looking at it from an addition treatment side, the problem is not the home grown labs, the problem is the Mexican trafficking organizations, even in Arkansas. Because what we didn't ask, but I know the answer to the question is, is that it isn't only that the home grown labs only provide 30 percent roughly of Arkansas, but it isn't as addictive and it's not as explosive. In other words, the super lab's purity and addictive components are greater than the home grown because they're using different chemical forms and so on and so forth. Looking at it from a drug treatment standpoint, it's not the small mom and pop labs. If we're looking at it from the numbers who are addicted, it's not the mom and pop labs. If we're looking at it from violence to the general--if we're looking at court cases related to child abuse, court cases related to spouse abuse and other things, it's not the mom and pop labs. And yet, we're spending an incredible amount of dollars with clean-up equipment, the time, and what it absolutely is, is the mom and pop labs are the greatest danger physically to local police forces because as they go in, these people are armed. So clearly it's a danger to them. It's clearly the No. 1 thing that's taking up the time of our local police forces, which means it's being diverted from other crime as they zero in on this, particularly if they have to wait at the location. It's taking the biggest percent of the prisons. I had one county in my district that every single person is in on meth. They can't even arrest anybody with anything else because they're overcrowded, and everybody in there is on meth. That is taking up the prison space. Ironically though, with people who often have ounces as opposed to pounds, which is the very reverse of our policy on marijuana, that it has a huge impact on the law enforcement side. But what I'm trying to sort through, after sitting through hearing after hearing, in the environmental context, we're going to have to have a very hard look at the environmental and healthcare side of this because most of these things are household chemicals that are already in the house in many cases. They're in different forms. And the question is, is there something we could do to spot check in emergency rooms? You've got a couple of counties that have lots of these labs. Could we do a spot check and look at something in the 10 highest counties in the United States where there are labs to investigate the emergency room? We may be making a false assumption here and pouring our money intensively into something without the greatest return. In other words, one of the first cuts may be has there been spillage, has the stuff been mixed, what form of the danger it is. Because it isn't sustainable. There's no way the Federal Government, which is more broke than the State government, which is more broke than the local government, but the local government doesn't want to raise taxes, the State government doesn't want to have to raise the taxes, and the Federal Government, we're trying to cut taxes, so the bottom line, is that it's not like there's money. Any money we give you, we're just running up the deficit to give it to you. But we certainly aren't going to be able to sustain the type of increases that you were talking about. I mean, it's exponential. And I can see you're backlogged 1,000 cases, and in every lab, you have to have multiple things to take down a lab which makes a couple of ounces, and to be able to prove it in court, we have an unsustainable problem here. It isn't whether the Federal Government is going to do it, the State government, or local government. It's not sustainable. From the law enforcement I heard that we need to be brainstorming how we prioritize this system. So if you want to give us some additional information, and nobody likes to make that cut, because we'd like to get them all, but we're going to have to have some kind of prioritization system as we've had to in other kinds of narcotics and other kinds of challenges. Pseudoephedrine is definitely a problem and we clearly have to crack down, we have to get more information. We're working on some legislation. Now, I want to ask you a couple of particular questions about that. I really want you to brainstorm. You can't possibly, as a prosecutor or a judge or a sheriff, or even EPA, you can't go running after all these labs, and we need to figure out what is the extent of the risk, what are the major things that get us over from potential risks to risks but more short-term risk, the things that can really be damaging. Clearly, it's the child abuse risk, and if Arkansas doesn't have that law, you ought to look at the California law because anybody that's cooking in their home where there are small children, they put that child at risk for explosion purposes. But, let me ask, do you use anhydrous ammonia here in some of the labs? We have one case in Indiana, this idiot went into--because we need to look at somehow how to protect in some of the rural areas, they have these areas where they have anhydrous ammonia in big tanks, and some idiot went in there, got one and a half turns from blowing up a tank that would have taken a town of 700 off the face of the earth. It was at the edge of town, they were living out in the country. One and a half more turns on that, because he couldn't get it all the way off, one and a half more turns, it would have instantaneously killed all 700 people in the town before they even knew they got hit. Now, that's a different level of risk than some home cooker who, basically, has himself in the house or his spouse in the house or little kids in the house. Because they're going to burn the place up, they're going to wound the kids, that's risk immediately on that. While he's cooking there's a risk. But we've got to look at the clean up. Clean up and the hard data here, because we don't have enough dollars to do this. We'll never have enough dollars to do this. I'd like to hear everwho wants to take a crack at that. Go ahead. Ms. Louie. Thank you. I guess one of the issues that we looked at when we developed the Arkansas Department of Health guidelines for secondary clean up was just that issue of, you know, you will never be able to clean a facility up to where it's pristine and spotless. However, you can be reasonable, and let's look and see a fundamental assessment of what has been the contamination and where were these things and where were the chemicals stored, where was the activity going on? And then make that assessment. It may be that clean up can be very superficial and not all that expensive. It is still the responsibility of the property owner. Or you make that person take on that responsibility. If you make those regulations or guidelines reasonable enough so that there is still protection of public health but it's not so overwhelming that it's going to cost that person more than his or her house is worth in order to facilitate that clean up. I think there needs to be a reasonableness and a balance without jeopardizing public health and the environment but still making it so it's doable so we're not having to dump that last million dollars to clean up that last model. Mr. Souder. Sheriff, if your guys come across a home meth cooker, how long does it take to get clean up? Mr. Hickman. It depends upon if the crime lab's available at the time. It can be--I'm in north--the northern part of Arkansas and Little Rock being in the central, it depends on where they're at. Anywhere from 2 hours to 8 to 10 hours. Mr. Souder. And do your guys leave the scene. Mr. Hickman. No, sir. We're there until it's gone. Mr. Souder. And the closest is Little Rock. Mr. Hickman. Yes. Mr. Souder. So what's typical? How long? Do you just leave one person there or do you leave the whole team there? Mr. Hickman. No, my--the sheriff's office and the Drug Task Force coordinates that together. It's anywhere from probably five to six guys. Mr. Souder. So they're tied up? Mr. Hickman. They're tied up until it's gone. Mr. Souder. So it's typically 4 hours. Mr. Hickman. That would be the earliest. Mr. Souder. So half day, you've got five to six people tied up and sitting there. Mr. Hickman. Yes. Actually, you know, from the investigation end of it, until we write the search warrant, while they're writing the search warrant, I've got to have a deputy sit on the lab, you get the search warrant signed off, and the search starts, a normal lab, you're looking at probably a good 10 hours. Mr. Souder. I'll come back to Mr. Rutledge in just a minute. Mr. Gibbons, you were talking about the difficulty in prosecuting somebody and all you've got to put together and all that case. Do you see any ways that we can simplify this process? I mean, this isn't realistic. It's tough if you were doing 20 labs, but when you get into the hundreds, we're not even in the zone of realism here for being able to fund it long term. Mr. Gibbons. There's nothing the Federal Government can do of which I'm aware of that brings to mind that would enable me to prosecute a case easier. Because, you know, simply the facts are there, and that's what they are. And a jury's got to learn that there's certain things you have to do. Yes, you're right, Mr. Chairman, it isn't realistic, but the fact is, it's realty. And these things have to be stopped, and we do have to go out to these labs. We may not have to clean each one up, but we have to go to each lab. Because if we don't, the whole block will be tampered--the whole area is contaminated. Mr. Souder. Let me give you an example. If we said that on the surface if you had X amount of pseudoephedrine and it's not in the pill bottle to be used as for aspirin or something, that you are de facto able to be prosecuted for a certain of crime? And then you would look at a prosecutor and the prosecutor would say, ``Since he was only producing this amount, I'm going to get him on the pseudoephedrine charge rather than a meth charge.'' Mr. Gibbons. Yeah, I do that. We have a law in Arkansas where we actually have one in possession of certain quantities pseudoephedrine is in and of itself a crime. We use that to a degree. Also, I mentioned earlier, the possession of paraphernalia with the intent to manufacture is a Class B felony. I use that a lot. And we do that, just what you're talking about, Mr. Chairman. When we see something that's not an active lab that's putting out a whole lot of product, if we can stop them there, that's how we do that. Nevertheless, we still have a lot of the chemicals, and we still have that same problemof showing what they intended it for. So, yeah. Mr. Souder. So is there a way when Sheriff Hickman walks up to the place, rather than tying up 6 to 10 people, that he can get a quick read as to whether this is going to be a paraphernalia pseudoephedrine prosecution as opposed to a large one? Mr. Gibbons. Sheriff Hickman will know when he goes in there that these people have purchased all of these items. He will know that they have--I'm almost sure he will be positive that they have producedmethamphetamine in that house before, or else he wouldn't be there. Some informant's told him that. Then he has the duty to go in and see what's actually going on. Sometimes he'll get a lab in progress, sometimes he'll get the lab after it's down. Sometimes he'll get simply pills. So he doesn't--he doesn't know that, but he knows he's got to go in there and do something because that's just the---- Mr. Souder. Mr. Rutledge. Mr. Rutledge. There were a couple of things, Mr. Chairman, that you mentioned that I think might be helpful. One is the definition of a lab. You know, what constitutes a lab? And I have tried to find that out from various people, and it would make it easier if we had some definition. One thing that you might--that I've noted in my other statement was that the drug task forces in Arkansas last year alone confiscated 273 pounds of methamphetamine, and the vast majority of that was home grown in these mom and pop. That's a lot of methamphetamine in these little mom and pop operations, that--when you break it all out. We are also meeting with the--I think the sheriff mentioned the CJI a while ago, which is part of the University of Arkansas. It's the Criminal Justice Institute. And my office and others have been meeting with CJI and the State police and DEA and others in an attempt to try and develop a training for--instead of him taking six guys, six deputy sheriffs, certified law enforcement officers, to sit there on that lab while--you know, it may take 8 hours for somebody to come there and clean it up and look at it and all that kind of stuff, that if there was some cross-training ability with the emergency management people and the volunteer fire fighters who are trained in certain aspects of chemicalspills and hazardous waste and those kind of things, where they could be utilized with the sheriff's deputies to fill in. Because a lot of these are volunteer guys, and they would be more than willing to be there to protect the site while the law enforcement people could be doing other things and--if they were properly trained in those techniques. And, conversely, the law enforcement people could be trained to do some chemical hazardous work as it relates to terrorism and other chemical things that the emergency management people are trained to do. And what we're looking at is trying to figure out a way to cross train those people into some kind of a system. Because one thing we're--the DEA does a good job of training our people, but as Mr. Bryant said, there were 400 something that they had trained for the State of Arkansas. Well, all these labs require certified lab officers. You can't just have John Doe Deputy Sheriff walking in there doing this stuff. And a lot of those people, you know, we get them trained, and then they go on, they get promoted to different jobs, or they move to a different agency. And so it's a continuing flow problem. And we're