[Senate Hearing 106-715]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-715
COMBATING METHAMPHETAMINE PROLIFERATION IN AMERICA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
S. 1428
A BILL TO AMEND THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT AND THE CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCES IMPORT AND EXPORT ACT RELATING TO THE MANUFACTURE, TRAFFICK,
IMPORT, AND EXPORT OF AMPHETAMINE AND METHAMPHETAMINE, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
__________
JULY 28, 1999
__________
Serial No. J-106-41
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-479 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
Manus Cooney, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Bruce A. Cohen, Minority Chief Counsel
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., U.S. Senator from the State of Utah........ 1
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from the State of California 3
Grassley, Hon. Charles E., U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa... 6
Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona............ 9
Feingold, Hon. Russell D., U.S. Senator from the State of
Wisconsin...................................................... 10
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama...... 12
Kohl, Hon. Herbert, U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin..... 12
Ashcroft, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri..... 13
Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., U.S. Senator from the State of
Delaware....................................................... 15
DeWine, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio........... 16
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Statement of Hon. Tom Harkin, U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa 8
Panel consisting of Donnie R. Marshall, Acting Administrator,
Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC; Paul M. Warner, U.S. attorney for the District
of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Katina Kypridakes, manager,
Precursor Compliance Program, California Bureau of Narcotic
Enforcement, Sacramento, CA; Ron Doerge, sheriff, Newton
County, MO, Neosho, MO; and John Vasica, Sandy, UT............. 17
ALPHABETICAL LIST AND MATERIALS SUBMITTED
Doerge, Ron:
Testimony.................................................... 43
Letter to Senator Hatch dated July 26, 1999.................. 45
Grassley, Hon. Charles E.: Prepared statement of the Agricultural
Retailers Association.......................................... 32
Harkin, Hon. Tom: Testimony...................................... 8
Kypridakes. Katina:
Testimony.................................................... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Marshall, Donnie R.:
Testimony.................................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Vasica, John: Testimony.......................................... 46
Warner, Paul M.:
Testimony.................................................... 28
Prepared statment............................................ 30
COMBATING METHAMPHETAMINE PROLIFERATION IN AMERICA
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m., in
room SD-628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G.
Hatch (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Also present: Senators Grassley, Kyl, DeWine, Ashcroft,
Sessions, Biden, Kohl, Feinstein, and Feingold.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A. U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF UTAH
The Chairman. We are happy to have you all here today.
Today, the Judiciary Committee will hear testimony concerning
the growing problem of methamphetamine manufacturing and
trafficking.
Last week I, along with Senators DeWine, Feinstein,
Thurmond, Biden, and others, introduced the Methamphetamine
Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999. That is a bill designed to
address the serious problem of methamphetamine manufacturing in
this country. Methamphetamine is known on the streets as
``meth,'' ``speed,'' ``crank,'' ``ice,'' and ``crystal meth.''
It is a highly toxic and addictive stimulant that affects the
central nervous system.
Methamphetamine, first popularized by outlaw biker gangs in
the late 1970's, is now being manufactured in makeshift
laboratories across the country by criminals who are determined
to undermine our drug laws and profit from the addiction of
others. I hope that with some of the testimony we will hear
today, we can learn how to better combat methamphetamine.
One problem we face is that it doesn't take a lot of
ingenuity or resources to manufacture methamphetamine. This
drug is manufactured from readily available and legal chemicals
and substances. In addition, there are countless Internet Web
sites devoted specifically to providing detailed instructions
for making methamphetamine. Anyone who has access to the
Internet has access to the recipe of this deadly drug. In fact,
one pro-drug Internet site contains more than 70 links to sites
that provide detailed information on how to manufacture illicit
drugs, including methamphetamine.
Accordingly, the methamphetamine production problem is real
and it is immediate. The numbers are telling. According to the
Drug Enforcement Administration, the number of labs seized has
increased dramatically each year since 1995. Last year, 5,786
amphetamine and methamphetamine labs were seized by the DEA and
State and local law enforcement officials, and millions of
dollars were spent cleaning up the pollutants and toxins left
behind by the operators of these labs.
In Utah alone, there were 266 lab seizures last year, a
number which elevated Utah to the unenviable position of being
ranked third among all States for highest per-capital lab
seizures. I should point out, however, that seizures would not
occur if Utah's law enforcement community wasn't doing all it
could with the resources it has. Indeed, the high number of
seizures by both Federal and State law enforcement officials
not only represents the severity of the problem, but also
serves as a testament to how Federal, State and local law
enforcement agencies have been working together to rid our
Nation of this problem.
The problem wit the high number of manufacturing labs is
compounded by the fact that the chemicals and substances
utilized in the manufacturing process are unstable, volatile,
and highly combustible. The smallest amounts of these chemicals
when mixed improperly can cause explosions and fires. And, of
course, most of those operating methamphetamine labs are not
scientists but rather unskilled criminals who are completely
apathetic to the destructive powers that are inherent in the
manufacturing process.
This fact is even more frightening when you consider that
many of these labs are found in residences, motels, trailers,
and vans, and many are operated in the presence of children.
All one need do is remember the three young children who were
burned to death when a methamphetamine lab being operated by
their own mother in a trailer home exploded and caught fire.
That was mentioned in a San Diego Union Tribune article
entitled ``Meth Madness: Home Deaths Ruled Felony Murder.'' I
honestly don't know which is worse: using methamphetamine or
manufacturing it. Either way, methamphetamine is killing our
kids.
So what can we do about the problem? In 1996, Congress
passed the Methamphetamine Control Act. This important,
bipartisan measure targeted the diversion of the most commonly
used precursor chemicals and mandated strict reporting
requirements in the sales of these chemicals. These measures
have allowed the DEA, along with the help of industry, to stop
large quantities of precursor chemicals from being purchased in
the United States for use in manufacturing methamphetamine. But
as this hearing will demonstrate, more can and should be done
to help law enforcement uncover, arrest, and hold accountable
those who produce this drug.
My proposal will provide, in part, necessary funding to the
DEA to combat methamphetamine manufacturing by providing
assistance to State and local law enforcement officials in
small and mid-sized communities in all phases of
methamphetamine investigations and establishing additional DEA
offices in rural areas. It will also provide much needed
training to State and local agencies in handling toxic waste
created by methamphetamine labs.
The legislation prohibits the posting of illegal drug
recipes on the Internet when there is intent to commit a
Federal crime, and it clarifies that Federal law prohibits the
advertisement and sales of drug paraphernalia over the
Internet. Importantly, it provides for stiff penalties when the
manufacturing of an illegal drug creates a substantial risk of
harm to human life or the environment. Finally, it makes
restitution mandatory for costs incurred by the government for
the cleanup of waste produced by methamphetamine labs. This
legislation will provide law enforcement with several effective
tools that will help us turn the tide of proliferation of
methamphetamine manufacturing both here in America and across
our borders.
Now, in closing I want to thank the distinguished panel of
witnesses for their appearance today. I would like to point out
that among our fine witnesses are two Utahns, U.S. Attorney
Paul Warner, and John Vasica, a father who has felt the
heartache of methamphetamine abuse and is doing something about
it. I look forward to their testimony and the testimony of all
of our witnesses.
I would also like to thank the various members of this
committee who have worked so hard throughout their careers
against these types of problems, and most of them are here this
morning. Particularly, I would like to turn now to someone who
has done an awful lot of work in this area and who deserves a
lot of credit, Senator Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you for convening the hearing. Your deep concern over the
spread of methamphetamine through our country is greatly
appreciated. I just want to begin by saying that this is an
issue that worries me greatly.
I would like to join you in welcoming our witnesses here as
well, and I would like to extend a special welcome to Katina
Kypridakes, from California. She is Manager of the Precursor
Compliance Unit at California's Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement.
Ms. Kypridakes has worked extensively with my office over the
years in the drafting of earlier legislation to control the
precursor chemicals that you alluded to. These precursor
chemicals are used to cook methamphetamine. The legislation
that you spoke about that I worked with you on was passed into
law in 1996.
Unfortunately, California is considered by DEA to be the
source country for methamphetamine in the United States. Former
DEA Administrator Tom Constantine testified earlier this year
before Congress that super labs capable of producing hundreds
of pounds of methamphetamine on a weekly basis have been
established in both Mexico and California, where the
methamphetamine is then provided to traffickers who then
distribute it across the United States.
I am sorry to say that in a nationwide drug enforcement
operation known as Operation Pipeline, 92.8 percent of all of
the methamphetamine seized throughout the country, from January
1993 to May 1995, was identified as having California as its
origination point. The 1990's have seen a dramatic increase in
methamphetamine abuse. Meth-related emergency room admissions
increased by 269 percent from 1992 to 1994. It tailed off in
1996, and it returned to those same high levels in 1997.
Fortunately, law enforcement has been significantly
increasing its efforts to combat meth. Last year, over 1,000
clandestine labs were seized and shut down in California alone,
1,006 by the State Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, and 164 by
DEA. The State Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement more than doubled
its lab seizures from just 3 years earlier in 1995, when it
seized 465 labs.
Still, methamphetamine remains a major and significant
problem. California still leads the way. The National Institute
of Justice just released its annual report on meth use among
arrestees. San Diego, CA, close to Mexico, has the highest
number of meth arrestees in the country, 33 percent testing
positive for meth. Sacramento and San Jose were also among the
most hard-hit jurisdictions.
As a Missouri newspaper which was circulated to all of us
by one of our colleagues in the House last year put it,
``California wishes it had Missouri's methamphetamine problem.
That would be an improvement in a State where the production of
meth has become a major industry.'' And that is the truth.
Now, what makes this explosive growth of such significant
concern to all of us is the effect that this particular drug
has on human beings. Addicts become desensitized to meth's
effect, so that they have to use more and more to maintain
their high. Prolonged periods of abuse leads to a type of
psychotic state, including paranoid and violent behavior.
I will never forget the report of a New Mexico man high on
meth and alcohol who had a disagreement with his son in the
car. The son was 14 years old. The father chopped off his head
and threw the head out of the window of his van on a crowded
highway. That is the kind of behavior. I have seen meth
cropping up in rape victims who have been murdered, their
attacker on methamphetamine as well.
The other factor which makes meth especially dangerous is
that it is cooked--that means made up--in this country in very
dangerous and very clandestine labs. They use highly flammable
chemicals, they blow up in explosions, and they leave toxic
hazardous waste sites which require substantial environmental
cleanup. Authorities estimate that for every pound of meth made
in one of these labs, 5 pounds of toxic waste is produced.
To address this growing scourge, I would like to work
closely with you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Grassley has been very
involved; we have worked together in the past. In the 104th
Congress, all of us, including Senator Biden as well,
participated in that comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act.
Now, in that Act we tried to get at the precursor
chemicals--iodine, hydrochloric gas--and we added them to the
Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act, requiring purchasers to
provide their name, address and other information at the time
of sale. We substantially increased fines for companies selling
those chemicals to make methamphetamine, and we eliminated
over-the-counter exemptions for pseudoephedrine. That is used
in common cold remedies. We required the reporting of retail
sales of more than 24 grams.
We found that what was happening is that some of these
people who made methamphetamine would go into like Long's
drugstore and just sweep the shelves and take these cold
remedies for the pseudoephedrine and go out and use them in the
cooking of meth.
We also increased the maximum penalty from 10 to 20 years
for possession of chemicals or equipment used to make meth.
Senator Ashcroft introduced the Methamphetamine Trafficking
Penalty Enhancement Act of 1998 which equalized penalties for
meth with those for crack cocaine, and many of us worked with
him on that bill as well.