looking at trying to come up with a proposal that maybe the government can help us fund to train more people and not just law enforcement officers. You know, cross training. That may help alleviate some of these local law enforcement problems. Mr. Souder. I believe Congressman Boozman has some more questions. Thank you very much. Mr. Boozman. Thank you-all for your testimony and your statements. Your written material that you turned in really was excellent. Mr. Gibbons, people tell me that the small labs, that it's almost like the Amway, they cook for a little bit, maybe for one or two or three people to support their own habit. Is that true, or is reality that they are supporting their own habit, but they're also--you know, you mentioned a large amount that was seized over and above. When we talk about a small lab, what are we really talking about? Mr. Gibbons. Well, I think that we're talking about, at least in my district, Congressman Boozman, we're talking about a lab which would generate somewhere around an ounce of methamphetamine during just one generation period. One generation period, using the methods that are used in the 5th District, generally would be about a 24-hour period from pills sold to finished product. It's not--I haven't seen it--like when you say it's for their own use, there's two or three of them that it never gets outside that circle, and that's where it enters the trade. It's part of it. I would agree with Mr. Bryant who testified, that's probably 70/30. I might put it more like 65/35, but somewheres in there. But it does enter the stream of commerce, if I can use that phrase. It does get outside those two to three people. And it has to be stopped. You know, the sheriff, whether it's a pill soak or whatever it is, it may have ramifications on how we clean it up, but it nevertheless has to be stopped because it's a problem that just feeds on itself. Mr. Boozman. You mentioned that the primary ingredient, no matter how you make it, is the ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. As you-all make your busts and do your analysis in Arkansas, where do the perpetrators get their stuff? Mr. Gibbons. They go, Congressman, they go--or in my experience in the 5th District, they go from retail store to retail store, they go to convenience stores, they go to Wal- Mart, where they're limited, but then they go to the other one. There's Russellville Wal-Mart, Clarksville Wal-Mart, and Ozark Wal-Mart in my district. And we have good cooperation from retail merchants, but iodine and things of that nature, they may go to the feed store, red phosphorus, of course, they get from the striker plates in matches. But, basically, the pseudoephedrine, they'll purchase from convenience stores and places like that. Mr. Boozman. So we are getting more cooperation? You mentioned, Sheriff Hickman---- Mr. Hickman. We're getting a lot more cooperation. Like I said, the education of businesses and what have you, just like he said, what we find is a group of people will come in and they'll split up and go to these retail stores and Wal-Mart and feed stores, and then they'll gang back up and go off and do their lab. Mr. Boozman. Have we prosecuted any stores, as far as convenience stores, that seem to be breaking the law far as dealing? Mr. Gibbons. We---- Mr. Boozman [continuing]. Themselves. Mr. Gibbons. I didn't mean to interrupt you, but in my district we had one store that we came very close to, but it went awry. But that's the only one that I'm aware of in my district. Mr. Boozman. Is that an area we need to concentrate on? Mr. Rutledge. You know, there is a State law that, you know, limits the amount these people can--and the enforcement of that law is real tricky, because just like Mr. Gibbons said, you know, the guy goes through this line at Wal-Mart and goes through that line down there, and he goes to the next Wal-Mart or the next convenience store. And these stores are helpful in furnishing data and about who's buying and all that kind of stuff. I do think that most prosecutors in the State will prosecute if the stores violate, but I don't think that's the big problem. I think it's the guy--you know, they're not violating--now, there are a few, and we've had some in north Arkansas where some 7-Eleven type store might buy cases of this stuff and pedaling it. I know there was one case in Batesville that they were taking it to Jonesboro by the case and--this was a number of years ago--and selling it to the people that were manufacturing, and that kind of thing. And those people are being prosecuted if we find them, but I think the biggest problem is just this buying it, you know. But we're certainly looking at it from the State level. Mr. Boozman. How about the statistics I read which say that this is something that many people get into later in their life, and since late teens or whatever, on up into their 40's, and lot of women get into this disproportionally, compared to some other stuff? I mean, how is that impacting the system? Mr. Rutledge. I think that is probably the most--we have had a tremendous explosion in the number of women committing crimes, and especially this particular crime. In Arkansas, as the data would show, in the public facilities, admissions for methamphetamine, 40 percent are women, which, that's pretty high on any kind of drug problem. And what we're seeing in Little Rock and in some of these other areas where we have treatment facilities for women and children, pregnant women, we're seeing an increase in that particular problem of--you know, young women with babies, small children, or who are pregnant. And this is just a devastating thing. You know, when I was circuit judge, I never will forget when these people come to me and--for commitment, or some kind of domestic abuse order, and 90 percent of it was methamphetamine. And you had some young lady there who was admitted for treatment that--you know, with her teeth falling out and all this kind of thing. And it was just devastating. And that's what I've got a real concern about this. What are we going to do about it. But, yeah, women are a big problem. Not more so then men, but the idea that more women are becoming criminals because of this particular drug than any other, because of the--one other thing, Congressman, that--it's not really a teenage drug, but it's--you know, we have them as young as 9 or 10, but the vast 75 percent, I think, of the people who are committed or admitted for treatment fall within the age range of 20 to 45 years of age. We have some older. What really concerns me is because of that age group and the devastation to the family and other things that this stuff is causing, I see a potential for real explosion in the number of people going into nursing homes at an earlier age and a real devastating effect on the Medicaid funds that we have, because we don't--in Arkansas, we don't spend any Medicaid funds per se on substance abuse treatment, but it could become a real source of problems when those people become dysfunctional and end up in a nursing home. Mr. Boozman. One other thing, and I'll then let Chairman Souder continue. The Oklahoma law, has it been in effect long enough to know if being a State that borders, are we seeing more people--David, you're in Fort Smith, Mr. Gibbons, are we seeing more people crossing the line to buy product in Arkansas and then taking it back to Oklahoma, or do we not know yet? Mr. Gibbons. Congressman, there's always been a real permeable membrane there between Oklahoma and Arkansas. I did talk with a State police drug agent last night, and I asked him that very question. He indicated to me that, yes, he seemed to think that there were more and more people coming over, but he, obviously, didn't have any hard facts on the affect of that was having, or something like that. But, again, you know, he--that was his impression. Mr. Boozman. Something's happening because the statistics that you quoted were pretty dramatic. Mr. Gibbons. Yes, they are. Mr. Boozman. David. Judge Hudson. I can't clarify anything on that. Mr. Boozman. Thank you. Mr. Souder. I guess if they were purchasing in Arkansas and taking it back, there's not a tracking--I think if they destroy the packages, you wouldn't be able to tell. Is there a way to tell from packaging where it was purchased. Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe there is, Mr. Chairman. I don't believe so. Mr. Rutledge. If they buy it at Wal-Mart, there probably is. They track almost everything in sight. Mr. Gibbons. But you've got a Wal-Mart man coming. Mr. Souder. Mr. Howard, you had a chart in the back---- Mr. Howard. Yes. Mr. Souder [continuing]. With clan labs, so this is over a 3-year period? Mr. Howard. Are you looking at this---- Mr. Souder. No, actually, I was looking at the map. Mr. Howard. Oh, yes. Yes, sir, that is. That map of the State of Arkansas is the number of labs seized in 2000 to 2003. Mr. Souder. In looking at this, what's unusual about this compared to any other meth map that I've seen is the highest number is in Little Rock county. Mr. Howard. Yes, sir. Mr. Souder. In Pulaski and around there. Do you have any opinion why that is? Does anybody else have an opinion of why that is? It's counter to the national trend. Mr. Rutledge. Well, it's three times as big as any other, you know, county in the State, approximately. There's 300,000 people live in Pulaski County. And in the surrounding area, there's probably, you know---- Mr. Souder. But, for example---- Mr. Rutledge. Out of the 2.7 million, you know, there's a pretty good chunk of people right in there. Mr. Souder. But, as an example, in Missouri, you wouldn't see Kansas City and St. Louis have the biggest meth problem. I mean, they don't. So why would it be in the urban, is it not as urban? Is it--I mean, I don't have a geographic sense. Mr. Rutledge. Yeah, it's really not. Mr. Souder. Because some of the surrounding counties around there, too, are the heaviest counties. You've got--it looks like No. 5 and 6 are up here in the northwest, but the top 4 are right in the Little Rock area. Mr. Howard. I agree with Judge Rutledge there. That's the population density of Arkansas is that area. Plus, Little Rock, you don't have to travel too far out of Little Rock until you're in rural areas. And I can't say that has an affect on it, but it's possibly one of the reasons. I think the density population is one reason. Mr. Souder. Yeah. But, for example, in my district, Indiana is fifth highest in meth labs. In fact, we're reporting almost the same as Arkansas, just a little bit behind, and it's unreported as well, because our State police numbers are almost twice as high as our Federal number. In looking at that, however, my home city of Fort Wayne has had maybe three of 230,000, Elkhart that has a lot, it's about a town of 40,000; another town of 30,000 next to it, but you get out in the rural areas and exponentially, the number of labs increase. And I'm trying to figure out is that what we--in Kansas, the biggest problem in Kansas is outside the metro areas. In Tennessee and Kentucky, it's outside the metro areas. I'm trying to figure out why would it be different in Arkansas. First off, maybe these areas are quickly rural, and my question would be, are the meth labs outside the city of Little Rock or is it just in Little Rock? Is it in the suburban areas or is this pattern changing? Another explanation would be there's more law enforcement there, so, therefore, they caught them. Mr. Rutledge. That last explanation is part of it. And I think, too, in those places that you're talking about like--now Kansas is a little different, but it's just now getting into south Arkansas and southeast Arkansas, and those--and in Little Rock. If you go back 10 years, there were hardly any there in the Little Rock area. Now, you've got the 3-years latest, you know. And I think what you're seeing is an explosion in and around Little Rock. In most of the--Pulaski County itself is a lot of rural, even though Little Rock is in the middle of it. And I don't have an answer to your question, but that would be my supposition is that we've seen a real explosion in the urban--in the number of labs in buildings, in homes, in cars, in those kind of things, where it used to be everybody hid out in the brush, so to speak, like the old--when my daddy made moonshine, you know, he wasn't making it in the house because somebody might take his house. Well, so what we're seeing is it moving into the urban areas. And I think you will experience that probably in Indiana as this thing explodes up there. Mr. Souder. Yes, I want to state for the record that I'm referring to a chart without putting it into the record, and people here, this chart shows 709 in Pulaski, 256 in the county next to it, so nearly 1,000 in those two counties. And then next is--Benton with 174, Sebastian with 143, and Washington with 131. But then you come in here with White at 158, another one just east of Pulaski at 116, one north at 114, then a couple with 72, 83, and 85, and the whole rest of the State is under 30. So you have--it looks like almost 65. Mr. Rutledge. Now, is that a total for 3 years? Mr. Souder. Yes. It's a total for 3 years. And that's a tremendous concentration around this population area. Now, do you feel that--I mean, maybe what we're looking at is in Arkansas being more mature in meth where it's been evolving toward that. Can you tell whether that trend has increased toward the latter part of 2003 as opposed to the first part? Mr. Howard. Yeah, I think the records reflect that. If you went back to, say, 1995 and compared the number of meth labs in just, say, Pulaski County, it's going to be an increasing number. And probably increasing at an increasing rate. That would be my guess, if you went back and looked at the figure for each year leading up to 2003. Mr. Souder. In other words, it might start in rural areas, but then it will move into Fort Smith and Sebastian and Benton are populous counties, it will start to move to them, and then when it hits Little Rock, it just goes exponentially. Mr. Howard. Yes. And---- Mr. Souder. I mean, 708 is just a huge number compared to the other counties around. Mr. Howard. And just a few years ago, down in the southwest corner, Miller County, shows 74---- Mr. Souder. Uh-huh. Mr. Howard. Not that many years ago, there were one or two labs. And now it's moving in the south. Mr. Souder. And when you see a trend toward more labs, do you also then start to see a bigger lab where you would see-- instead of an ounce, do law enforcement start to see guys banding together where you have more lookouts as opposed to an individual? I mean, is there a logical progression as the market builds, large organizations start to move into the market, and then trafficking organizations will move in? Or do you see the reverse, as the traffic organizations are in selling the stuff and then they decide to cook it themselves? I'm just wondering if there's a pattern to those in reality. Mr. Rutledge. I don't know. Mr. Howard. I have an opinion on that. You have isolated incidents where folks have large mom and pop labs, but I'm not sure if--David, is there a pattern at work. Mr. Gibbons. I haven't seen one. When I first started--when I first recognized this problem, I tried to make it that way. I tried to make it an either/or, you know, either it's distribution or it's manufacture, and I didn't see that. We had a big distribution organization from the State of California, Tulare County, California, into Pope County, and it didn't seem to have much effect on the lab, you know, either people who make it, you know, or distributed it. And the connection between Tulare County, California, and Pope County, Arkansas, was relatives. You know, just happened to be someone who had relatives back in Russellville and was coming here to meet with relatives. And it was a tremendous amount. Mr. Souder. Mr. Howard, do you have any suggestions for how you deal with 1,000? How are you going to deal with this? Your backlog is 1,000? Mr. Howard. It is. And one thing that we're looking at is our analysts are conducting some training with crews at the Criminal Justice Institute to educate the first responders on dealing with meth labs and also in sampling and packaging. And we're hoping that through that, we're going to decrease the number of times our guys have to respond to the field. That would increase the time that was spent in the laboratory actually analyzing cases. We've discussed a little bit involving the Criminal Justice Institute in further training of meth certified personnel. Right now in Arkansas, in order for a person to be trained to be meth--clan lab certified, you either have to attend training in DEA headquarters in Quantico, which is a long waiting period, waiting list, and/or wait on the Arkansas State Police to put on a training program for certification or recertification. And those are the only two sources for having folks certified to enter these labs. So if--and this has just been a talking stage. If we could get the Criminal Justice Institute involved in training and certifying these folks, it would increase the number of people available to respond to these labs. And from the laboratory standpoint, that would increase time our guys can spend--and our girls, can spend in the lab. Mr. Souder. Are you the biggest problem with congestion in the judicial system? I don't mean you personally. Mr. Howard. Yes, I know what you mean. Mr. Souder. Because your testimony is that some people will be on bond, and they'll be arrested for additional crimes before they come to the charge, and the question is that the sheriff's got his people tied up sitting out there where they're not able to arrest other things when they're sitting out there a long time. But then once he gets all the information in, I mean, in some places, because we don't have enough judges, we don't have enough U.S. Marshalls to move the people around, we don't have enough prisons to put the people in, we don't have enough prosecutors to prosecute. We have all those different things, but are you so backlogged that you're now the problem in the system. Mr. Howard. That's part of it. There's a bottleneck there, but there's also a bottleneck in the judicial system with enough cases that are on--you know, waiting to be tried there. And in some cases, and I can't give you specific, but it's not uncommon for a person to be arrested for manufacture of methamphetamine and bond out and, literally, 10 days later, they're arrested again. There's no way that--I mean, they couldn't be tried in that length of time, so--you know, so it's a--yes, the crime lab is part of the problem because of the backlog, but, I mean--and the backlog not only in the illicit lab section but every other section of the State Crime Lab. And it's a problem with crime labs nationwide. It's not just limited to Arkansas. But, yes, we are a problem, but part of it is these folks are out there, as soon they can hit the door, they're at it again. Mr. Souder. Does the bond go up? Mr. Howard. Yes. Mr. Souder. They increase the bond limits each time? Mr. Rutledge. This is a real problem, and I found this when I was a prosecutor and judge, I think most prosecutors have across the State. Before that person that manufactures ever goes to the pen or gets convicted or pleads or whatever, I'm going to guess that they will be arrested three times for manufacture and bond out until the bond gets so high that they can't do it, and then they go on and plead guilty or something. But so often, and you'll find this, and I think David will back me up on this, is that the fourth offense is the--you committed that before you ever plead or get to trial because of the backlog. And one of the suggestions that I had put in my proposal that may or may not have anything to do with your committee's responsibility is the idea of requiring as a condition of bail that the people with the drug problems, and especially the meth problems, be restricted and be required under the threat of being incarcerated quickly, to go into treatment or to some other method where they can be monitored for drug use and-- while they're out on bail. Mr. Souder. Uh-huh. Mr. Rutledge. Could be a way to get them back to jail if they're getting out of the pen. Mr. Souder. Yeah. One of problems that we have, and I'll conclude with this, or Congress Boozman can, one or the other. One of the problems we had that's unlike other drugs, this drug is costing taxpayers far more money because if we're having to do the drug lab, you're having to do multiple research with it, taking more days to prosecute, tying up six policemen at the scene, and the people who are doing it probably don't have a lot of money that we're going to be able to recapture for funding it, so we've got to figure that out, and the bonding or a drug test. And the way the Federal Government could do it is if the State gets any additional money from methamphetamine for their drug labs, whatever they have to show that they have a State law that will, in fact, not force the American taxpayers to do three cases on one guy, when they should have had him the first time. That either through a higher bond or a higher risk or a drug testing followup or a drug treatment program with drug testing, that, basically, says that, ``Yes, we're going to let you out, and you are a high reasonable suspect.'' I mean, he likes fleeing. If you're going to do it, it would be a similar thing of on bonding whether this person is going to flee the scene because the taxpayers have to go back in there three times to clean it up. This isn't free, and he isn't going to pay for it, because he doesn't have the assets to pay for it. We've got to figure out some creative ways to bring some more pressure on them because we can't sustain the dollars to do the clean up, and policing and stuff if this thing continues to increase at a double and triple rate, how would we even begin to do it? Congressman Boozman. Mr. Boozman. I just had one last thing. This is such a horrible drug mentally and physically. When you look at people that have been on the drug for extended periods of time, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know, you know, that normal persons become very dysfunctional as you mentioned. You know, sometimes for those individuals we're going to have to pay a significant cost through nursing care or whatever. We've had other drugs that have been very popular. I was in college in the late 1960's, early 1970's, LSD, some of those things were very popular, and because of their side effects, they ran their course. I guess the only question I would have is, you-all are out there fighting the battle; where do you see this thing? Are we this way (indicating) and maybe leveling down a little bit? Statistics don't indicate that, but your gut feeling out in the field, are we still going straight up or--I'm just going to start with you, Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Gibbons. Well, Congressman, yeah, it does seem as if we are going straight up, and someone touched on it, you know, it's an unusual drug in the sense that it appears to be some sort of sexual component on the females. The women of our society are really drawn to it. When I first started practicing criminal law as defense counsel, you never saw a women in criminal court. And now, gosh, it's normal and that doesn't even account for hot checks or forgery that they--you know. So maybe through education, you know. Some of the children now, I'm sure, are seeing their mothers without keeping their--it's a terrible price they pay for this. But it's going to take an effort. I don't see it leveling out of its own accord. No, sir, I don't. Not in my district. Mr. Rutledge. I see a potential for leveling statewide, but the problem with meth is the--unlike the LSDs and all those other things that you had to buy from somewhere else, you know, even--you know, back again to our problem which is you can produce this in your bathtub or in your back yard or in your-- you know, with the stuff you can buy over the counter. And you can't do that with most drugs, you know. And now we're seeing a lot of other club drugs and things like that are equally bad, but they don't have the environmental devastation or the paranoid destruction that comes with this one. Mr. Boozman. Thank you-all. Mr. Souder. Thank you very much. The committee will stand a few minute's recess for the stenographer to rest her fingers, and we can break and recess for 5 minutes, please. [Recess.] Mr. Souder. The subcommittee will come to order. Will the third panel please come forward. The Honorable Mary Ann Gunn, circuit judge, Fourth Judicial District; Mr. Larry Counts, director of Decision Point drug treatment facility; Mr. Bob Dufour, director of professional and governmental relations from Wal-Mart; Mr. Greg Hoggat, director, Drug Free, Rogers- Lowell, Mr. Layne Kidd, president of the Arkansas Trucking Association; Dr. Merlin Leach, executive director of the Center for Children and Public Policy, and Mr. Michael Pyle. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Souder. Let the record show that all witnesses responded in the affirmative. We thank you for your patience. As we can tell, we've had a very interesting hearing. We're looking forward to your testimony. Your full testimony will be in the record. If you want to summarize what you have as your written testimony and add any comments on what you've heard thus far or stick to your script, either way will be fine. We'll start with Judge Gunn. STATEMENT OF MARY ANN GUNN, CIRCUIT JUDGE, FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION Judge Gunn. Thank you. For the record, my name is Mary Ann Gunn, and I'm a circuit judge in the 4th Judicial District in Washington and Madison County, and I'm based in Fayetteville, Arkansas. First, let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, and, Congressman, how much I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. It's truly an honor and a privilege. And your staff members have been wonderful. I am the drug court judge for Washington and Madison Counties. Now, I will tell you it's on a voluntarily basis only. We started with volunteers in 1999. I did not, when approached and asked to be drug courtjudge, I was not interested. I felt very strongly that if you commit the crime, you need to do the time. And I was not sympathetic to drug abusers. But I'm still there, as you can tell. But our program is a prejudication diversion program. And if a person is charged with a felony and has a drug problem at all, it is entirely up to the prosecuting attorney to determine solely if that person is eligible for drug court. Now, if there's any violence in his or her background, or if he or she is a trafficker, drug court is shut to that person. They're not allowed into drug court. After an extensive assessment, psychological assessment through our treatment team, and a defendant is approved for drug court, then they're transferred over to the program. Now, it is a 9-month long program, and it demands a lifestyle change. It is a community-based program, and it's a privilege for the candidate to be in the program because if they successfully complete it and graduate, the charges are dismissed. If they're terminated, I send them to the pen. Inside that 9 months, they must complete 136 hours of group therapy sessions, 148 hours of outside AA or NA meetings, they must submit to at least 78 drug--random drug screens, they must maintain full-time employment or be a full-time student. They have to complete 10 hours of community service. If they don't have their GED, they better secure it, or I'm not going to graduate them. And if they don't have a valid driver's license, they must have their driver's license reinstated. They must also complete 36 hours of individual counseling, and