However, I think the point of this hearing--and I am
delighted that Senator Harkin is here because both he and
Senator Grassley share the concern for the spread to the State
of Iowa which has become pronounced. We need to do more, and it
is difficult to really know what to do more.
The bill that you have introduced, Mr. Chairman, and that I
am proud to also cosponsor along with others of my colleagues
here, increases the penalties for dealing in amphetamines,
equalizing the amphetamines with methamphetamine. It increases
the sentences for endangering the safety of a minor in meth
manufacturing or trafficking.
We have had these labs blow up when actually minor
children, 3, 4, 5 years old, are on the premises. And we have
seen the parents go off, run, and leave their children in the
meth labs. So what we would do here is increase the sentences
for endangering the safety of a minor generally in the
production or cooking of meth.
We would prohibit advertisement for drug paraphernalia
which you see here, and we would make it easier for prosecutors
to prove a continuing criminal enterprise charge by clarifying
that the jury simply has to find that the defendant committed
any three drug felonies, and not necessarily the same three
drug felonies.
We would require the criminals to pay the lab cleanup
costs. We would make it a crime to endanger the environment in
illegally manufacturing a controlled substance. We would
prohibit the distribution of drug-making information, make so-
called sneak-and-peek warrants effective, authorize funding for
DEA clandestine laboratory training for both State and local
law enforcement, and increase the emphasis of methamphetamine
in high-intensity drug trafficking areas, which incidentally
are working very well. We also authorize funding for 50 new DEA
positions, including 31 special agents to focus on meth, and we
would require antidrug messages on all Federal Government Web
sites. These are very definitive and very positive steps which
we hope will help law enforcement in its fight against
methamphetamine.
So I very much look forward to hearing our witnesses today
as to what they think the progress in the methamphetamine fight
has been, how successful our efforts to control the precursor
chemicals have been, and whether this bill, with its more
stringent penalties and other aspects, can be of help in the
fight against methamphetamine.
I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Because everybody on the dais has had a great deal to do
with this, in order of appearance we will next call on Senator
DeWine and then we will go to Senator Feingold and back to
Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley. Well, DeWine is not here.
The Chairman. Oh, he is not here. Well, then, we will go to
Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley. He may come back.
The Chairman. Let me introduce Senator Grassley. I am
sorry. I thought Senator DeWine was here.
Senator Grassley. That is OK.
The Chairman. Let me introduce Senator Grassley, who is the
chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics
Control. We are very pleased that you are on this committee and
that you have done so many things in this area. So we will turn
to you first for a short statement, if we can.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF IOWA
Senator Grassley. I think, first of all, I thank Senator
Feinstein for going over our previous work together in this
area. Senator Hatch has done a very good job of pointing out
the situation in his State. I think Senator Harkin's presence
here and my being a member of this committee and speaking about
this emphasizes the importance of this problem to my State of
Iowa, both from a meth production standpoint and destroying
lives and also from the harming of the environment, and also I
think because meth is probably a problem that
disproportionately affects rural America, and that doesn't
denigrate anything that Senator Feinstein said about
California.
While most of the drug is produced in Mexico by criminal
gangs, there has obviously been demonstrated here a growing
domestic production, and again primarily in rural areas. Along
with you, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of Senators on this
committee from rural areas in the West and Midwest who I am
sure back up this point.
There is a story in a recent issue of the Des Moines
Register that Senator Harkin and I are very much acquainted
with about this young girl in Burlington, IA, Jessica Smith,
who died, and probably the youngest person in my State to die
from meth use. Sadly, she had used it 15 times before, and on
each occasion it was given by the mother. And in this
particular case, she died of a soft drink being laced with
meth, and the parent and one other adult have pleaded guilty to
that. But I think it brings very much home the problem that we
have and is a real face for those of us in Iowa on the problem
that it is.
Jessica Smith is a real person that has been hurt by it, a
young person, a person who had their full life ahead of them,
and probably would be able to contribute unique talents to
society but is not alive today to do it. But we are here today
to make sure that other Jessica Smiths don't happen in my
State.
For my part, I am pleased that the Commerce, State and
Justice appropriations bill which the Senate just passed last
week contains money that I requested for law enforcement in
Iowa. The Iowa Methamphetamine Initiative will fund a Meth Ed
Learning Center that will teach middle school students about
the dangers of meth and help the State pay overtime for Iowa
law enforcement agencies involved with cleaning up meth labs. I
am hopeful that these new resources will provide vital
assistance to the Iowa law enforcement community which is doing
a wonderful job in the face of this drug explosion.
In 1998, Mr. Chairman, as you gave figures for your State,
we had 321 methamphetamine labs found in Iowa and so-called
busted, and that was more than double the year before. And as
of the first quarter of this year, over 170 labs have been
found in Iowa. At this rate, my State will almost double again
local production of meth and the busting of labs. And that, of
course, is just what we know about. Those statistics don't even
account for the flow of meth from out of State, and we have
heard from law enforcement people that maybe only 10 percent is
manufactured within our State.
Another unique aspect of the meth problem is that you can
get the formula for producing it off the Internet, and many of
the chemicals that you need to produce it are sold at the local
hardware stores and pharmacies. And as a farmer from my State,
I am concerned and, of course, dismayed learning recently, as
Senator Harkin has, about common chemicals used on the farm
being stolen from the farm to produce it. One of those is
anhydrous ammonia, which many of you know is a soil nitrogen
enhancer commonly used by farmers that raise corn, having been
stolen for this reason of production of methamphetamine.
I have also introduced legislation called the Rural
Methamphetamine Use Response Act of 1999 which will provide
assistance for researchers at our State university looking for
chemical treatments that will make anhydrous ammonia useless in
meth production and increase penalties for transporting
anhydrous ammonia across State lines for use in meth-making.
I am pleased that we have had Senators Kyl, DeWine, Hagel
and Kohl join in the cosponsorship of this. And I know, Mr.
Chairman, that you have recently introduced a meth bill that
you have just described which I am studying at this time and I
hope to be able to support as well. I am particularly
interested in getting some tough new mandatory minimums for
meth production and trafficking so that the public will know
that meth dealers who get caught will be off the street for a
very long period of time.
My legislation will also increase resources to provide
training in meth lab cleanup and will increase funding to the
Drug Enforcement Administration for assistance in lab cleanup.
Meth labs are essentially toxic waste dumps filled with
dangerous, unstable chemicals. Handling these labs requires
special training for our law enforcement people.
The legislation also creates a number of regional training
centers to help struggling communities deal with the explosion
in meth production. My legislation would enhance the ability to
provide training to local police and sheriffs to meet the
challenge.
So together with the funding of the Commerce-State-Justice
appropriations bill, I feel that we are on the way to helping
law enforcement in my State and other States in the Midwest to
make a dent in the meth trade. So, Mr. Chairman, this is a very
timely hearing and I thank you for the leadership that it
shows.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Senator Grassley.
I understand that Senator Harkin is missing a markup and
his statement is only 3 minutes, they tell me. So with the
permission of the ranking member, we will turn to you at this
time and take your statement. So we will just take your
statement at this time, Senator Harkin.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM HARKIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
IOWA
Senator Harkin. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, because we
are marking up the SAMHSA bill, the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services bill, and part of it has to do with
methamphetamine and I want to get over there.
The Chairman. That is right.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
inviting me here, and to all of you. I especially want to thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for your strong leadership both in terms of
fighting all drugs, but especially on this new epidemic that is
sweeping this Nation. I really appreciate it.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Harkin. And I know all the people in our State
appreciate it because of your strong leadership, and I commend
all of you for trying to get this legislation moving.
I can't add much to what has already been said and I know
that others will say, except maybe two things. This really is,
first, Mr. Chairman, approaching epidemic proportions as it
sweeps across the country. I just noticed the other day in the
newspaper that all the damage that was done at this recent
Woodstock and all the burning and the violence, that
methamphetamine was one of the drugs that was in prevalence at
that Woodstock.
Second, it has been reported to us in Iowa that
methamphetamine is a contributing factor in 80 percent of
domestic violence cases. In 80 percent of the domestic violence
cases, methamphetamine is playing a role.
As Senator Grassley said, in Iowa 320 clandestine meth labs
confiscated last year, 5 times the number of the year before.
Already this year, 280 labs have been confiscated in the State
of Iowa, and so it really is reaching epidemic proportions.
A number of people have bills in. You, Mr. Chairman, have a
great bill, S. 1428. Senator Grassley has his bill, S. 1220.
Senator Ashcroft has his bill, and I have a bill in, too. All
of them have a lot of similarities to them. I would commend to
you, Mr. Chairman, two things; first of all, the provision in
Senator Grassley's bill that focuses on anhydrous ammonia. That
is not in my bill and it is not in any other bill, but I hope
that it can be incorporated in whatever legislation you put
through because it is a dangerous thing that we see in Iowa and
other States in the Midwest where they are raiding anhydrous
ammonia tanks and things like that to make meth. So I commend
that to you in Senator Grassley's bill.
Senator Ashcroft also has a provision in his bill which is
not in any of the other bills that I have looked at, and that
is more funding for the HIDTA's, the high-intensity drug
trafficking areas, which I also commend to you to try to get
that funding out there. That is in Senator Ashcroft's bill.
Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also thank you for
your leadership in the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations
bill that just recently passed in getting the funding up for
the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Program because that money is
also used to go out to help our local law enforcement officers,
and at least in my State a lot of it is being used to fight
this plague of methamphetamine.
There is one other thing I commend to you, Mr. Chairman, as
you mark up your legislation. In all of my studies and going
around with law enforcement on methamphetamine in Iowa, we lack
some knowledge on how to effectively treat people that have
used methamphetamine. I have met some of these people that have
used methamphetamine and I don't think we ought to give up on
them. They aren't going to be bad the rest of their lives. I
think some of them can be effectively treated.
But I found out two things. One, the treatment for
methamphetamine addiction is much longer than for other kinds
of----
The Chairman. It takes up to 3 years of intensive treatment
once a person gets hooked on methamphetamine.
Senator Harkin. Yes, I hear it is a long time.
The Chairman. Maybe more. I don't know. We will have some
of these experts to tell us here today.
Senator Harkin. Yes, and some of the experts might tell you
also about getting NIH to do some more research into more
effective treatment modalities and intervention programs. So I
would hope that that also could be part of the legislation.
Well, Mr. Chairman, again I thank you for your leadership,
and all of you on this committee for focusing on this new
plague that is just sweeping across the country, and it is just
taking a terrible toll, as Senator Grassley said, in our State.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Senator Harkin. We are going
to try and get all the best provisions we can from all these
bills together. Everybody here who has a bill deserves credit
in this area for really, sincerely working on it. So we
appreciate having you here. Thank you for being here.
Senator Harkin. Thank you and the committee members for
focusing on it. I appreciate it.
The Chairman. We will turn now to Senator Kyl, who is next,
and then we will go to Senator Feingold.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
ARIZONA
Senator Kyl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. It is interesting that each one of us
almost seems to be trying to top the next with the stories of
how this epidemic has affected our own States. And I think it
is just a testament to the fact that this epidemic truly is
nationwide, it knows no boundaries, and it is certainly
becoming very serious.
Just a couple of things to illustrate the problem in
Arizona. Last year, DEA spent almost $500,000 in cleaning up
meth labs in Arizona and trained over 1,600 Arizona law
enforcement officers in basic lab cleanup and safety, which was
very, very useful. We held a hearing in Phoenix, a field
hearing, which actually involved a simulated lab take-down at
the training facility that is used in Maricopa County.