whatever that counselor recommends, anger management or family counseling, they must complete it. They also have to do 36 hours of moral reconation classes. And after all that is said and done, the lifestyle change dramatically, it must be in place, and then I will graduate them from the program. We currently have a capacity of 108, and we have 120 in the program, and 35 waiting assessment. Our retention rate in the program is 85 percent, and our recidivism rate is 12 percent. These folks, at least the ones that we've graduated, have not been subject to recidivism, are paying for their own housing and their own food, and their own utilities, as opposed to being housed in the penitentiary. But I would like to also address with you after what I've heard today my opinion on prevention. About 2 years ago, I went to a high school, and I was talking to the children about drug court. And they were yawning. So I asked them, and this the high school, full high school, 630 students, and I asked the students how many of them began--either smoked marijuana or had been with someone that smoked marijuana. And almost every hand went up. And I asked them the same question regarding alcohol use, and the same hands went up. When I asked the children about methamphetamine, if they had used it or been with someone who used it, about a third, a little less than a third of the hands went up. So I went back recently and determined that the median age for drug--for meth use in people that have gone through drug court, and we've treated a little over 500 people, is 19 years old. Their drug usage began anywhere from the ages of 5 to 13 or 14. So we started going to the schools, and we have held drug court in 13 schools on 22 different occasions. I asked every school the same questions that I asked the first school, and I get the same answers from the students. And I will tell you that the last school we went to in this school year, a little boy came to me after it was over, and he said, ``My best friend wants me to use methamphetamine. What should I do?'' and I said, ``Well, now you understand what peer pressure means.'' He had big old tears in his eyes, and he said, ``Yes, but he's my best friend.'' And I said, ``Well, son, he's not your best friend. Not anymore. He's a drug addict.'' And a light went on with this child. And he was--it was like--he said, ``You're right.'' He said, ``Thank you.'' I knew that he wouldn't try methamphetamine, because it became crystal clear to him that it wasn't cool to use meth, that if we can reach these children in the schools and teach them that drug usage at any age is not cool, and you will find yourself sick and diseased, then I think we've reached our goals. And I'm out of time. Thank you very much. Mr. Souder. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Judge Gunn follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.119 Mr. Souder. Mr. Counts. STATEMENT OF LARRY COUNTS, DIRECTOR, DECISION POINT DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY Mr. Counts. Thank you. For the record, my name is Larry Counts. I work as the executive director at Decision Point. We're an alcohol and drug treatment center located in Springdale and have a catchment area of residents of about 353,000 people. I've been with the agency since 1998, and this past year we've treated more folks in our agency than we had by history and just a little over a 1,100. And since 1998, over 5,000 addicts have come through our facility for treatment. I would like to first make a comment in regard to Congressman Boozman's question before. After listening to the two panels previously, I do believe that the effort and the work put into this problem of methamphetamine, which it certainly is an epidemic, we will stem the tide a bit. I think by history, looking at something as simple as the Harrison Act in 1914 and trends from 1953 to today, drug trends have come and gone, but it always seem like another drug will come and take its place. And I think that is part of what I would like to bring to the public today is a message, and that is one of the message just looking and focusing more on the disease of addiction rather than a specific drug. And I'm saying that to--I know that in our drug courts and our treatment facilities, I see time and time again people coming in looking at methamphetamine as the problem, but they--they don't choose to stop smoking pot, or they don't choose to stop drinking alcohol, or they don't choose to stop using other substances. So, again, we're seeing more poly substance than we are anyone coming in just simply using methamphetamine and having to work with that. Right now, I guess, too, like everyone else, we need more funds, and we look at the distribution of the drug control policy, we're only getting about 32--a little over 32 percent to divide up between treatment, prevention, and research in this effort. And it's really not adequate enough for the numbers that are coming in and demanding treatment where even our own governmental studies are reporting that up to 48 percent of the people that need treatment aren't getting it. We're looking--today I was looking, and certainly the statistics have already been spoken, and I know certainly there are crimes in relation to drugs in terms of the manufacturing, the selling, the adolescence and certainly the harm put to that. And I do know that also in this--in our efforts, there were I found 1,498--1,498,000 children of drug addicts locked up or incarcerated in the United States in one form or fashion. I would say that the majority of these are certainly treatable. I hear that. And certainly 80 percent of those locked up in our facilities have the problem either directly or indirectly related to drugs. And having years of working in this field, I do know that it is treatable. I hear a great deal about intervention, and I would like to ask again in regard to policy, studies have repeatedly shown through NADA, through Samsul, through Seaside, that a person who is--has a family history, which is a great predictor of any illness to include alcoholism and drug addiction, that we--we are not allowed by prevention to focus on that. We do a great deal of broad based prevention, but we know that there is a high risk of kids out there that have the potential to become addicted, but we're not able to target that, much like say that they do in HIV, AIDS, and STD prevention. And I think that to the job, your drug courts, treatment, what really, everybody is doing is remarkable, given the conditions and the funding. But one of the things today, too, is that certainly with treatment, we're really charged, as Judge Gunn certainly pointed out, that to treat a chronic illness with an acute intervention, we need to be able to get at the families to work in those areas of social skills such as education, jobs and finance. We're not seeing adults who come in that made adult decision to use; we're seeing children or adults coming in who have 5, 10, 15 and 20 years of drug use without really any period of abstinence and not even recognizing it as a disease. Again, I appreciate your time in allowing me to speak. I, too, think it's been an honor and a privilege. Thank you. Mr. Souder. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Counts follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.127 Mr. Souder. Now we go to Mr. Dufour. STATEMENT OF BOB DUFOUR, DIRECTOR OF PROFESSIONAL AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, WAL-MART STORES, INC. Mr. Dufour. Thank, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of Wal-Mart, I would like to thank you and both Congressman Boozman for inviting me to appear before you today to speak about the methamphetamine crisis in our country. Currently, Wal-Mart, which, as you know, is based in Bentonville, Arkansas, we operate stores in all 50 States, Puerto Rico and nine foreign countries. We currently employ 1.2 million people in the United States and 330,000 people in other countries. Unlike many of the drugs that are abused, methamphetamine, as you heard today, can be made using common, low-cost products and supplies that are widely available. For this reason, Wal-Mart has taken a keen interest in the methamphetamine issue. Our challenge is to meet the needs of legitimate customers while preventing the proliferation of abuse of these products. In 1998, Wal-Mart entered into a partnership with local law enforcement and the Drug Enforcement Administration to help fight against this threat of methamphetamine production. At that time, Wal-Mart voluntarily placed a register limit of three packages of product to be purchased if it contained the active ingredient pseudoephedrine. Pseudoephedrine, as you know, is used to treat nasal congestion, and it is found in many cough and cold products that are widely available. Millions of Americans each year at one time or another have legitimately used these products to get relief. Unfortunately, pseudoephedrine is also the primary precursor used to make methamphetamine. Today, these Federal limits are in place. There's also a growing number of States and also local communities that have even higher restrictions on these products. Wal-Mart has taken an active role in working with lawmakers and agency officials across the county to insure these restrictions are appropriate and effective in our stores. Methamphetamine, though, continues to grow in areas of our country. Wal-Mart has responded in these areas of growth by further restricting access to pseudoephedrine. Currently, in over 500 Wal-Mart stores across the country where we have noticed high theft or unusual sales trends, we've taken single entity pseudoephedrine and put it behind the prescription counter. Customers must ask for these products from a member of our pharmacy staff, and these products are only available when the pharmacy is open. Wal-Mart recognizes the inconvenience this is to our legitimate customers, but this action underscores our commitment to work with the DEA and other agencies on this issue. We also found in 2003 that larger pack sizes were a primary target for many people wanting to produce methamphetamine. At that time, Wal-Mart responded with our Wal-Mart stores voluntarily discontinuing to sell the 96-count pseudoephedrine. When we did this, we also kept the three package limit in place, and our largest packet size was 48 count. This, in effect, reduced by half the amount of pseudoephedrine you could purchase at a Wal-Mart store. Our Sam's Club took a similar action. While they kept the 96 count, they limited the quantity to two, and this late March has reduced the quantity to one. Not all of our actions at Wal-Mart have been focused on restricting sales of pseudoephedrine. We've also made significant efforts to educate both our associates and our customers regarding methamphetamine. Wal-Mart cashiers as part of their training are shown computer simulation of a transaction that attempts an above-threshold purchase of pseudoephedrine. The cashiers were then asked how to respond to the situation. Our customers who try to purchase more than three products or less in restricted areas may not understand why they can't purchase more than those three packages. In order to address this issue, this February, we teamed up with the Partnership for a Drug Free America to provide information for them. Currently, each time a register limit regarding pseudoephedrine is triggered, a small informational slip is printed at the register. This slip can be handed to the customer by the cashier. It informs the customer of the pseudoephedrine limit and directs them to the Partnership's Web site where they can learn more about pseudoephedrine and methamphetamine. We are committed to finding ways of limiting access to these products and the illegal use of methamphetamine production, but also finding ways to keep these products available for the legitimate customers. We appreciate the opportunity to participate today, and we look forward to working with the subcommittee as we work on this issue. Thank you. Mr. Souder. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Dufour follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.129 Mr. Souder. Mr. Hoggatt. I believe it was your testimony I referred to earlier of the people in the trees. STATEMENT OF GREG HOGGATT, DIRECTOR, DRUG FREE ROGERS-LOWELL Mr. Hoggatt. Yes, sir, it was. And I wanted to thank you, Chairman Souder, and, Congressman Boozman, and this subcommittee for allowing me this opportunity to speak to you today. On behalf of the RogersLowell area Chamber of Commerce, I'd like to welcome you to our community. You may have noticed Benton County and all of northwest Arkansas are enjoying tremendous growth and prosperity. We've been recognized as one of the fastest growing areas in the Nation. We have three of the global leaders in their industries in our midst: Wal-Mart, Tyson Foods and J. B. Hunt. On the surface, we are a booming metropolitan area. Underneath the surface, we are quietly experiencing the economic and the human impact of a very dangerous and defiant monster, that being methamphetamine. In less than 10 years, methamphetamine lab seizures in Arkansas have skyrocketed from 54 meth lab seizures to over 1,200 meth lab seizures, according to our State Crime Lab. Each year that passes brings an increased number in these labs. Our jails are filled with felons charged with crimes related to methamphetamine. Our social services are ill- equipped to handle the effect methamphetamine has had on our families. Gentlemen, if it can happen here, it can happen anywhere. By now, you have heard from the law enforcement perspective of the impact of methamphetamine, and I would like the opportunity to describe the effect it has had on our community. And to do so, I would like to share two examples with you. As a family, you have lived in your home for years. You have raised your family, your kids have gone to school, and you attend church every Sunday in this peaceful little town. But now you find yourself uprooting your family and hastily moving miles away, not because of greater job opportunities, but, rather, out of fear. Fear for your life and fear for the lives of your family. Within the past week, a meth lab was discovered on your neighboring property. Not a mom and pop operation, but a large, well-equipped compound where night vision and security cameras are utilized or armed guards put in trees and where a veritable arsenal of semi-automatic weapons and explosives are used to protect the operation. The alleged operators of this meth lab are now out on bail, and all your neighbors are living in fear that they may be considered informants. The entire neighborhood is forced to leave their homes and the lives that they have become accustomed to because of fear of retaliation by a small militia of methamphetamine producers. No one in this country should have to live in such fear. My final example is focused on the greatest of all victims of methamphetamine, the endangered children who are exposed to methamphetamine use and manufacturing. Our resources have been taxed to the limits, and innocent victims of this supposed victimless crime, children who do not go to school; children who are not fed and taken care of; children who learn and participate in the process of manufacturing because that's what their parents do; children who are exposed not only to toxic chemicals and potential explosions but are also exposed to sexual and domestic abuse and live in the filthiest environments you could possibly ever imagine. One local child was discovered in a meth lab with their nose crusted shut by repeated nose bleeds due to the inhalation of toxic chemicals. Another local child was given methamphetamine in a nursing bottle in hopes that it would stop him from crying. Children born in our community are testing positive for methamphetamine, and children are dying because of it. Our communities need help. We need your help. Our communities must be mobilized to combat the demand for illegal use. We must teach our leaders, or businesses, our schools, our churches, and our families how to stop methamphetamine before it starts. We must arm our communities with the tools that they need to fight when methamphetamine ravages their infrastructure. The cost of human lives and families is much too high. Meth will not go away on its own. The only way that we can successfully defend our communities against meth is to arm them with the proper resources. I ask the subcommittee to reexamine the current drug policy and its initiatives. Please allocate more desperately needed resources to local communities to fight their wars against methamphetamine. It is the local communities that will put up the strongest fight in the war on meth because they have the biggest incentives to win. I strongly urge you to recognize and respond to the destruction that methamphetamine brings to lives and families of our small and middle sized communities across the country. I challenge you to actively be involved in finding solutions to this problem before it continues to grow and further damage the quality of life that we have come to expect in northwest Arkansas and similar communities all across the country. I commend you for taking the time to come here and consider this issue, because that is the first step toward finding the desperately needed solutions. Thank you. Mr. Souder. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hoggatt follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.131 Mr. Souder. Dr. Leach. STATEMENT OF MERLIN D. LEACH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR CHILDREN & PUBLIC SAFETY Mr. Leach. Thank you, Chairman Souder, and, Congressman Boozman. I sure appreciate being here today and the opportunity to speak with you. Being this late on the list, I think most of my testimony has been covered. I would like to point to my written document that the polls in there, and the reason I put those polls in there was to demonstrate that the people of America, particularly this State, and the people of these cities and communities around here are pretty supportive of your efforts. And it's very nearly unanimous that people are concerned about the future of America and the children are a great component of our future. As a policy center and as a center devoted to children, we see three distinct victims. The first class of victims are the adolescents and teens who use the drug. I'd like to address a little later why we think that's occurring. The children who are exposed to the precursor chemicals and finished products in the clandestine labs, and then what we think is the most tremendous damaging thing is a baby born addicted to meth loving mothers. And that's very prevalent in Arkansas. I would like to just sort of dispense with most of my document because it is testimony, and address a couple of issues that Congressman Boozman and yourself brought up earlier. As with other drugs, I think we need to look at the larger picture. We live down in kind of the bowels of the rural poverty in our policy center. Our people are poor, our children are poor, our families are poor. This place up here is beautiful. I haven't been up I-540 beyond the airport in several months, probably 9 months. Seeing all these new buildings, this is wonderful. But 40 miles east of here, and you will see Appalachia level poverty. We have a breast care program that gives free mammograms to women without health insurance. The average family income of our clients is $11,000 a year. A good job is to get to go to work for Wal-Mart; a great job is to go to work for Tyson. I should have reversed that for this panel. At some place with some health insurance, anything. So the driver from our perspective, living in rural Arkansas and living in rural poverty, which I've seen rural poverty all through the southeastern States, is to make it, these meth labs is a proper motive. It turns all crazy because it's not that simple because you start becoming your own best customer. And eventually you get caught, and you go to prison. Or you die because of the chemicals. But the initial process is a frustrated, poor people with no way out in their minds. There's very poor educational services. I think Arkansas ranks 46th, 47th in the Nation. I just heard this morning from the Governor's Office that we have the lowest rate of college graduates in the entire United States. I didn't know that. So when we take this poverty, we take this lack of hope, and I can turn $2,000 in the next 24 hours without taxes, there's a lot of motivation. I can't make that working this month at Wal-Mart, and I can't make that much working for Tyson's. So there's a profit motive that because the drug is so insidious and so tricky, it sucks them into this thing, and that's where it all starts going haywire. I think that the profit motive includes the Mexican distribution and the active war lord and all the other problems. So the underlying motive is profit, and the other thing that we see in the high schools is this extreme need to be thin for girls. One of the side effects of this drug is that until it totally crashes your life you lose a heck of a lot of weight, and you feel great. Talking to kids that use this stuff, they love it. This is not something they're forcing on themselves; this is not something that is just peer pressure and that. But as far as drugs go--I don't use this stuff, never have, but as far as drugs go, it's been reported to me that this is one of best drugs ever built. And the kids like it. It does all sorts of things for them. They're smarter, quicker, better, run faster, at least from the inside that's the way they perceive it. This is a huge, huge societal problem. And when you touch on funding it, I think Congress needs to look at all 13 appropriation bills and say, ``What is the future of America worth?'' you know, obviously, homeland security and the big issues are always there for us, but I think we need to look at what's going to destroy this country in the future. And if we keep having low graduation rates, if we keep having babies born here in Arkansas going into intensive care, I mean going right into Medicaid and all the way into Medicare if they live that long, we are creating a far greater tax burden on the next generation than any of us want to put there. So I would ask that you continue not only what you're doing, which is great, I'm absolutely elated that you're here, I'm absolutely elated your committee is so committed to this, but we also have to look at the problems underlying this impressive level of perspective. We have to look at our resources, we have to look at hope, we have to look at education, and the whole rehabilitation process. You're not going to stop this drug by even taking this stuff off the shelves of Wal-Mart entirely. I promise you that's not the way to cure it. I don't know what the correct way is, but we can't fragment this thing. We have to look at it from a whole new perspective. My time is up. I thank you, sir, for allowing me to be here, and I'm sorry if we had to poke a little too hard here. Mr. Souder. No. Appreciate that. [The prepared statement of Mr. Leach follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.135 Mr. Souder. Mr. Pyle, you're our clean-up person. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PYLE Mr. Pyle. Thank you, Congressman Boozman, Chairman Souder, for this opportunity to share with you my battle with drug addiction and my road to recovery. Thanksgiving weekend 1998 was the first time I used methamphetamine intervenously. Like many tragic stories of addition, my life quickly spun out of control. I lost a well- paying job, a marriage of 7 years, and my mortgage was foreclosed. I traded my personal possessions to feed my $100 a day habit. I eventually lost my freedom. For the next few years, whenever I was incarcerated, I swore I would never go back to the drugs. Every attempt to get clean on my own failed, and I got deeper into a criminal lifestyle. On March 18, 2002, I was arrested once again and was introduced to the drug court program in Sebastian County. Upon release from jail, I was required to report every morning at 8 a.m. to the State parole and probation office. I began my drug court program by attending three group counseling sessions, three narcotics anonymous meetings, and three random drug screens per week. In addition to this normal drug court schedule, I also had one-on-one counseling sessions. I was also required to obtain and maintain employment. In addition to all these requirements, I was subjected to random at home visits by representatives of the drug court whom were allowed to search my living space at their discretion. I was forbidden to communicate with any criminals or people I used to associate with. Violations of any of the above requirements subjected me to drug court sanctions or dismissal from the program. This strict supervision did not allow me the opportunity to fail or slip up. The program allowed me to recognize the situations and people that threatened my recovery. In previous attempts to get clean on my own, I had been introduced to Narcotics Anonymous and was unable to use the program for more than a few months without falling back into my old patterns. By requiring me to attend three Narcotics Anonymous meetings a week, drug court forced me to be disciplined enough to develop the foundation of NA principles that I live by to this very day. I'm grateful to NA for showing me the way to live without drugs and alcohol, and I am also grateful to drug court for requiring me to attend these meetings until the program became a cornerstone of my life. During my drug court journey, I saw many people fail to live up to the requirements. Many were punished with county jail time and community service, while others were removed from the program and sent off to prison. The Sebastian County drug court's graduation rate is similar to the national average where very few make it through this strict regimen. However, for the few that go on to graduation, it means that a new chance at life that did not exist a few years ago. In drug court, we're given tools and education that allow us to end the cycle of addiction. It's like being a cancer survivor who is in remission. My addiction is still a part of me, and I require treatment through my NA program, but I am able to live a healthy and productive life. I have been clean of both drugs and alcohol since March 18, 2002. I went back to school and recently graduated from the University of Arkansas Fort Smith with a bachelor's degree in business administration. I am currently looking into attending graduate school. I have maintained steady employment since my release from county jail, and I am proud to say that I'm paying my taxes. I maintained a 3.8 GPA and was active in many school organizations. On graduation day, I was honored to receive the College of Business Student Service Award for my dedicated service to the college. This award is especially important to me because service to my community is one of the core principles I try to live my new life by. It is one of the primary reasons why I'm here today. I would like for the public and the lawmakers to know that the old adage, ``Once an addict, always an addict,'' does not have to be true. Alternative sentencing programs like drug court do work. The lock-them-up mentality and throw away the key is not the answer. Had I gone to prison or just gotten a suspended sentence, I don't believe that I would be before you today. To put a drug criminal through drug court costs a few thousand dollars a year, while housing them in a penitentiary with violent hardened criminals costs tens of thousands of dollars a year. From a purely economic standpoint, it makes sense to try to save these addicted souls. I do, however, support sending drug criminals like myself to prison as a last resort. I believe that the threat of going to prison helped me to recover. For years our Nation's policy of fighting the war on drugs has involved increasing the sentences of drug criminals, and we have continued to build more and more prisons at great expense without much success at winning this war. Drug courts and other alternative sentencing programs attempt to win the hearts and minds of the addict. We spend billions of dollars a year as a Nation burning fields in South America trying to stop the supply of narcotics, but spend very few dollars on the demand side of business. If my story can help an addict find recovery I believe that I am helping as much or more than any covert operation can do with winning the war of drugs. I know that I personally decreased the demand for methamphetamine in western Arkansas by over $100 a day. For many drug criminals, there is a pattern of bouncing in and out of prison. The only solution that makes sense is drug court. A study commissioned by the State of Oregon found that for every dollar spent on these programs, a savings to society is 10 times that amount. Another California study found that for a $14 million investment in drug courts, there was a total cost avoidance by the State of $43 million. I recently read an article by the Institute for Applied Research that I'd like to quote. ``What you learn in drug courts, which involve treatment for all the individuals and real support, along with sanctions when they fail, are a more effective method of dealing with the drug problem than either parole or probation.'' Thank you, and God bless you. Mr. Souder. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Pyle follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.138 Mr. Souder. Judge Gunn, are people who go through your drug court program, are they voluntary? In other words, do they have to agree or are they assigned? Judge Gunn. Oh, no, they have to agree. It's a voluntarily program. You mean for the candidate coming into drug court. Mr. Souder. Yes. Judge Gunn. Yes, sir. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes they have the choice of probation, OK, on a first offense, small amount of marijuana, or something like that, or they have the choice of going to the penitentiary, but it's strictly a volunteer program. Mr. Souder. That varies from courts, certainly. Judge Gunn. Yes, sir, they--yes, Mr. Chairman, they do vary. Mr. Souder. In your graduation, what percentage of people who start the program finish the program? Judge Gunn. Eighty-five percent. Mr. Souder. So eighty---- Judge Gunn. So far. That start the program and finish it. Mr. Souder. Finish it. Judge Gunn. Is my retention rate. Mr. Souder. Graduate. Judge Gunn. Yes, sir. Mr. Souder. From the program. Judge Gunn. That's correct. Eighty-five percent. Mr. Souder. And when you say you have a 12 percent recidivism, is that over--how long do you track? Judge Gunn. We track every 6 months on every person that's ever been in drug court. Mr. Souder. And how long have you had the drug court? Judge Gunn. Full-time for 3 years; part time in 1999. So about 5 years. Mr. Souder. Mr. Pyle, when you went through the program, you alluded at the tail end that had you not had the threat of going to prison, you're not sure it would have worked as much. Had you gone through any drug treatment programs before? You said you had tried on your own to stop in Narcotics Anonymous, and stopped going. Had you been through a drug treatment program, multiple-treatment programs? Mr. Pyle. I did an outpatient treatment before for marijuana use, before I ever tried methamphetamine previously. Unfortunately, the way my disease progressed, it always ended the same way, with a multiple months stay in the county jail. My cycle of addiction always ended that way, and it always ended with me swearing that I going to kick this thing and go to meetings. And without that constant supervision, I can lie to you, I can lie to my family, I can't lie to a urine--you know, dip stick in the urine test. Mr. Souder. Do you know other meth users? Mr. Pyle. I try not to associate with them anymore. Mr. Souder. No, no. But when you were doing drugs, you got to know other meth users? Mr. Pyle. Yes. Mr. Souder. Do you know any who didn't start with marijuana? Mr. Pyle. Marijuana, you know, I've heard that argument it's a gateway drug, and I truly believe it leads to other things, if the addict is inclined. You know, me personally, I was always looking for something new. Mr. Souder. There are some drugs where you can skip marijuana. I just haven't heard that meth is one that you can skip marijuana. Some people go to OxyContin without having---- Mr. Pyle. Well, I'm not an expert on the nature of addiction, and, you know, every individual's case is---- Mr. Souder. But as far as you know, everybody you knew who did meth also had done marijuana and were looking for a better fix? Mr. Pyle. The come down off of methamphetamine is very difficult, and one of the ways that's used to come down is to smoke marijuana. Mr. Souder. Would alcohol do that to you? Mr. Pyle. Yeah. Yes. I was never a drinker. Mr. Souder. How did you get introduced to meth? You didn't cook it. Mr. Pyle. I eventually progressed into running with some of the people he was describing in his--I forgot the name of your piece about, you know, the little organization that thought it was, you know, organized crime, but, really, it was just a bunch of addicts that were having some dreams of easy money. But I spent a great deal of time in my early addiction to methamphetamine, just simply selling off the possessions that I'd accumulated through my life. And then I eventually reverted to crime because it was the only way to feed my habit. Mr. Souder. And then once you reverted to crime, did you eventually start cooking because you couldn't afford it or because you needed to sell to raise money? Mr. Pyle. In my written testimony or--I mean, I talk about the fact that I saw it as the--as manufacturing as the only way for me to sustain my usage and pay for this lifetime of addiction that was a full-time job. You know, there were many days when I was a gopher that I visited every Wal-Mart, sometimes multiple times, you know, and it's a little step that limiting the pills to two or three packages, but, you know, a paranoid drug addict doesn't like to break out his driver's license at the pharmacy counter. So we started looking for other ways to get the quantities of ephedrine. And you alluded earlier to--I took a couple of trips, overnight trips, to Chicago, IL, because I could walk into a Walgreens in suburban Chicago and buy ephedrine by the case. Buy $800 and $900 worth of generic pseudoephedrine pills in Chicago because they don't have a methamphetamine problem. So--and, you know. Mr. Souder. Who tipped you off to that? Mr. Pyle. That was actually a career criminal from your State, sir, who was--who had heard some time down, and he actually encouraged many of us to try to move to Indiana where the grass was greener, he said. So--I think he's doing Federal time right now. Mr. Souder. You said you were looking for a constant, better high. When you got to the meth, did you still want to seek a better high or was this plenty high? Mr. Pyle. That was all I needed. That was--after putting meth intravenously with the help of another junkie, I leaned back on the couch and then looked at my wife--my then wife, and said, ``Darlin, you've got to keep me away from this. This will kill me.'' It was like a foreshadowing of what was to come. The next few years, you know, I lost 100 pounds, I lost everything that meant anything to me and betrayed my family. And I--my wife--my life was saved through the drug court program. Mr. Souder. I will ask you one other question. You said you were told about Illinois by somebody from Indiana. Was that person down here in Arkansas? Is it somebody you knew from where--how did that information network get connected? Mr. Pyle. Criminals hanging with criminals. These--the gentleman who was--I won't call him a gentleman. The criminal that I was working for, basically, had done time with a guy we called Indy because he was from Indiana, and they associated together. We had night vision, we were on a hilltop mountain in eastern Oklahoma. And they made us all carry guns. And when we weren't--when they weren't cooking, while we were watching, they set us up to do gopher runs. Go to Chicago, go to as many Wal-Mart stores as possible, go to as many Dollar Generals. I think the pill issue, it's a nice effort to try to change, but addicts will go to any lengths to get the ingredients. And there's also a way that it's in feed. Ephedrine is in feed, cattle feed and such. It's not as high quality ephedrine that--the pharmaceutical, of course, is preferred, but it's a low grade ephedrine that's found in many cattle feeds. And you can--it's just in so many things that restrictions on it, I don't see, as the answer. You've got to end the cycle of addiction. Mr. Souder. Let me ask you another question. If we called them up, other guys who were in your gang, and put them into Judge Gunn's drug court, do you think they would have the same reaction as you? In other words, how much of this is that you were ready? I mean, I'm a big supporter of drug courts. Actually, in my home area, Fort Wayne, Indiana, was one, I think, of the first three. In 1996 maybe. And I go to the graduations, and I've seen--look, people say 12 percent recidivism. Hey, if you can get down to 70 percent, you're doing pretty good. If you can get it down to 30, you're doing pretty good. If you can get it down to 12, you're doing really good. I'm a big supporter of drug court, but I'm wondering how much of this is you had a family that you felt you had betrayed, you had a job, you're employable, you clearly now were able to go to school. You scored 3.8 at school, which not everybody who is a meth addict is going to be able to do. You had a support network similarly around you. I think I met your father earlier. What do you believe--what's our realistic range here? Mr. Pyle. I think even if you're saving 10 percent, all you're doing is delaying the inevitable which is just sending them to an already overcrowded prison. You know, the gentlemen--or the people in question, I'm trying to refer to them nicely, they were career criminals. Most of them had been in an institution. I was different in that respect. I did not get involved with criminal activity until getting involved with methamphetamine. Mr. Souder. You're saying the sooner we catch them, the more likely we are to turn them around? Mr. Pyle. Yes. Mr. Souder. More support network, more likely we're able to turn them around. Mr. Pyle. I think if they've already gone to prison, they're getting to the point where they're set in their ways, unfortunately. There are exceptions. You know, one of the people that I graduated from drug court with had been down to prison four different times. And to my knowledge, I saw him a couple of months ago, and he's been clean as long as I have. Mr. Souder. Doctor, I notice you work with lots of kids and families. What's your reaction to his testimony and how would you expand on that to a higher risk, low income, little hope. Mr. Leach. Well, No. 1, I would testify that he's telling you the truth, because I hear it a lot. Unfortunately, I'm not hearing it enough as far as a success story, but as far as victims of crime or the activity, it's very exact. You get into this malaise and then you find a way out. One of the things that I think we need to look at, and it's probably congressional, what you're doing is absolutely needed. You know, looking at it from a drug perspective, and the DEA perspective and the prosecution's perspective, and a rehab perspective, but I think we also have to look at is what are we doing with the youth of America? What are we telling them? Where are they going, you know? And I think this may sound way out there to you, but when you look at the Enrons and I've had kids tell me, ``Well, if I make enough money to hire the best lawyer there is, I'm unconvictible.'' The kids are really smart today. They're doing some real dumb things. But there's a smart generation coming up here, and I think we're going to have some spectacular future Congressmen and Congresswomen. But the ones without opportunity are just as smart in most cases, and they're going to make it. And if by hook or by crook, then in my generation you just didn't even make it. That was not a choice. You played by the rules. Now the people who--and looking at television and looking at the news and that, most of the people who really made it have some little piece of shade on the side. And so it's a society issue, and I'm just going to say if you feel like you're frustrated in that you're fighting a huge battle not just the drug battle. We're fighting for the morals and the ethics of this country. And how the children are looking today at public servants, more and more public servants are in the Federal penitentiary and more and more public servants are getting off with kind of their gold wings. And these big corporations, it's a huge, it's a giant problem. And I think doing the restricted packaging, all this stuff helps, but I think we really need to look at what are we doing for the youth now? Because what we're handing them is best efforts, and it's just not good enough. Mr. Souder. Congressman Boozman. Mr. Boozman. Judge Gunn, tell me about the drug court, you really do honorable things. Michael was actually a product of the Fort Smith court that also does a tremendous job. Judge Gunn. Yes, sir. Mr. Boozman. You work with people like Michael and help bring them around. Tell me about your going to the schools and actually taking court to the students in a sense with a preventive aspect now. Judge Gunn. All right. Thank you. Well, for drug court to be successful, you have to be--it takes incredible structure, as this gentleman