And to see all of the garb that has to be involved in
taking this down, where the officers have to dress up to
protect themselves, the special breathing equipment--it is
about $100 per-person cost just to take one of these down.
About 30 different law enforcement agencies get involved in
each one of the take-downs because of the different aspects of
it that are involved. It is really an incredible experience.
And then when you go in and you see this kind of equipment laid
out, you realize not only, as Senator Feinstein said, the
danger of it, but also the environmental fallout.
Almost a lab a day is being seized in my State of Arizona,
about 26 per month, which is up 30 percent over last year. Law
enforcement is seeing an increase in child endangerment cases.
About a fifth of the meth lab seizures involve young kids found
at the scene, ranging from toddlers to teenagers.
Phoenix has the second highest rate for meth emergency room
admissions in the United States, according to the Drug Abuse
Warning Network. It has the second highest percentage of
arrestees testing positive for meth in the United States. And,
again, each one of us can cite these statistics, but it just
illustrates how each one of our communities are affected.
It costs an average of about $4,400 to clean up a meth lab,
with costs running as high as about $40,000. Clearly, this is
too much of a burden, especially for some of our smaller
communities. It takes about 6 to 8 hours to complete an on-
scene investigation, and particularly in rural counties this
creates a problem.
In Mojave County, AZ, a small, rural county in the
northwest part of the State--it is not so small, actually; it
is over 13,000 square miles in size, but the population is
small. They seize about one lab per week. This year, they have
already seized 70 labs. It could double if they actually had
the resources to do it. So the point is they have been working
very closely with DEA. I certainly commend Donnie Marshall for
his excellent work at the agency in fighting the proliferation,
and commend my colleagues for each one coming up with proposed
solutions to deal with this at a Federal level.
Mr. Chairman, again, I think it is a very good thing your
holding this hearing, and I appreciate the comments that all of
my colleagues have made and hope that we can make good progress
in actually getting a grip on this serious problem.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Kyl.
Senator Feingold.
STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF WISCONSIN
Senator Feingold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also commend
you for holding a hearing on this subject. The production and
distribution of methamphetamine, or meth, is, of course, a
growing problem in the Midwest, including in my home State of
Wisconsin. It is particularly pervasive in western and northern
Wisconsin.
So it is no surprise to see the leadership of the two
Senators from Iowa because it is from over the Iowa border that
our law enforcement people are really very, very concerned
about the spread of this problem. In fact, the strongest
concerns I have heard from law enforcement lately in Wisconsin
are about this very subject.
Meth is actually similar to another synthetic drug which
appeared in my home State of Wisconsin in the recent past,
actually in northeastern Wisconsin, methcathinone, or ``cat,''
as it is commonly known. I am glad to report that through the
very hard work of law enforcement, both Federal and local,
throughout the upper Midwest, we actually were able to, in
effect, stop it at the border and made it a relatively isolated
problem.
In contrast, however, the use of meth appears to be
spreading. There can be no doubt that the consequences of
producing, distributing or using this drug are serious. We have
taken and must continue to take steps to address the growing
problem. I am pleased to have been a cosponsor of a 1996 bill
which later became law that strengthened and enhanced penalties
for the trafficking of meth.
While it is important to punish those individuals who
market meth, the 1996 law also addressed the important issue of
regulating precursor chemicals, chemicals that are used to
produce this deadly drug. The 1996 law increased penalties for
the illegal possession and trafficking of precursor chemicals.
The law also increased penalties for those individuals who
endanger the lives of innocent people and threaten the safety
of law enforcement officers, and also harm the environment by
operating labs that produce meth.
In addition, very importantly, we must continue Federal-
local partnerships. In April of this year, as Senator Harkin
alluded to, the Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance was
awarded a $9.5 million Byrne grant for use throughout the State
to fight crime and the spread of drugs. Part of that grant was
targeted specifically to develop a multi-State task force to
fight the spread of meth.
Clearly, the problems of drugs confronting this Nation are
complex and challenging. It will require a long-term commitment
by all of us, and some of my colleagues, as they have
mentioned, have introduced legislation to strengthen our effort
to combat meth and I am carefully reviewing them.
My experience has taught me that it is absolutely vital
that the Federal Government be a true partner to State and
local law enforcement. But it has also taught me that we must
balance law enforcement activity and tough sanctions with
effective and adequately funded education, prevention and
treatment initiatives. We must scrutinize efforts to reduce the
minimum amounts of meth or other drugs that are required to
trigger mandatory sentencing so that sentences for casual users
remain proportionate and fair. We do have a prison population
that has tripled from 1983 to 1993.
So, Mr. Chairman, this is a terribly important issue and a
great danger. We must strike a delicate balance between
punishing offenders and ensuring that users get the treatment
they need. I want to underscore how serious I believe this
problem is, and we are feeling it in Wisconsin. Again, I want
to thank the Chairman and I look forward to working with him
and the other Members of the Committee who are obviously all
dedicated to passing effective and sensible legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Feingold.
We will now go to Senator Sessions, who is next.
STATE OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I would just say briefly
thank you for having this hearing. I think we should deal with
this. I was involved in prosecution of meth cases and helped
Alabama change some laws on precursor chemicals that in the
early 1990's I think made a difference.
But I believe in Alabama we are now seeing a major
increase. The numbers I have seen, having visited with Senator
Ashcroft in Missouri, and I am hearing from others--this is a
remarkable development. It is an extraordinary increase in an
illegal drug, comparable I would think only to the spread of
crack cocaine that happened so rapidly, and I think it deserves
great attention. Thank you for doing so.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Our Senator from Wisconsin.
STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT KOHL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF WISCONSIN
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we all know,
while once primarily a Western problem, meth is moving eastward
and now ravaging parts of the Midwest, especially States like
Iowa, Minnesota, and increasingly across the border into my
State of Wisconsin.
For example, our State crime lab has nearly tripled the
number of meth examinations since 1996. Prosecutions have more
than doubled. Thefts of meth chemical ingredients from
Wisconsin farmers and retailers are increasing. More police are
being exposed to health hazards from meth labs. And most
disturbingly for Wisconsin, there is even meth trafficking now
at the high school level.
This, of course, is wrong and unacceptable. It is also a
bad omen of things to come, so we need to act before meth
becomes the next crack cocaine epidemic. Of course, Mr.
Chairman, no single Federal law can hope to stop the problem of
meth, but we can start to make a difference. Last week, the
Senate approved my proposal for $1 million in additional
funding for a meth task force in western Wisconsin.
On a broader level, today I am cosponsoring your
Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act which increases criminal
penalties. Also, next week when we take up meth legislation in
committee I hope we can take the best aspects of the three meth
measures--yours, Mr. Chairman, Senator Ashcroft's, and mine,
along with Senator Grassley's--pass them, and promptly enact
them into law because, Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to delay.
Thankfully, this hearing is an important step forward. I
appreciate your holding the hearing.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Senator Kohl.
Now, with regard to our last Senator, let me just note that
Senator Ashcroft has a meth bill that is on the agenda for
tomorrow. I intend to amend it with what we have here, but what
I would like to do--and I will order that all committee staff
get together this afternoon and let's see if we can resolve any
difference on these meth bills and have a substitute that
basically we can all support and get out tomorrow.
But I want to particularly express appreciation for each
member of this committee who has spoken thus far. Each one of
you deserves a tremendous amount of credit for being willing to
do something in this area, and certainly one of the leaders in
this matter is Senator Ashcroft from Missouri.
We will turn to you at this time, Senator Ashcroft.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ASHCROFT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF MISSOURI
Senator Ashcroft. Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you
and I want to thank all of the people who are here today. This
reflects an understanding of the gravity of the problem of
methamphetamine. I thank virtually every member of this
committee who helped us in previous years make small progress
against this big problem, and we need to continue to do that.
We have been losing ground in the war against meth, and the
war against drugs generally. Use by eighth-graders, for
instance, of marijuana since 1992 has increased 176 percent.
Cocaine and heroin use among 10th-graders have more than
doubled. These numbers are intolerable, but sadly there is more
bad news than that on the drug front. It is the burgeoning
epidemic in America right now, the epidemic of methamphetamine.
And it is all over America. It is not a problem that we can
say is a West Coast problem or a coastal problem. It is
everywhere. We face the largest drug threat in Missouri as a
methamphetamine threat, and it may be coming soon to cities and
towns near you.
What makes meth so dangerous is that it is cheap and easy
to make and highly addictive. Most of us in our States have
been to demonstrations of labs and things like this. Crystal
meth in the 1990's is what cocaine was--I think Senator
Sessions said it right--in the 1980's and heroin was in the
1970's.
For example, in 1992 DEA agents seized two clandestine meth
labs in the State of Missouri. By 1994, there were 14 seizures.
By 1998, there were 679 labs seized in Missouri by DEA agents.
And I am pleased to see Sheriff Ron Doerge here from southwest
Missouri. Many local officials have had encounters with
methamphetamine that didn't involve the DEA, so those numbers
don't really tell us all. But can you imagine going from 2
seizures in 1992 to 679 labs being taken down in 1998?
Meth ensnares our children and endangers us all, and causes
users to commit other crimes. In 1998, the percentage of 12-
graders who used meth was double the level in 1992. Meth-
related emergency room incidents increased 63 percent over the
same period. I recently had a conversation with a number of
local law enforcement officers in Missouri. They estimated that
as many as 1 out of every 10, or 10 percent, of high school
students know the recipe for methamphetamine. It is available
on the Internet, and it is totally unacceptable.
We have in Congress taken these indicators seriously. In
the past two appropriations cycles, we have appropriated $11
million, and then $24.5 million for the Drug Enforcement
Administration to train local law enforcement in the
interdiction and cleanup of methamphetamine labs. Despite these
appropriations, we see a growing problem. It is time that we
dedicate serious resources to stopping this scourge once and
for all, and for that reason I introduced what is called the
DeFEAT Meth Act at the beginning of this session.
It would authorize $30 million to train local law
enforcement and assist in the cleanup of meth labs in fiscal
year 2000, and additional amounts in each year through fiscal
year 2004. Recently, I am pleased to have had conversations
with Donnie Marshall, the Acting Administrator of DEA. I am
pleased he could join us here today. It has become even more
clear that these resources are sorely needed in our Drug
Enforcement Administration.
My bill would also increase the mandatory minimum sentences
for manufacturing meth. It would increase them substantially if
someone is injured in the course of crimes involving meth.
DeFEAT Meth would also include meth paraphernalia in the
Federal list of illegal paraphernalia. Drug paraphernalia has
been a crime in other drug settings. We haven't amended the law
to include meth manufacturing paraphernalia and the like, and
we ought to.
By focusing on reducing supply through interdiction and
punishment, that is a step in the right direction, but it is
not enough. The legislation would also authorize substantial
resources for education and prevention specifically targeted at
the problem of meth. As I said earlier, local law enforcement
said 10 percent of the students know the recipe for meth. We
need 100 percent of students to know that meth is the recipe
for disaster and death.
The bill that I have sponsored is a simple three-part plan
to solve the problem--stiffer penalties for making meth; more
resources for interdiction, education and prevention; and,
three, a ban on meth paraphernalia. I look forward to working
together, as the chairman has indicated, to assemble the bill
to be on the agenda for this week's executive session. I hope
we can move it in a quick and bipartisan manner. I think this
is one of the areas where we have been able to cooperate very
effectively in the past and can do so again in the future.
I am very pleased that the chairman has introduced his own
meth initiative, and I think together in some of the areas
where we overlap we can obviously clean that up. There are some
minor differences. My bill authorizes more resources for
interdiction and training, and it includes additional
authorization of funds for education and prevention. But I
think we can get these things together, and particularly with
Senator Harkin, who also was here with us today.
I think that working together we have an opportunity to
move forward a package which we will be able to carry to the
floor and ask the Senate to pass so that America can take
charge in this effort of interdicting and curtailing the deadly
impact of methamphetamine in our culture.
I thank the chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Ashcroft.
We will finish with Senator Biden, who has certainly done a
lot in this area.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Biden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
being late. It seems as though you and I have been working on
this one issue for a long, long time. Way back in the early
1990's, back in the good or bad old days, depending on your
perspective, when I was chairman of this committee and the
Democrats were in control, you joined me in a report that we
issued warning everyone that meth was coming.
We talked about the Bloods and the Cripps and how they were
moving into the Northwest and moving into your State. Your
drive-by shootings started to go up in the beautiful State of
Utah. We found we were having pollution problems in streams and
areas in Idaho and Montana, and it was coming East and not
everybody paid attention to it.
I remember talking with my friend from Iowa at the time and
he was aware. I mean, we were talking about that it was going
to hit Iowa, and it hit Iowa big. It hit Iowa not only in terms
of use, but the manufacture. And unfortunately this is
something that we saw coming; we knew it was coming. It wasn't
like the crack epidemic where the only person I recall talking
about the crack epidemic coming from the islands was a guy from
New York named Moynihan. He was the one saying, hey, crack is
coming, and we all kind of looked at Moynihan like, right, yes,
it is a problem, but we will get to it when we can.
We have had a lot of lead time on this. As a matter of
fact, the Hatch-Biden methamphetamine bill in 1996 made some
positive steps. That is why I and others have joined you again,
Mr. Chairman, in making an additional effort here for a new
methamphetamine bill. I will not take the time to go into
detail about the bill because we are going to have time to
debate that and hopefully mark up a bill.
But, you know, one of the things that is happening here is
this Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, which is the new
effort here, is attempting to address the problem of
amphetamine as a meth substitute by making the penalties for
manufacturing, importing or exporting the traffic of
amphetamine equivalent to those established for methamphetamine
in the 1996 law.
The two drugs are nearly identical. They differ only in one
chemical. Whereas methamphetamine is made from ephedrine, a
substance found in some over-the-counter cold remedies,
amphetamine is produced in a different way. And I won't bore
you with all the details. Our witnesses know all about this,
but the bottom line of these drugs that are the designer drugs,
in effect, out there is an interesting phenomenon. Just ask any
cop. The phenomenon is there is incredible violence associated
with methamphetamine. It is the aspect of the drug that makes
it different, different even than cocaine. It is something that
the cops in my State will tell you if they have a call that
there is a suspect who they believe is under the influence of
methamphetamine, they send three or four cops. They don't send
a single cop, literally, not figuratively. It is a different
deal.
And so not only is it spreading, not only do young people
think it is not a dangerous drug--that is the frightening part
of this. An incredible number of the people the Senator from
Missouri referred to, young people, think this is not like
heroin, this is not like cocaine. In fact, in many ways it is
worse than both.
So I agree with the Senator from Missouri. There is no
reason why we can't, in a bipartisan way, attack this, but
let's be honest with one another. This is going to be hard.
This is a hard deal. This is not like we can cut it all off at
the border. There is not a lot of heroin grown in the United
States, so if we had a great interdiction policy theoretically
we could impact on its consumption drastically. This isn't the
same deal and it is going to be harder in many ways.
But I compliment you, Mr. Chairman. Like I said, it seems
like we have been doing this a long time. I guess that is
reason to be discouraged, but another side of it is it is a
reason to be encouraged because we are making incremental
progress here, and hopefully we will come out of these hearings
with a solid piece of legislation. Although I am signed on with
you to the Hatch-Biden alternative, I am not married to that.
If there is a better idea, I am sure you are open to it, and I
am open to it, but hopefully we can make some movement.
Again, I thank the chairman for having this hearing, and
his time and the witnesses being here. I am anxious to hear
what they have to say.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Biden. I have personally
appreciated working with you all these years on the Judiciary
Committee. You have been, if not the leader, certainly one of
the few leaders in this country who has really made a
tremendous impact in some of these areas. We are going to get
staff together today and see if we can come up with something
that would bring us all together so that we can pass this bill
tomorrow because there is no reason for us to not solve all
these problems to the best of our abilities.
The Chairman. At this point, I would like to enter into the
record a statement of Senator DeWine.
[The prepared statement of Senator DeWine follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike DeWine, a U.S. Senator From
the State of Ohio
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to commend you for holding this important
hearing today on a topic which should concern all of us--the rapid
growth of methamphetamine trafficking. My concern has lead me to become
an original cosponsor of ``the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act
of 1999,'' sponsored by our Chairman, as well as the rural
methamphetamine bill sponsored by Senator Grassley, and the High
Intensity Drug Trafficking methamphetamine emphasis bill sponsored by
Senator Ashcroft. I am hopeful that in the end we will develop a strong
compromise.
Throughout my career in public service, I have seen anti-narcotic
strategies that have had varying levels of success. But I have come to
learn that when it comes to the drug problem, we must never take our
eye off the ball, because it continues to change and evolve. That said,
the issue we are examining in today's hearing is part of our continuing
effort to respond to a new trend in drug abuse--the alarming rise in
domestic production and consumption of methamphetamines.
I am particularly interested in seeing that law enforcement has the
personnel and resources needed to tackle this serious problem. Our
efforts must include rural parts of America which have been hit
particularly hard by this emerging crisis. We should also assist in
providing training for local law enforcement to combat methamphetamine.
Our hearing today is an opportunity to focus on the issues that
will impact how we will fight the war on drugs in the next century. As
new methods for drug distribution emerge, such as dispersing recipes
via the Internet, the law must respond. We need to empower our law
enforcement to prosecute those who would knowingly disseminate the
dangerous recipe for methamphetamine on the Internet for an unlawful
purpose.
Finally Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the production of
methamphetamine is actually a very dangerous process in and of itself.
When druglords decide to risk the lives of innocent bystanders and to
degrade the environment to manufacture their illegal products, they
should be held accountable for harm both to people and the environment.
I look forward to being informed by the fine panel we have
assembled today. Thank you all for coming.
We are really pleased to have a tremendous panel of
witnesses here today. Our first witness is Donnie R. Marshall,
the Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration. If you would come to the table, we would
appreciate it.
Our second witness is Paul Warner, our U.S. attorney for
Utah doing a great job out there, and everybody is holding Paul
in high esteem because of the work he is doing in a nonpartisan
way.
Our third witness is Katina Kypridakes, manager of the
Precursor Compliance Unit at the California Bureau of Narcotic
Enforcement. We are particularly happy to have you here with us
today as well.
Our fourth witness is Sheriff Ron Doerge, who is the Newton
County sheriff, in Neosho, MO. Sheriff, we really appreciate
having you here because you are right on the ground, knowing an
awful lot of what is going on in this area, and we appreciate
it.
Our final witness today is one of my constituents for whom
I have high regard, John Vasica. He is a father of a
methamphetamine victim from Sandy, UT. John, we are honored to
have you here. We look forward to hearing your testimony.
I think what I am going to do before you give your
testimony, Mr. Marshall, is have you come up and explain these
methamphetamine lab materials, if you would, and let people
know just a little bit about what this means.
PANEL CONSISTING OF DONNIE R. MARSHALL, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR,
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
WASHINGTON, DC; PAUL M. WARNER, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT
OF UTAH, SALT LAKE CITY, UT; KATINA KYPRIDAKES, MANAGER,
PRECURSOR COMPLIANCE PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA BUREAU OF NARCOTIC
ENFORCEMENT, SACRAMENTO, CA; RON DOERGE, SHERIFF, NEWTON
COUNTY, MO, NEOSHO, MO; AND JOHN VASICA, SANDY, UT
STATEMENT OF DONNIE R. MARSHALL
Mr. Marshall. I would be happy to.
The Chairman. If you will point this out to the audience,
and if you television people want to come over through here,
that is fine with us, and even behind the witnesses if you can
get a better picture, because I think it is important for
people to see this.
Why don't you borrow Mr. Vasica's mike and stand over on
that side so that the media can report this because this is
important. We have just made the case that this is being done
all over America, and it is easy to do it, especially if you
look at the Net. It is absolutely incredible the evil forces in
this land.
We will turn the time over to you, John.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity. I
think the real point here about any methamphetamine lab is the
simplicity of this thing. You see the glassware here is
obtainable in almost any chemical supply house. You see that a
lot of the ingredients here, such as household lye, epsom salt,
Coleman fuel, Prestone starting fluid, are just obtainable at
an auto parts house, at a retail store such as a Wal-Mart or
places like that.
You have phosphorous that is used in some of the recipes,
which is a simple road flare. You have ephedrine and
pseudoephedrine that are used in many of the recipes and that
is obtainable as a cold remedy, actually, in pharmacies and
grocery stores and convenience stores all over the country.
Some of these labs are even simple enough that they use
Mason fruit jars, in some cases actually paper cups from your
local fast-food place. It is a process that is just really so
simple. With the advent of the Internet, as several of you have
referred to, the recipes are out there, all the ingredients,
and the hardware, the glassware, et cetera, are obtainable
very, very easily. And that is one of the reasons that it is so
difficult to control all this is that a lot of these things
have so many legitimate uses.
There are several methods for producing this. There is the
ephedrine-pseudoephedrine method, there is the phenyl-2-
propanol method, and there is the phenylpropanolamine method.
And I am not a chemist, of course, and each of these are
separate, slightly different formulas and slightly different
procedures, but the bottom line is that they all produce a very
easy process, a very potent product.
And one of the points that has already been made is the
difference between amphetamine and methamphetamine. It is a
simple thing of using different chemicals. Amphetamine and
methamphetamine are slightly different strengths, a slightly
different isomer, but nonetheless just as destructive and just
as potent.
The Chairman. Just as addictive.
Mr. Marshall. Just as addictive, yes, and just as, I think,
destructive to the users, and with the violence and the child
abuse and neglect and those sorts of things that we see
associated with methamphetamine equally associated with
amphetamine.
The Chairman. With these materials right here, you could
actually produce a quantity of meth that could be used to
undermine our youth?
Mr. Marshall. Yes. The smaller labs would result--the
simple things using one or two beakers or the paper cups would
produce about 2 ounces. You graduate to the beakers, and even
with larger beakers of this sort, that moves you into the super
lab. And this is not really a super lab setup, but the super
labs are capable of producing--what we call a super lab is 10
pounds or more. Some of them we have seized can actually
produce hundreds of pounds.
Senator Biden. What does 2 ounces do? If you don't mind,
Mr. Chairman, give the folks a sense of what 2 ounces can do.
Mr. Marshall. I am not sure, Senator, about the number of
dosage units for 2 ounces. But if my math is correct, I believe
2 ounces would supply an individual user for several weeks at a
time.
Senator Biden. That is the point. I mean, it is not a
single dose.
The Chairman. Right.
Mr. Marshall. No. Two ounces is multiple doses, actually.
The Chairman. Tell us a little bit about this police outfit
you are standing by. What is the significance of that?
Mr. Marshall. This is an illustration of the clandestine
lab gear that we use to actually go in and take down the
laboratories. We find that there are many toxic chemicals in
these places. They use the lye, they use acetone, ether, those
kinds of things. A lot of the stuff that they use is very
flammable. Some of it is explosive.