has suggested to you. If someone is non- compliant, I mean 99 percent compliant, they're before me in 3 days. I don't accept anything but 100 percent compliance. So when we go to the schools, if you--I've got 120 people in my program right now, 10 percent are going to have some level of noncompliance. And what I'll do is I'll revoke their bond, I'll throw them in jail, if they're positive for alcohol, marijuana, let alone, heaven forbid, meth, or I put them in residential treatment. So when we go into the schools, we have a written protocol because the security's at issue. And we may have 6th grade--I try not to take more than 250 children. And in the school gymnasium or auditorium, it takes incredible security because you have to separate the children from the felons. Because you've got people in jail that are shackled coming up before the children, and then I've got people that may test positive or be noncompliant that I'm going to throw in jail. OK? Or put in residential treatment. And it's a reality check for children. It's just a reality check to them. And of every person in drug court, I tell them, ``It's part of the program, OK, if you come in, we're going to go to the schools.'' And they have told me routinely that--perhaps maybe not 100 percent of them, but a great many of them have said, ``If I had seen this when I was 10 years old, I probably wouldn't have taken that first joint.'' It's the marijuana and the alcohol that are the gateway drugs that I see the most of. So, hopefully, it's effective in the schools. Mr. Boozman. You're shaking your head, Mr. Counts. You want to join in? She was talking about marijuana and the other being the gateway drugs. Mr. Counts. Again, I---- Mr. Boozman. Alcohol. Mr. Counts. As far as the gateway drugs, I don't see many. I think that's an exception rather than the rule that somebody would start with cocaine, methamphetamine, or heroin. I mean, it's progressive. And I think a great deal of that has to do with just simple availability. The more you hang around in that environment, somebody is going to have something that you're going to be able to try. But, I mean, this--in our facility, I think everyone, I mean, alcohol is by far the most abused drug in this Nation. And, in reality, I mean we're talking about crime again. It's up there above anything else. So I think the message to not only prevention but that intervention and teaching what addiction really is. We've hidden that for years; although we've known that since 1954. Even the American Medical Association with the message has been Just Say No, but--as an example, but there was never a contingency when we know that there were going to be children or adolescents who were going to be using. And we never offered an alternative that just if you made a bad decision, if you made a mistake, you know, we understand that, so here's what we can do now. But we just kind of left this hanging out there to dry. Mr. Boozman. I appreciate your testimony, Dr. Leach. I've seen the work that you do and see how hard that you work in the centers and things that you participate with and the good work that you're doing. It does seem like the effort that Miss Gunn is doing, as you mentioned, how society kind of glosses these things over. That it's kind of cool to maybe be out smoking a joint or doing whatever. It does seem like this type of real hard, this is what it's really about with seeing the guy shackled. That does seem like that's a reality check. The other thing I would like to ask you about is the effect this is having on our women's shelters. I've had the opportunity to view those with you. Tell me what's going on there, Mr. Leach. Mr. Leach. Well, one of things this drug does in addition to the paranoia and all the medical ramifications, it's a deinhibitor. And by deinhibiting, it also breaks down any kind of fear of law enforcement, fear of laws, and so forth, and so you add a little paranoia to these shelters and stuff, and when you're really upset, and you come home, and your wife's giving you a bad time, and you're on this stuff, one is the paranoia; she's not on your side anymore. Two, there's just the sheer devaluing of the judgment process where smacking around doesn't mean anything. And, three, you have no idea of the intensity. When these people get violent on this drug, it's a no joke violence. I'm an old man, and I can't imagine what I can do, but I know that if I were on that drug, I can do at least twice as much. Whether it's a law enforcement officer or my spouse or my child. So what you see is greater damage, more irreparable damage and greater fear on the part of the victim. In this case, you know, there's obviously the female victims in domestic violence. We experience mostly female victims. When you have that kind of paranoia that's been addressed here today, where these people are hanging out with guns and going nuts about, ``You squealed on me,'' and they're going to kill you. And you know their judgment is flawed, and they point a gun, and they can kill you. This isn't about morals and ethics or whether or not I kill people or not. There are good friends that kill people. This is like, ``If I don't kill you, I'm going to die.'' And so many women are more inclined to go back out of fear. Fear is a big factor to go back. Lack of money is another factor to go back. There's a lot of other factors that's going on as well. But this intensifies that problem. It intensifies the child abuse problem with it. In the Children's Advocacy Center it is appearing also. So all of these things, it's just a complete terrorizing of the family, the family structure. This is the most destructive drug I have seen in my life. I've been around probably as long or longer than anybody in the panel. This stuff is horrendous. It is unbelievably bad with what it's doing. It's not like anything else. This drug is set at 25 percent of the drug use in America as opposed to all the others. This thing is going to get us. Cocaine is tough, but cocaine is also for the most part expensive. Heroine is tough, but people have figured out heroine for the most part, but it is coming back. LSD, that's just some crazy stuff. It's floating in and out of the high schools again today, but it's not going to go anyplace. But this stuff is real. What you're doing today, what you're doing around the country, it has to be done. Something has to come of this, because this is the most destructive thing of human life that we've ever had in this country. Did I answer your question, or is that just too brief? Mr. Boozman. No, that's very good. Mr. Dufour, I really do appreciate the example that Wal- Mart set. Not only this, I know that you-all are very active in the Red Ribbon Enterprises and things like that. You mentioned that in high crime areas and shoplifting and stuff that you actually put it behind the counter. So you're in a situation where you have stores behind, you've got stores without stuff, and for all this testimony about the tremendous problems with this stuff, is it an unnecessary burden? Is it a tremendous burden to the storekeepers, the retailers, if we do put it behind the counter? Mr. Dufour. It's more of an issue for the consumers, having it available for them, because pseudoephedrine is a very effective medication for folks' treatment, coughs and colds and nasal congestion. So our pharmacists have been educated on this issue; they understand it. If our pharmacists in a local area believe it is a problem, it's being stolen, or it's being abused, they have the opportunity to move it behind the counter themselves. So we do it on a store-by-store basis with our local folks. But the balance is--it's not readily available to the consumer to use. Mr. Boozman. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Souder. I wanted to, if I can, just followup on that a minute. You mentioned that you had some stores and some high risk areas. Do you know how many that is? Mr. Dufour. It was just a little over 500 the last time we surveyed. Mr. Souder. 500 that put it behind. Mr. Dufour. Yes, sir. Mr. Souder. OK. I see. So you said over 500 stores noticed high theft or unusual uses. Is that usually law enforcement that come to you, or do you notice it internally? Mr. Dufour. No, we do an awareness program with our pharmacists. They understand. Most of them get it. I mean, understand what the issue is. If the pharmacist, if their opinion is that the medication needs to be behind the counter, they'll make that decision themselves to pull it back. We get a survey of our stores to find out how many have done that. From the last survey, it was just over 500. Mr. Souder. If law enforcement came to you in a given area, would you--are the pharmacists contracted out in most cases? Mr. Dufour. No, they're company owned. Mr. Souder. So if they came to you, you would work with local law enforcement as well? Mr. Dufour. We have worked with local law enforcement, and it's a judgment call on the pharmacists. I mean, if the law enforcement agency came in and said, ``Will you put it behind the counter in all the stores in the State?'' we would have to take a look at that and say, ``Is that reasonable?'' Mr. Souder. Yeah, they'd have to give you some kind of--I was thinking more of county or, I guess, the targeted areas. Obviously, we could go on for a long time, and, Mr. Hoggatt, were groups like yours--before I do that, I want to make a comment on Wal-Mart, because one of the things that often is lost when we have a single hearing is the context of how many things and challenges you have on these type of things, particularly as the largest retailer in the world. But we held a hearing down in Houston on baby formula being stolen, and Wal-Mart sent a representative down to testify. Because in Texas, this is a huge issue. It's spreading into Oklahoma, as we heard in Texas, spreading in Arkansas and other areas. And it's incredible the millions and millions of dollars in baby formula that's stolen in this market, and particularly we have some very difficult Al Qaeda network who are funding some of their Al Qaeda efforts from stolen baby formula. So the next thing is, we're asking Wal-Mart to put baby formula in controlled areas where people can't get to it, and then the ephedrine, the pseudoephedrine, and it is a huge challenge as a retailer how to keep market share when this isn't demanded elsewhere and when everybody else isn't doing it and when most usage of it is above board. We appreciate your working with us and we understand that puts extra pressures on your corporation. But literally, in Florida, it still astounded me that there are more deaths from the Oxycodones and hydrocodones. Legal medications. There are more deaths from overdose in those two drugs than there are from all illegal drugs combined in that's why the President was talking not only about steroid use but legal drug abuse, that we're talking methamphetamine is up to 8 percent. Hasn't been-- maybe it was 6, maybe in some areas it's pushing higher, but it hasn't really changed nationally as much because we have other new things that are coming on, that's abuse of the illegal drugs, not to mention the story of alcohol problems, that just are overwhelming. And this is a much more difficult challenge in the society when most of your deaths are coming from legal drugs. And the amount of black market money, so to speak, are coming from ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, baby formula money, and other things, and what kind of pressure that puts on our system to sort through. Not to mention the whole Canadian question of Internet pharmacies and the competition that isn't restrained elsewhere. Do you have a followup to that, Mr. Dufour? You looked like you wanted to say something. Mr. Dufour. Well, I think you said a lot, and it is a challenge for retailers to keep up, not only with Federal laws but with State and local ordinances. We work very hard at that. The one thing that I do appreciate is the cooperation that we've had and the partnership we've had with DEA in every case, whether it was the agent out of Little Rock or Washington, DC, or some other area. We've had very good success working with them as well as a lot of the local sheriffs' departments. We want to appreciate that cooperation. Mr. Souder. Well, we've had a long hearing. I wanted to share a couple of things with you and make sure the record reflects there have been some statements that haven't been, I believe, completely accurate about what the Federal Government is doing, and I want to put in context of what we're trying to do from our end and how this hearing fits into that. First off, it isn't inaccurate to say, as somebody was saying Columbia a lot, Columbia and South America represent about 10 percent of the Federal dollars. Drug treatment represents about 60 to 70 percent of Federal dollars in what we do in law enforcement. And State and local law enforcement is another chunk of that, counting DEA. But there is a common street notion in and around the country that we spend most of ours on international, which isn't true, or that we spend most on law enforcement, which isn't true. Furthermore, most of our funding of drug treatment doesn't come through direct Federal funding, it comes through indirectly through other programs. Whether it's insurance, tax write offs that people have, through mental health assistance, through Medicaid assistance. And so in addition to what I said was direct Federal, we spend far more in treatment than we do in law enforcement intervention. Now, depending on whether you want to count State and local, which is a whole different thing, including, by the way, sentencing laws because we've had this debate, if you wind up in jail for usage in the Federal system, you're rare. In spite of 60 Minutes, because we've had fencing with 60 Minutes, and they edited me out of the show because they didn't like the Federal numbers. The fact is, there are only