They use sodium metal, for instance, and if it comes in
contact with water, it is an instant explosion. And then if you
combine that with the flammable chemicals, you see the hazard
here. Many of these laboratories are booby-trapped. Many of
these laboratories are guarded by the traffickers, and so what
we have here is protective gear which is not only antiballistic
gear, but it also has the respiratory protection. And hopefully
this provides the individual officer going into these
laboratories the kind of protection he needs from the flammable
and explosive capability, as well as the fumes and exposure to
those hazardous vapors.
The Chairman. That is very good. We appreciate you taking
time to do that. We will be happy to take your testimony now.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members
of the committee. It is really a pleasure and an honor to be
here to discuss this critical issue in our country today. I
would like to provide the committee over the next few minutes
with information on how, where and why this explosion in
methamphetamine and the tragedies that go with it have
occurred, and how Federal law enforcement, along with our State
and local partners, are trying to work together across the
Nation to address the problem.
We have already seen the laboratory equipment up there and
the protective gear, and I would just reiterate the importance
of the simplicity of this whole procedure. Now, methamphetamine
is not really a new problem in the United States. I saw it in
Austin, TX, when I was a rookie DEA agent almost 30 years ago.
But what we have seen in about the last 5 years is a
tremendous upsurge in trafficking and abuse. It started on the
West Coast. It expanded rapidly to the Midwest and to a lesser
extent to the southeastern United States. Our statistics show--
and I believe I have one chart over here--that in 1993--Senator
Ashcroft has already referred a little bit to this--we seized a
total of 218 methamphetamine labs that DEA was involved in. The
total has increased significantly to the point where in 1998
DEA was involved in over 1,600 methamphetamine laboratories,
and to date, in 1999, we have seized over 1,200.
Now, what this chart shows actually is a combination of
Federal and State and local laboratory seizures. So you can see
there--I believe it is in the blue is the DEA-only seizures, or
seizures in which we were involved. The red figure is the
figure in each State that State and local police seized and
reported to us. Now, I would caution here that even these
numbers are not necessarily all-inclusive because there are
more than 16,000 police agencies and these are the ones that
have come to our attention.
Now, with DEA, our methamphetamine arrests have also
increased, from 1,893 arrests in 1993 to over 7,500 arrests in
1998. That is an increase of 300 percent in just 5 short years.
Today, we see that about 21 percent of all DEA arrests are for
methamphetamine violations.
In 1998, the year that is shown on this chart, of the 1,627
labs that were seized by DEA, 71 of those were classified as
super labs capable of producing 10 pounds or more. And we
estimate that in spite of the proliferation of the number of
these smaller labs, it is actually the super labs that produce
over 80 percent of the methamphetamine that we see today.
The Chairman. What would 10 pounds of methamphetamine be
worth on the street?
Mr. Marshall. It is my recollection that it is about
between $50 and $10,000 per pound of methamphetamine, depending
on the part of the country.
The Chairman. You are talking $50 to $100,000. So one of
these super labs can make $50 to $100,000 in a relatively short
period of time?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, and I will check on those figures and be
sure that my prices are right.
The Chairman. Sure.
Mr. Marshall. There are two major forces today fueling this
methamphetamine. You have got, first, the super lab
methamphetamine trafficking or manufacture, and this is fueled
by organized groups that are based in or have association with
trafficking groups in Mexico. The second problem that we have
is a series of widely scattered smaller labs by independent
producers predominantly based in rural areas around the
country.
Now, the traffickers in Mexico have become really powerful
and they dominate the methamphetamine trade in the United
States. These groups have risen to power over the last few
years. Their rise to power is described in my written
statement, but the main Mexico-based organization that is
involved in methamphetamine is the Amezcua brothers. They
produce methamphetamine on a very large scale and ship it into
the United States. The Amezcua brothers and some of their
Mexico-based operatives have actually be indicted in the United
States, but thus far they have not been extradited to face
trial here.
These organizations in Mexico have long-established poly-
drug distribution networks, and they have had those networks in
place with regard to marijuana and heroin trafficking for many
years. And they have used those as a basis to move into
numerous communities around the Nation, particularly in areas
where Mexican workers are involved in industries like
agriculture and meat packing. So it is now common to find
traffickers from Mexico that have established themselves in
many U.S. communities.
Now, these traffickers, many of them, are illegal aliens
and they blend in very easily with the Mexican community in
these places. The vast majority of this Mexican community are
law-abiding citizens, and these traffickers simply blend in
with them and distribute huge quantities of methamphetamine.
The production level of the smaller laboratories that are
often described by us as mom-and-pop labs--the level is
relatively low, an ounce here and there. However, a large
number of these labs that we are seeing around the country
really create probably the most drastic environmental and law
enforcement concerns, and it really is a problem that has just
overwhelmed not only DEA but our State and local counterparts.
So methamphetamine, as we have heard already, is the only
drug that we know of which an addict without much chemical
expertise can make on his own, purchasing all of these things
in retail stores and basically getting the recipe off the
Internet or from friends.
Now, the cleanup of these clandestine laboratories across
the country costs DEA and other government agencies millions of
dollars. One of the Senators quoted a figure of about $2,700, I
believe. My figures are slightly different than that, but the
bottom line is DEA has spent almost $11 million over the last 2
years to clean up almost 4,000 clandestine laboratories.
Now, I would like to talk a little bit about our strategy.
Our strategy encompasses several elements. It includes
targeting and building cases against the major traffickers, not
only in Mexico but their surrogates operating in the United
States. It includes assisting State and local agencies in
making cases against those traffickers operating in their
communities and neighborhoods.
It involves partnering with State and local enforcement to
assist in training and cleanup of those laboratories. And last,
and perhaps the one that has really had somewhat of an impact,
is controlling the precursor chemicals necessary for the
production in Mexico and the United States. Thanks to this
committee and the Congress and the generous budgets that DEA
has gotten over the last several years, we have been able to
allocate an additional 287 positions and about $35 million to
methamphetamine efforts across the country over the last
several years.
Training is one place that we spend a lot of that money. We
provide clandestine laboratory safety and certification
training not only for our own agents, but for State and local
officers as well. Since 1997, we have conducted a total of 62
laboratory certification schools for 2,300, almost 2,400 DEA
agents and State and local people across the country.
I would like to talk a little bit now about the situation
as we are seeing it right now in the country. We are cautiously
optimistic, Senator, that our chemical control efforts
supported by the 1996 Act, combined with aggressive law
enforcement efforts in the local police arena--we are confident
that we are seeing the beginning of some results from there.
We are seeing a decrease in methamphetamine purity, and
particularly in the Mexican-operated super labs. And I believe
that that is perhaps a reflection of the difficulty in getting
chemicals, along with the aggressive law enforcement. But in
spite of that success, that could be fleeting, and the success
against the Mexican labs is really a different problem from the
smaller lab-based methamphetamine problem. That is going to be
something that is much, much more difficult to get a handle on.
Now, the law enforcement agencies in the Midwest and
California are reporting on this purity issue that about a year
ago they were seeing methamphetamine in the 80-percent-pure
range. And now we are seeing in most places that the Mexican
methamphetamine purity has dropped to about 30 percent. And
again I want to reiterate that I believe that is largely the
fruits of what we have been able to do as a result of the
Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996, and I thank this committee
for your support of that issue.
So, in summary, what I would like to say is that while I am
cautiously optimistic that we are making progress, I think that
some of the measures that are in these various bills can build
upon the progress that we have already made. I think that we
can use this present success and the additional measures really
as a foundation to move forward and hopefully make even more
progress in the future, thanks to your support.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today and at
the appropriate time would be happy to try to answer any
questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, and we appreciate it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donnie R. Marshall
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: I am pleased to have the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the growing dangers
that methamphetamine trafficking, use and abuse, and the spread of
clandestine drug laboratories, pose to the citizens of our country. It
is fair to say that methamphetamine is one of the most significant law
enforcement and social issues facing our nation today, and it has
affected specific regions of the country in a dramatic fashion.
The recent escalation of methamphetamine production and trafficking
coincided with the growing power of the trafficking organizations based
in Mexico after the arrests of the major leaders of the Cali mafia in
the summer of 1995. Methamphetamine trafficking and use have increased
exponentially over the past five years, and my testimony today will
provide the committee with information on how, where and why this has
occurred, and how federal law enforcement is working with state and
local partners across the nation to address the methamphetamine
problem.
While methamphetamine is not an entirely new problem in the United
States, about five years ago an upsurge in methamphetamine trafficking
and abuse began taking hold in many regions of the nation, starting on
the West Coast, and rapidly expanding into the Midwest and, to a lesser
extent, the Southeastern United States. DEA statistics indicate that in
1993, DEA seized a total of 218 methamphetamine labs. This total
increased to 263 labs in 1994; 327 labs in 1995; and 879 labs in 1996.
In 1997, DEA participated in the seizure of 1,451 clandestine labs, 98
percent of which were methamphetamine labs. In fiscal year 1998, DEA
seized over 1,600 methamphetamine laboratories, and to date in fiscal
year 1999, we have seized over 1,200.
Clandestine drug labs have been a concern for law enforcement since
the 1960's when outlaw motorcycle gangs began producing their own
methamphetamine in these labs and dominated the distribution of the
drug within the United States. Although clandestine drug laboratories
can also be used to produce other types of illicit drugs (i.e. PCP,
MDMA, LSD, etc.), methamphetamine has always been the primary drug
manufactured in the vast majority of labs seized by law enforcement. In
1998, 71 (4.4 percent) of the 1,627 clandestine methamphetamine labs
seized by DEA were classified by the agency as ``super labs.'' A
``super lab'' is a clandestine laboratory operation which is capable of
producing 10 pounds or more of methamphetamine in a single production
cycle, which is indicative of operation by a structured organization.
Of the 71 ``super labs'' seized by DEA nationwide in 1998, 57 of these
laboratories were seized in the State of California alone. DEA
estimates that methamphetamine ``super labs'' currently produce over 80
percent of the methamphetamine available today in the United States.
The violence associated with methamphetamine trafficking and use
has also produced a collateral impact on the crime statistics of
communities across the U.S., particularly in the western United States.
Television viewers nationwide recently watched live footage of a
paranoid methamphetamine addict who stole a tank from a National Guard
armory and went on a car crushing rampage in the San Diego area.
Another methamphetamine addict in New Mexico beheaded his son after
experiencing hallucinations in which he believed his son was Satan. In
1997, in Contra Costa County, near San Francisco, police found that
methamphetamine was involved in 447 cases of domestic violence.
Since 1994, the number of DEA related methamphetamine arrests has
increased precipitously, rising from 1,893 arrests in 1993 to 7,587
arrests in 1998, an increase of over 300 percent. Today, roughly 21
percent of all DEA arrests are for methamphetamine related drug
violations, a total only surpassed by cocaine related arrests, which
encompass roughly 45 percent of overall agency arrest totals.
methamphetamine production and trafficking
International organized crime groups based in Mexico
Today, there are two major forces fueling the methamphetamine trade
within the United States: first, the well-organized, high volume,
``super lab'' methamphetamine manufacturing and trafficking groups
based in Mexico; and second, a widely scattered series of local
methamphetamine producers, predominantly based in rural areas around
the country.
Traffickers based in Mexico have had a long history of involvement
in poly-drug production and smuggling. For years, these powerful and
violent groups produced and smuggled marijuana and heroin into the
United States, dominating the heroin trade in the Southwest and Midwest
regions of the nation. During the early 1990's, the Cali drug mafia
reached an accommodation with trafficking groups based in Mexico who
agreed to transport multi-ton quantities of cocaine into the United
States. At first, transporters from Mexico were paid in cash, but
eventually they negotiated to be paid in cocaine, which they
distributed themselves within the United States. This series of changes
in the cocaine trade, along with the arrest of the powerful Cali
leaders in 1995 and 1996, greatly strengthened the organizations from
Mexico.
The Increased power and sophistication of the Mexican traffickers
led them to seek to successfully dominate all phases of the
methamphetamine trade, from beginning to end. Because methamphetamine
is a synthetic drug created from a mixture of chemicals, traffickers
based in Mexico did not have to rely on traffickers in other nations to
provide coca or finished cocaine for distribution. These groups
initially had ready access to precursor chemicals on the international
market. These chemicals have fewer controls in Mexico and overseas than
in the United States, a fact which allowed the organizations to produce
large quantities of high purity methamphetamine in clandestine
laboratories, both in Mexico and southern California. Methamphetamine
organizations based in Mexico have developed international connections
with chemical suppliers in Europe, Asia, and the Far East, and with
these connections, they have been able to obtain ton quantities of the
necessary precursor chemicals (ephedrine and pseudo-ephedrine) to
manufacture methamphetamine and amphetamine. In recent years, with the
growth of DEA led international efforts to control the flow of bulk
ephedrine and pseudo-ephedrine, Mexican traffickers have also turned to
tablet forms of these precursors to manufacture their product and now
frequently buy their products from rogue chemical suppliers in the
United States.
The Amezcua-Contreras brothers, operating out of Guadalajara,
Mexico, head a methamphetamine production and trafficking organization
with global dimensions. Their drug trafficking organization is one of
Mexico's largest smugglers of ephedrine and clandestine producers of
methamphetamine. By exploiting the legitimate international chemical
trade, this organization holds the key to producing methamphetamine on
a grand scale. Information developed by U.S. and Government of Mexico
(GOM) investigations indicate that the Amezcua organization obtains
large quantities of the precursor ephedrine, utilizing contacts in
Thailand and India, which they then supply to methamphetamine
laboratories in Mexico and the U.S. The activities of this group have
significantly impacted a number of U.S. cities and have contributed to
the growing methamphetamine abuse problem in the U.S.
Until their arrests by the GOM in June 1998, the Amezcua
organization was directed by Jesus Amezcua, and supported by his
brothers, Adan and Luis. During 1998, all GOM charges against Luis and
Jesus Amezcua were dismissed by Mexican courts due to insufficient
evidence. Both Luis and Jesus Amezcua were then ordered released by the
courts but were re-arrested by the GOM based on U.S. provisional arrest
warrants. These U.S. provisional arrest warrants are currently the only
charges holding Luis and Jesus Amezcua. In January and February 1999,
the GOM ruled that Luis and Jesus Amezcua were extraditable to the U.S.
Both defendants have filed a judicial appeal against extradition, and
their fate is pending on the outcome of Mexican judicial rulings. On
May 19, 1999, Adan Amezcua, who was originally arrested in November
1997 on weapons charges and then rearrested in March 1999 for money
laundering violations, was released from prison. The money laundering
charges against Adan were dismissed due to a lack of evidence. In spite
of the continued incarceration of Jesus and Luis Amezcua in Mexico, the
Amezcua-Contreras trafficking organization still maintains active cells
in the United States. The center of the Amezcua's trafficking
activities in the U.S. originates in California, either as a
manufacturing point or as an initial storage site after methamphetamine
is imported from Mexico.
In addition to readily available precursor chemicals which allow
groups from Mexico, such as the Amezcuas, to produce thousands of
pounds of methamphetamine in laboratories in Mexico and California, the
methamphetamine organizations based in Mexico also have well-
established, polydrug distribution networks in place throughout our
country. Trafficking organizations from Mexico have infiltrated
numerous communities around the nation, particularly areas where large
numbers of Mexican workers are involved in the meat packing business or
other agricultural industries. It is common now to find hundreds of
traffickers from Mexico, some of them illegal aliens, established in
communities like Boise, Des Moines, Omaha, Charlotte and Kansas City,
distributing multi-pound quantities of methamphetamine.
The impact of methamphetamine trafficking on these communities has
been devastating. In Iowa, health officials expressed deep concern
about the thousands of infants who have been exposed to methamphetamine
before their births. Furthermore, an expert associated with Marshall
County Iowa's Juvenile Court Services estimated that in 1998, one third
of the 1,600 students at Marshalltown High School had tried
methamphetamine. Methamphetamine production also poses a grave problem
to the communities in which the drug is located. Several years ago,
during a major case, DEA discovered a working methamphetamine
laboratory at an equestrian center where children were taking riding
lessons. In another case, a laboratory capable of producing 180 pounds
of methamphetamine was discovered within a thousand feet of a junior
high school. This type of discovery is being made more and more
frequently by DEA and other law enforcement agencies working
methamphetamine cases.
Domestically produced methamphetamine
While the vast majority of methamphetamine available in the United
States is produced and trafficked by the well-organized groups from
Mexico, domestic production of methamphetamine by United States
citizens is also a significant problem. The production level of these
laboratories, often makeshift and described as ``mom and pop'' labs, is
relatively low; however, the large number of these labs and the
environmental and law enforcement concerns associated with their
operation, poses major problems to state and local law enforcement
agencies, as well as to DEA.
Our nation's growing methamphetamine lab epidemic can also be
attributed to the evolution of technology and the increased use of the
Internet. In the past, methamphetamine chemists closely guarded their
drug recipes; but with modern computer technology and the increasing
willingness of chemists to share their recipes, this information is now
available to anyone with computer access. Methamphetamine is one of the
only widely abused controlled substances which an addict, without
chemical expertise, can make on his own. A cocaine or heroin addict
cannot make his own cocaine or heroin, but a methamphetamine addict
only has to turn on his computer to find a recipe for the chemicals and
developmental processes required to make the drug.
Methamphetamine is, in fact, a very simple drug to produce. A user
can go to retail stores and easily purchase the vast majority of the
ingredients necessary to manufacture the drug. Items such as rock salt,
battery acid, red phosphorous road flares, pool acid, and iodine
crystals can be utilized to substitute for some of the necessary
chemicals. A clandestine lab operator can utilize relatively common
items such as mason jars, coffee filters, hot plates, pressure cookers,
pillowcases, plastic tubing, gas cans, etc., to substitute for
sophisticated laboratory equipment. Unlike Fentanyl, LSD, or other
types of dangerous drugs, it does not take a college educated chemist
to produce methamphetamine. In fact, less than 10 percent of those
suspects arrested for the manufacture of methamphetamine are trained
chemists, which may be one reason we see so many fires, explosions, and
injuries in clandestine lab incidents.
Despite the fact that the majority of these laboratories produce
relatively small amounts of methamphetamine, the proliferation of this
type of laboratory has imposed terrible burdens on law enforcement
agencies and departments in states like Missouri. In 1992, only two
clandestine lab seizures in Missouri were reported to DEA; by 1997,
Missouri was ranked the number one state in per capita methamphetamine
lab seizures. In 1998, 679 clandestine lab seizures were reported in
Missouri, tying the state for second, with Utah (Nevada was first) in
per capita clandestine laboratory seizures. In addition, the states of
Arkansas, Iowa, Oklahoma, Oregon, Kansas and Arizona each seized in
excess of 200 methamphetamine laboratories in 1998. Smaller ``mom and
pop'' lab operations are even a significant problem in California,
despite the state's high concentration of ``super labs.''
In some respects, the methamphetamine problem is synonymous with
the clandestine laboratory problem (as previously mentioned, over 98
percent of clandestine labs seized are now methamphetamine labs) and
this issue has been the focus of much media attention in recent months.
Although the methamphetamine problem and the clandestine lab problem
are both part of the same drug abuse mosaic, in reality, they are
somewhat different issues which may require a different law enforcement
response in order to successfully combat the spiraling increases in
both arenas.
The threats posed by clandestine labs are not limited to fire,
explosion, poison gas, drug abuse, and booby traps; the chemical
contamination of the hazardous waste contained in these labs also poses
a serious danger to our nation's environment. Each pound of
methamphetamine generated in a clandestine lab can result in as much as
five pounds of toxic waste, which clandestine lab operators routinely
dump into our nations streams, rivers, and sewage systems to cover up
the evidence of their illegal operations. Because of the possibility of
explosions and direct contact with toxic fumes and hazardous chemicals,
law enforcement officers who raid clandestine drug labs are now
required to take special hazardous materials (HAZMAT) handling
training. Today, the police officer who improperly disposes toxic waste
materials could be exposing himself to civil liability under the
federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The chemical reactions that occur during the manufacture of
methamphetamine also produce chemical vapors that can permeate into the
walls, carpets, plaster, and wood of the houses and buildings in which
they are located. The cleanup of these clandestine laboratories across
the nation costs DEA and other government agencies millions of dollars
annually. The average clandestine laboratory costs approximately $3,000
to cleanup. Large laboratories can result in costs exceeding $100,000.
Such large sums of money could easily bankrupt a small sheriffs
department, which is why it is essential for these smaller law
enforcement entities to involve state and federal authorities in the
larger clandestine lab investigations during the early stages of case
development.
The size of lab does not matter when it comes to the danger level
involved in a clandestine laboratory raid. The smaller labs are usually
more dangerous than the larger operations because the cooks are
generally less experienced chemists who often have little regard for
the safety issues that arise when dealing with explosive and poisonous
chemicals. However, the size of a clandestine laboratory can be a
significant factor in the costs associated with the hazardous waste
cleanup. Larger production laboratories usually have larger quantities
of toxic chemicals, and therefore, more significant hazardous waste
disposal charges.
dea's strategy to fight methamphetamine
DEA's methamphetamine strategy encompasses several elements,
including targeting and building cases against the major
methamphetamine traffickers based in Mexico, and against their
surrogates operating in the United States today; assisting state and
local law enforcement agencies in making cases against methamphetamine
manufacturers and traffickers working in the United States; partnering
with state and local law enforcement to assist with training and
laboratory clean-up; and controlling the precursor chemicals necessary
for methamphetamine production in Mexico and the United States.
Since fiscal year 1998, due to the generous contributions of the
President and Congress, DEA has targeted over 297 positions (160
Special Agents) and $35.6 million on methamphetamine enforcement
efforts across the United States. While the majority of this funding
has been used for personnel resources, remaining funds have been used
for the purchase of clandestine laboratory vehicles, the continued
development of DEA's Clandestine Laboratory Database and the cleanup of
clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. Today, DEA provides
contracted clandestine laboratory cleanup services for DEA Special
Agents as well as state and local law enforcement personnel across the
country. Funding for this purpose is provided to the agency by the
President and the Congress through the Assets Forfeiture Fund, DEA
direct appropriation and the COPS program. In 1997, DEA provided for
the clean-up of 1,383 clandestine drug laboratories nationwide, at a
cost of $6.8 million. In 1998, this total rose to 1,919 clandestine
laboratories at a cost of $5.8 million. To date, in 1999, DEA has
provided for the clean-up of 1,812 clandestine laboratories at a cost
of $5.0 million.
dea clandestine laboratory safety/certification training
In 1987, DEA created a special training unit for clandestine
laboratory safety/certification training which is located at the U.S.