about 600 people who are in Federal prisons or in for usage. And most of those are negotiated sentences. They couldn't go to nail them for distribution, so they went for usage. When you hear the sentencing problem for usage, you're mostly talking State and local where there's been a proliferation. Quite frankly, the Federal Government doesn't have prison room, judges, marshals, to lock up the people who are dealers. As you heard me say earlier, 400 pounds in El Paso. OK? We were having a hearing on a Lakota--on an Indian reservation on the Arizona border, they had 1,500 pounds the previous year, and I think this was in 2002. So it was 2002, they had 1,500 pounds. In January through March they had 1,500 pounds that they had seized. This is marijuana in addition to cocaine that was moving through there. During our hearing, because these idiots kept running this stuff while we had all these Federal officials there, they caught 500 pounds, 400 pounds, 300 pounds, 200 pounds, got a 700 pound later that day. They had nearly 2,000 pounds running through that zone in this particular area. And, literally, they don't even mess with arresting a lot of them because our borders are, basically, for the most part not very tightly controlled. Now, the reason I say that is here's the basic from the Federal Government approach that we're trying to do. To the degree that we can eradicate the drugs--now I'm speaking mostly cocaine, heroin, and some degree marijuana, at their source, we get it with the least amount of people being damaged. To the degree it moves out of the country and into the Caribbean up through Mexico, it's spreading out and harder to get. The degree it gets in the United States, it's harder and harder to get. To the degree it gets into northwest Arkansas, then it's proliferated so much that we're dealing with a totally different nature of the problem. Similar with ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. To the degree we can get more controls over in Amsterdam and Rotterdam and Belgium, we won't have to worry about every single Wal-Mart and whether they're going to 18 Wal-Mart stores, because the stuff is mostly coming from one area of the world and from one place. And to the degree that we can control our harbors, to the degree we can control the entrance levels, once it gets into the pharmacy level, it is very difficult, particularly--you just are fairly overwhelmed. So we have a percentage trying to do that. Now, so eradication, interdiction, and then the law enforcement question. We are attempting to initiate several drug treatment type initiatives. The President has proposed an increase in that, and we increased it in the last session. We're trying to do it again. We're trying to look for accountability programs. For example, I'm a big believer, as you said, you know, you can't lie in a urine test. And certainly not in the hair follicle test, which make it a little more difficult if on top there's not any hair. As we do drug testing and have real accountability, it isn't to play ``Got ya,'' and throw somebody in the prison, the goal is that you're not helping somebody if you don't really know whether they're progressing. And you've got to put accountability in the systems and drug treatment. But we're wrestling, because, clearly, the length of time, comprehensiveness, whether there are support groups, and how we deal with a more holistic picture in the drug treatment is one of our challenges. Our prevention programs, quite frankly, are not particularly effective. And we're trying to make them more effective. We put a whole bunch of new variations into drug free schools. I'm still not convinced as a person who wrote almost all of the last drug free school laws that it's particularly effective or targeted. The Community Anti-Drug Coalitions that Congressman Portman developed and went through our committee on an attempt to do more what you're trying to do at the local level. In other words, if you can get activists in the community often who either are parents who struggled with it, people in the neighborhood who are concerned about it, those people can work to help identify and try to reach other kids. I can't tell you what a great idea of having the drug court at the schools is as part of this effort to communicate the consequences. Almost every prevention program, even though they understand that the threat only will reach part of the people, the fact is, even the most effective--we're going to take them to the movies, we're going to play basketball, and we're going to do this, and so on, and if you don't, you might go to jail, it's always a part of that in having that be part of that. And I want to make one other comment on the Just Say No program. That, in fact, in the United States from our perspective, and I'm just going to say this overtly. As a committed Christian, I believe that ever getting rid of the drug problem's chance is zero because there's always going to be sin in the world. We're never going to eliminate child abuse, we're never going to eliminate spouse abuse. The goal isn't zero. And if you say you're going to get rid of it, you have a false thing. Every day somebody new is exposed, there are different problems, and you're never going to eliminate sin. And with that context, the goal that we have, is we try to limit it as much as possible, make it as hard as possible, make it as infrequent as possible. And it's true that over the course of history, we haven't eliminated drugs, but the fact is, we've had some huge up and downs. And, interestingly, the Just Say No program from 1981 to 1992, we had 11 straight years of decline. From 1992 to 1994, for a variety of cultural reasons, including a cutback in interdiction dollars of 75 percent, including a ``I didn't inhale'' type of an attitude, we would have to reduce drug abuse in the United States 50 percent to get back to 1992 from right now. We had such a soaring increase in 2 years. So this thing is going up and down when you look at it in its totality. Furthermore, I often hear from kids, and I know all you hear this, ``Well, why is marijuana illegal? Alcohol isn't illegal.'' Well, I doubt if we'd have made it legal, if we were starting right now. Second, that we have constricted alcohol almost every year tighter. Accountability on bars, accountability on drivers, accountability in selling to minors. Just like we're choking the tobacco industry. Now, you can argue whether marijuana and alcohol have the same impact, or whether we'll ever completely eliminate it, or, for that matter, whether we're even going to enforce the marijuana laws, but the fact is, is that in the structure, we have to deal particularly with minors and increasingly in our society in usage. Part of the prevention effort needs to be targeted toward the clusters and the exposure to drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. Marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol as gateway type of things. And to refuse or to not acknowledge that those things are there when you're dealing with the meth question--today we're focused on meth, but, obviously, those are the biggest. They also go in waves. And often when you have one wave going up, you switch it, and enough alcohol will pop up when you reduce marijuana use. But right now we're looking--we're at four straight years of total reducing of drug use in the United States. So even when you say--actually, it's more than four. It's about 6 years now--that when you look at something and say, ``We failed,'' the fact is, we're making incremental progress. We have this huge national ad campaign which is one of our major national efforts, that has, in fact, gradually, not dramatically, reduced marijuana use in the United States and other drug use. Now, under that you'll have bursts of OxyContin, but the total amount of people who are abusing drugs right now is down in the United States. It's way too high, but if we constantly say, ``Oh, it's hopeless,'' then why spend money on it; it's hopeless. If we're spending all this money and not getting progress, then we have a problem. I wanted to give you that holistic view. In addition, on Thursday, Congressman Portman of Ohio, Davis of Illinois, myself, and Congresswoman Tubbs of Cleveland, introduced the Criminal Justice Package. The President in the State of the Union said, ``We have to look at the prison population.'' Here's what's happening with locking up. Crime is down in the United States because we took criminals off the street. It's pretty simple. Put all the criminals in prison, and crime is going to be down, so murder rates are down, violent crime is down, and you have it. But long term, that's no solution. Short term, it gets the crime rate down, but what do we do long term? In that long term, these reentry programs right now that we're trying to tackle is now that people are coming out, particularly those three and 5 years from the tough sentencing that we had a few years ago, we took them off the streets. So as they come back out, what are we doing as a society? And so this comprehensive package that, hopefully we can pass yet this year, tries to address housing questions, education questions, job targeting questions. Things beyond just ``OK. You're coming out of prison. Good luck.'' ``Yeah, but what if people won't hire me? What if you can't get a place to live? What if you can't get in a job training program?'' Now, we're not talking about violent criminals here, we're not talking about if you go out and you abuse it again. You're right. But we have to have a process of reentry if we're going to end that, which should start while they're in prison with job training, with preparing for reentry, or we as a society aren't going to be able to deal with it, and the individual isn't. What I wanted to give you is an idea because while we're focusing on meth, in realty, we're focusing on a whole range of things from treatment and prevention and how we make those prevention programs more effective, whether it's community anti-drug coalitions, whether it's a National ad campaign, whether it's efforts in the schools and in the communities. And it's treatment programs, in the prison reentry programs, whether it's interdiction and so on. Now, with meth, the danger here is, and here's the plain truth--I also sit on the Homeland Security Committee. If we do get our borders better protected and we enable the process of protecting our borders better, choke off some of the cocaine and heroin and other things that are coming in, then we'll just see an explosion of meth. Because unless we've eliminated the demand for drugs, which, you know, even if we've reduced it, we can produce this drug domestically. And trying to figure out what impact that has, because we're going to get better at sealing our borders. We're not going to get perfect, but we're going to get better at that, which means, in my opinion, meth problems are likely to increase because it's something we can produce in this country. And we've got to figure out, how we balance these laws on the PACs and people moving through. How do we get the pseudoephedrine? How do we control that? Are there really treatment methods that we treat meth differently? And so part of our education process right now is, yes, the biggest threats in Arkansas are still marijuana, alcohol. My bet is if we looked at it, you'd probably have cocaine here pretty heavily, too. But meth is a way, when it's newly exposed, of all the media coverage that's occurring, all the focusing on it, we have a chance to shape the community attitude on meth yet, unlike on marijuana where we're battling a community attitude on it. And meth, if we can convince people, like LSD, like OxyContin, and some of these, that this is evil, that this is an extra great threat, to get ahold of this before it explodes even farther on us nationally. And clearly in Arkansas, certainly in pockets of Arkansas, you're at epidemic proportion, and that's what we heard today with this. But I wanted to make sure the record reflected and that you understood that this is just in the context of a much broader fight that we're fighting, and why we're particularly looking at meth, and why we're particularly in this area looking at meth, because, in effect, you potentially are not only modelling to some degree Arkansas and the region, but what could happen all over the Nation. Instead of 8 percent, we could be looking at 40 percent, and if we start seeing that at a National level, how would we even have EPA function, how could we have DEA function with the types of the things that you're talking about in a State the size of Arkansas? What about in Chicago? I mean, my lands, this stuff is bigger in one city. Or take Los Angeles where it's three times the size of the whole State of Arkansas. We wouldn't even begin to tackle it because your resources are just overwhelmingly strained here. Do you have any final comments? Mr. Boozman. Well, I would just like to thank you for coming and bringing the committee and would like to thank the panel. I know all of you--I know what a tremendous job you do, and that you truly are experts in your field. And I'd also like to really thank Michael. I think that especially to be willing to get up and share what you've been through, what he's gone through, and, yet, I think it's a great testimony that there is life after. So, again, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Souder. I thank all of you. And thank you not only for coming today, but for your work that has to be frustrating on a day-to-day basis, include working in all the drug treatment programs for so long with so many people. It's very important work. And I thank you. Thank you very much. With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1:43 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] [Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.164 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7398.165 <all>