Marine Corp Base at Camp Upshur, Quantico, Virginia. This unit
originated in response to concerns from DEA management that the
agency's Special Agents and task force officers were being exposed to
hazardous, toxic, and carcinogenic chemicals while executing raids on
clandestine drug laboratories. Some DEA field offices, primarily in the
state of California, were reporting that Special Agents and officers
appeared to be suffering serious health problems as a result of both
short and long-term exposure to the chemical and toxic fumes
encountered when processing these drug laboratories. The U.S. Code of
Federal Regulations, 29 C.F.R. 1910.12, now mandates that all federal,
state, and local law enforcement officers must receive at least 24
hours of hazardous chemical handling training (specific Occupational
Safety, Health and Administration (OSHA) standards for courses and
equipment), prior to entering a clandestine drug laboratory.
Reports from DEA and state police records indicate that at least
five or six meth producers are now being killed every year from
explosions and/or fires in clandestine labs. Many more receive serious
burns or develop serious health problems from clandestine laboratory
explosions and fires. There have been reports of apartment complexes
and a $3,500,000 hotel which burned down as the result of drug lab
``cooks'' that turned into chemical time bombs. Recent years have seen
an increase in the number of injuries to untrained police officers who
investigate and/or dismantle clandestine laboratories without utilizing
the proper safety equipment.
Reports of property damage and injuries to children from drug lab
disasters have also increased throughout the nation. During 1997, the
Kansas City area fire department authorities were reporting fires, on
an almost monthly basis, that originated from clandestine
methamphetamine laboratory operations or the use of precursor
chemicals. In Independence, Missouri, the Chief of Police reported that
during the last two years, at least six individuals have been killed in
fires that resulted from clandestine methamphetamine laboratories.
Police reports from California and Oklahoma indicate an increase in
deaths from invisible poisonous phosphine gas.
In response to the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations which mandates
that all law enforcement officers must have completed a clandestine lab
safety school prior to entering a methamphetamine lab, DEA has
initiated an aggressive training schedule to increase the number of
clandestine laboratory safety schools provided to state and local
police throughout the nation. The DEA Clandestine Laboratory Safety
Program conducts its safety/certification schools at the DEA
Clandestine Laboratory Training Facility in Quantico Virginia. An
auxiliary regional training facility has also been established for the
Midwest U.S., near Kansas City. This specialized unit frequently
conducts in-service training and seminars for law enforcement groups
such as the Clandestine Laboratory Investigators Association (CLIA) and
the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). In addition,
the DEA Clandestine Laboratory Training Unit provides police awareness
training seminars to law enforcement organizations across the U.S., as
well as the annual re-certification training which is mandated by 29
C.F.R. 1910.12.
Students who graduate from the DEA Clandestine Lab School in
Quantico, Virginia, are issued over $2,000 in specialized clandestine
lab safety gear. Some of the items issued include: Level III nomex
fire-resistant ballistic vests; nomex fire-resistant jackets, pants,
and gloves; chemical resistant boots; air purified respirators; combat
retention holsters; special flashlights; chemical resistant clothing
for conducting hazard assessments and processing drug labs; and goggles
to prevent eye injuries in the event a suspect throws acid or other
dangerous chemicals at law enforcement personnel. Since 1997, DEA has
conducted a total of 62 clandestine laboratory certification schools
for 2,384 Special Agents and state and local law enforcement personnel
across the country.
Today, we are cautiously optimistic that our chemical control
efforts, combined with aggressive anti-methamphetamine law enforcement
efforts in the local police arena, have been the catalyst for the
decrease in methamphetamine purity. However, success in combating the
smaller lab-based methamphetamine problem may be much, more difficult
to achieve. As previously indicated, the dawn of the Internet has
released a plethora of methamphetamine formulas for the public to
choose from, and everything that is needed to manufacture
methamphetamine can be purchased at your local department store, where
federal and state law enforcement officials have to rely on voluntary
compliance measures instituted by industry.
In recent months, several DEA offices in the Midwest and California
have reported that the purity of Mexican methamphetamine has
significantly dropped in the majority of controlled purchases and
seizures. Many law enforcement agencies in the Midwest and California
are now reporting that the previous high purity (80 percent+ range) of
Mexican methamphetamine has now dropped to less than 30 percent.
Information provided by DEA's System to Retrieve Information from Drug
Evidence (STRIDE) shows that nationally, the average purity for
methamphetamine has dropped from 60.5 percent in 1995 to 27.2 percent
in 1999.
impact of the methamphetamine control act of 1996
Without strong and innovative laws to help federal, state and local
law enforcement meet the challenges posed by methamphetamine production
and trafficking, law enforcement's mission would be all the more
difficult. One of the most important pieces of legislation developed in
our nation's ongoing fight against methamphetamine trafficking and
abuse is the Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996 (MCA), which was
developed under the leadership of Chairman Hatch and other members of
the Judiciary Committee, most prominently Senators Feinstein and Biden.
This act specifically targets the diversion of ephedrine combination
drug products and drug products containing pseudoephedrine and
phenylpropanolamine. As I noted earlier, beginning in 1996, seizures of
methamphetamine laboratories began to rise dramatically and early on,
almost all of these laboratories were using pseudoephedrine drug
products as their source of precursor material. The MCA subjected these
products to full regulatory control at the manufacturer and distributor
level, allowing us to track the production and sale of these products
nationally. It also provided specific exemptions at the retail level so
that legitimate consumers of these products were not affected.
In addition, the MCA provided the impetus for a number of major
pharmaceutical retailers to adopt voluntary measures, such as
restrictions on the volume of sales of these products, to individual
customers. The Drug Enforcement Administration and Wal-Mart have formed
a partnership to control large-scale purchases of three key over-the-
counter (OTC) products, pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and
phenylpropanolamine, used in the clandestine manufacture of
methamphetamine and amphetamine. After meeting with DEA representatives
at a national meeting of Wal-Mart pharmacy managers in Kansas City,
Missouri, on January 16, 1997, Wal-Mart management moved to restrict
sales of these allergy/cold/diet preparations which have been diverted
from legitimate use and seized in clandestine labs throughout
California, Western, Southwestern, and Midwestern States.
Another major feature of the MCA was the requirement that mail
order distributors report their sales to individual users, to DEA on a
monthly basis. These firms had been a major source of pseudoephedrine
products for methamphetamine laboratory operators. This reporting
requirement, coupled with the fact that these firms were now required
to become registered with the DEA, has had a major impact on the
activities of these firms.
Overall, the new controls implemented through the MCA, augmented by
voluntary measures instituted by industry, have made it increasingly
difficult for large laboratory operators to obtain substantial
quantities of precursor materials domestically. In fact, while the
number of laboratories seized has continued to increase, this increase
is attributed to the growth in the number of small laboratories
producing ounce quantities of methamphetamine. Laboratories of this
size are still able to obtain sufficient cough and cold drug products
containing the necessary methamphetamine precursors at the retail
distribution level to satisfy their needs, despite the voluntary
efforts of industry.
conclusion
Methamphetamine, and other controlled substances which are produced
in clandestine laboratories provide an increasing threat to drug law
enforcement personnel as well as the citizens of our nation. The vast
power and influence of international drug trafficking syndicates,
particularly those based in Mexico, continues to grow. Their impact on
communities around our nation is devastating.
Domestically-based drug traffickers who engage in methamphetamine
production and trafficking are also a major threat to our nation's
stability. Since methamphetamine is relatively easy to produce, and
with the proliferation of information on methamphetamine production
available on the Internet, unscrupulous individuals will continue to
take part in this illegal and dangerous enterprise. Traffickers only
need $1,000 worth of chemicals to make $10,000 in methamphetamine in a
trailer, a hotel room or house in any location within the United
States.
As the number of clandestine labs operated by both internationally-
based criminal organizations and ``mom and pop,'' small, independent
groups continues to escalate, the chances of narcotics officers, or
other uniformed personnel, inadvertently encountering clandestine labs
will become more and more prevalent. In the years to come, DEA will
continue to work to improve its efforts in the methamphetamine arena to
ensure a safe future for both our law enforcement personnel dedicated
to addressing this dangerous problem as well as our citizens. I thank
you for providing me with this opportunity to address the Committee and
I look forward to taking any questions you may have on this important
subject.
Senator Biden. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes, Senator Biden.
Senator Biden. I would like to apologize to you and the
witnesses. We are marking up a bill in the Foreign Relations
Committee and I am going to go downstairs for that. I have to
go there because I am the ranking member there. I will probably
miss the testimony, but I will be back to ask questions.
As the DEA knows, meth has made it to the East. The largest
lab in the Northeast was busted last year in little Dover, DE,
50 pounds seized. So this is a universal problem. But I do want
to apologize to the witnesses for not being here to listen to
their testimony. And I think Senator Ashcroft is probably going
to go to the same markup.
Senator Ashcroft. I am going to try and stay here until the
call comes.
Senator Biden. Well, since he has an amendment for the
markup that I disagree with, I hope he stays here the whole
time. [Laughter.]
I think you should concentrate on this, Senator, where we
agree, and I will tell you what happened at the markup.
Anyway, thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Biden.
Mr. Warner, we are honored to have you here and we look
forward to taking your testimony at this time.
STATEMENT OF PAUL M. WARNER
Mr. Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning
members of the committee. I want to thank Chairman Hatch for
the kind introduction. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to
testify before the committee on the critical problem of
methamphetamine and some of the steps that we are taking in
Utah to deal with this threat to public safety. I intend to
keep my oral remarks brief, and therefore I would request that
my entire statement be made a part of the record.
First, I can tell you without exaggeration that the meth
problem in Utah today is our most serious threat to public
safety. Let me provide you with just a few statistics that help
demonstrate the severity of the problem. I know, Mr. Chairman,
you are aware of many of these.
As of last week, with a little more than 2 months remaining
in fiscal year 1999, the DEA Metro Narcotics Task Force in Salt
Lake City had made 308 arrests on meth-related charges. This is
a 14-percent increase over all of fiscal year 1998 and a 34-
percent increase over fiscal year 1997. Similar trends are seen
in the number of clandestine labs seized by the task force.
Perhaps the most troubling numbers, however, relate to the
quantities of meth seized. They have increased dramatically
over the last 3 years as well. Let me emphasize that these
numbers do not include arrests and seizures made by other
Federal agencies such as the FBI. Additionally, meth abuse is
driving much of the other crime in Utah, such as burglaries and
theft. The commission of these crimes can almost invariably be
traced to the support of a meth habit. Finally, the very
existence of a meth lab in the community poses a significant
danger, as has been discussed earlier, as an environmental
hazard. Cleanup costs drain precious law enforcement resources.
Now, there are two key components to the meth problem in
Utah. The first component is the home-grown problem,
clandestine meth labs. Indeed, I am currently being told that
now Utah has the dubious distinction of having the highest per-
capita number of illegal meth labs of any State in the Union.
This part of the problem involves U.S. citizens operating
relatively small labs and producing comparatively small amounts
of very pure meth. At least 213 such labs have been taken down
in Utah so far in fiscal year 1999.
The second component of the meth problem in Utah is what we
call Mexican meth. This component of Utah's problem, and our
response to it, bares directly on controlling methamphetamine
proliferation in Utah and also throughout the rest of the
United States. Meth is being produced in large quantities in
Mexico, as has also been noted previously. Criminal aliens
enter the United States illegally and then come to Utah
bringing meth with them. Let me take a moment to describe some
of what we have been doing to address both the meth and the
criminal alien problem, which are obviously related.
First, we have created a new drug section in our office,
establishing a high priority for meth prosecutions and adding
new resources provided by Congress. This section is now staffed
with 5 attorneys, including 2 who are dedicated to OCDETF
cases. So far in fiscal year 1999, we have indicted
approximately 165 defendants. I estimate approximately 75
percent of these cases were meth-related.
In addition to these efforts within the Federal law
enforcement establishment, we have also actively supported
State and local efforts as well. For instance, a number of
defendants were charged in State court with methamphetamine
offenses as a result of our OCDETF investigations. Moreover,
Federal law enforcement in Utah is strongly supporting the
Rocky Mountain HIDTA, which in Utah is dedicated nearly
exclusively to meth cases.
The second prong of our initiative involves prosecuting
criminal alien cases. Now, I understand that this can be a
sensitive subject and that the link between these cases and the
meth problem may not be readily apparent to some. However, it
is my view that because of the prevalence of Mexican meth,
these types of cases are intimately intertwined and that we
cannot get a handle on the meth problem without also attacking
the criminal alien problem as well. We are aggressively
pursuing these cases.
Again, we are showing results. Last year, we prosecuted 313
reentry cases in Utah. The vast majority of the criminal alien
cases we prosecute involve defendants with drug-related
convictions, as well as lengthy criminal histories. Many of
these are methamphetamine-related offenses.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, if I could make a general comment on
where we go from here, either we want to confront this problem
or we don't. If we do, then adequate resources must be provided
to do the job, and I can promise you at least in Utah that if
you give us these resources, we will get the job done. I know
my fellow U.S. attorneys around the country share my commitment
to this as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity and
at the appropriate time I would be pleased to respond to
questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Warner.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul M. Warner
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. And thank
you, Chairman Hatch, for that kind introduction. I have the honor of
being the United States Attorney for the District of Utah, and I
greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Committee on
the critical problem of methamphetamine trafficking, its production and
abuse, as well as some of the steps we are taking in Utah to deal with
this threat to public safety.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will summarize the major
points I would like the Committee to understand, and I request that my
entire statement be made a part of the record.
I have been a prosecutor for almost a quarter of a century, and I
have been a federal prosecutor for the past eleven years. Before the
President nominated me to be the U.S. Attorney for Utah, I had served
in the Utah U.S. Attorney's office as First Assistant, as Chief of the
Criminal Division, and as Violent Crimes Coordinator for the office. I
can tell you without exaggeration that the meth problem in Utah today
is the most serious criminal threat to public safety we face.
Let me provide you with just a few statistics that demonstrate the
severity of the problem.
As of last week, with a little more than two months remaining in
fiscal year 1999, the DEA/Metro Narcotics Task Force in Salt Lake City
has made 308 arrests on meth related charges. This is a 14 percent
increase over the 270 Task Force arrests for meth in all of fiscal year
1998, and a 34 percent increase over the 229 arrests in fiscal year
1997.
Similar trends are seen in the number of clandestine labs seized by
the DEA/Metro Task Force. As of last week, 212 labs had been seized in
fiscal year 1999, compared with 188 in all of fiscal year 1998 and 154
in fiscal year 1997. Again, the year-to-date figures for fiscal year
1999 are approximately 37 percent higher than all of fiscal year 1997.
The most troubling numbers, however, relate to the quantifies of
meth seized. As of last week, the DEA/Metro Task Force has seized 79.6
pounds of methamphetamine in the Salt Lake area. In fiscal year 1998,
75.2 pounds were seized. And in fiscal year 1997, only 28.9 pounds were
seized. As you can see, the amount of meth seized in the first ten
months of fiscal year 1999 is 175 percent more than in all of fiscal
year 1997. Based on a 1996 national price of $500 to $2,400 per ounce,
this translates into between $636,800 and $3,056,640 in meth seized off
our streets in the Salt Lake City metro area. And let me emphasize that
these numbers do not include arrests and seizures made by other
agencies, such as the FBI.
Make no mistake, methamphetamine manufacturing and trafficking are
not so-called ``victimless crimes''. We know by sad experience that the
drug business is always accompanied by guns and violence. Additionally,
meth abuse is driving much of the other crime in Utah, such as
burglaries and theft. For instance, our postal theft and fraud cases in
Utah have increased almost exponentially. Between January 1 and
September 1, 1998, our office indicted a total of 26 postal cases. By
comparison, between January 1 and July 22, 1999, we have already
indicted 52 such cases--twice the number in a shorter time span. These
crimes represent losses to individuals and businesses in the tens of
thousands of dollars, and the commission of these crimes can almost
invariably be traced to the support of a meth habit.
Nor is this a problem unique to my District. For instance, Postal
Inspectors in Arizona attached to the Phoenix Volume Mail Theft Task
Force have handled thousands of mail theft cases in the past several
years. These officers tell me they can only recall one or two cases
that were not meth related, and report that during searches incident to
their investigations, they invariably find meth and paraphernalia
indicating meth use.
Finally, the very existence of a meth lab in a community poses a
significant danger as an environmental hazard to that community. Clean-
up costs drain precious law enforcement resources.
Why is meth so pernicious? The overriding factors are that it is
effective, highly addictive, and perhaps most importantly, cheap. As
one of our postal theft defendants who was addicted to meth recently
told us, he could spend $20 on cocaine and be high for an hour, or
spend the same $20 on meth, and be high for a week.
There are two key components to the meth problem in Utah. While I
believe that these components certainly exist in other areas of the
country that are experiencing a serious meth proliferation problem,
they also rest on factors somewhat unique to Utah. The first component
is the home grown problem--the proliferation of clandestine meth labs.
Indeed, Utah has had the dubious distinction of having the highest per
capita number of illegal methamphetamine manufacturing operations of
any State in the Union.
This part of the problem involves U.S. citizens operating small
labs and producing comparatively small amounts of very pure meth. As I
have noted, at least 212 such labs were taken down in Utah so far in
fiscal year 1999. Meth lab establishment has been aided by the ready
availability of precursor chemicals in Utah. Fortunately, this is
beginning to change somewhat, as the legislature has taken steps to
impose sales restrictions on these precursors to reduce their
availability. This, combined with aggressive enforcement, hopefully
will begin to gradually reduce the prevalence of labs. However, we all
must recognize that as long as there is profit in manufacturing meth,
clandestine labs will continue to persist.
The second component of the meth problem in Utah is what we call
``Mexican meth,'' a term that refers not necessarily to the country of
origin but to the predominant ethnicity of the meth ``cookers.'' It
results in part from our geographic location as a convenient
transshipment point. The result is a significant number of what we call
pipeline cases. This component of Utah's problem, and our responses to
it, bear directly on controlling methamphetamine proliferation in Utah
and throughout the United States. Meth is being produced in massive
quantities in Mexico and in large labs in California and other western
states. Utah's proximity to the national border, and the convergence of
three primary travel corridors--1-70, 1-80, and 1-15--within the state
combine to make Utah uniquely situated to serve as a major
transshipment point of this Mexican meth. Unfortunately, we are finding
that much of the drug is staying in Utah and other Inter-Mountain
states as well. It is also an unfortunate fact that much of this
particular component is a direct result of illegal entry by criminal
aliens into the United States, who then come to Utah.
Let me take just a moment to describe some of what the Utah U.S.
Attorney's office has been doing to address both the meth and the
criminal alien problems, which are related. As you know, Senator Hatch,
when I took office as U.S. Attorney, I established two prosecutive
priorities. These priorities are meth and aggravated reentry
immigration cases. With the support of Main Justice and the Congress,
these initiatives are starting to bear fruit.
First, I was able to obtain two new drug prosecutors, which allowed
me to establish within the office's Criminal Division a new drug
section. Utilizing targeted resources provided by Congress and
allocated by the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, this section is
now staffed with 5 attorneys, including two who are dedicated to OCDETF
cases. Even while still staffing up, the results of this section can
already be seen. For instance, so far in fiscal year 1999, we have
indicted approximately 165 defendants. I estimate that for
approximately 75 percent of these defendants, meth was either the
principal controlled substance or one of the controlled substances
represented in the indictments.
As a reflection of the growing problem with methamphetamine in Utah
and the commitment by federal law enforcement to attacking the problem,
allow me to provide a comparison of defendants indicted in OCDETF cases
within the last two years. In fiscal year 1998, 38 total defendants
were indicted in the District of Utah through OCDETF investigations,
many of whom were indicted for methamphetamine offenses. By comparison,
so far in first ten months of fiscal year 1999, OCDETF investigations
have resulted in the indictment of nearly 80 defendants, and nearly all
of those defendants were indicted for a meth offense.
In addition to the efforts solely within the federal law
enforcement establishment, we have also actively supported state and
local efforts as well. For instance, a number of defendants were
charged in state court with methamphetamine offenses as a result of our
OCDETF investigations. Moreover, federal law enforcement in Utah is
strongly supporting the Rocky Mountain HIDTA initiative, which in Utah
is dedicated nearly exclusively to meth cases. Our state HIDTA
prosecutor is carrying a substantial felony caseload, and since
October, 1998, has filed over 200 state felony charges against 110
defendants. Additionally, since being cross-designated as a Special
Assistant United States Attorney in April of this year, the HIDTA
prosecutor has indicted 7 defendants in federal court on meth related
charges.
The point of relating these numbers is not only to inform the
Committee of what we are doing to tackle the meth problem in Utah, but
also to emphasize the severity of the problem. Even with the
substantial and ever increasing number of defendants and cases we are
handling, we are only scratching the surface of the problem--there is a
seeming endless supply of new cases.
The same can be said of the second prong of our initiative, which
involves aggressively prosecuting criminal alien cases. I understand
that this can be a sensitive subject, and that the link between these
cases and the meth problem may not be readily apparent to some.
However, it is my view that because of the prevalence of Mexican meth,
and the convenience of Utah as transshipment point, these types of
cases are intimately intertwined, and that we cannot get a handle on
the meth problem without also attacking the criminal alien problem as
well.
Thanks to the commitment of this Committee and the commitment of
the Attorney General, we have added personnel resources in the U.S.
Attorney's office as well as at the INS to aggressively pursue these
cases. Again, we are showing results. In fiscal year 1996, our office
indicted 80 criminal alien cases. In fiscal year 1997, we indicted 194
such cases, in fiscal year 1998, 313, and to date in fiscal year 1999,
135. The vast majority of the criminal alien cases we are doing involve
defendants with drug trafficking convictions, as well as lengthy
criminal histories. In addition to the immigration offenses, many of
these are methamphetamine related cases. Our program has been
successful. In fact, it has been so successful that other Districts
have expressed an interest in replicating it. For instance, I
understand that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of
California has a similar initiative in San Diego, and that it has been
successful there.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, if I could make a few general comments on
where we go from here. As I have said, we are only scratching the
surface of the meth problem that is out there. There seems to be a
bottomless supply of work for my office and for all of the federal law
enforcement community, as well as for our state and local counterparts.
My first suggestion is that now is not the time to cut back on
resources devoted to this effort. While I realize that this is not the
central focus of this hearing, I would like to note that the funding
levels provided by the Senate-passed fiscal year 2000 Department of
Justice appropriations bill for the U.S. Attorneys, the FBI, and the
DEA, among others, are significantly below the President's request.
Cuts of this magnitude would undermine Federal law enforcement efforts.
Either we want to confront this problem, or we don't. If we do, then
adequate resources must be provided to do the job. And I promise you,
at least in Utah, if you give us the resources, we will get the job
done. I know my fellow U.S. Attorneys share my commitment as well.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, our meth problem in Utah is severe.
And while some aspects of the problem are unique to my District, the
meth problem certainly is not. Yet, there are steps we can and are
taking to tackle the problem. It is a problem in Utah that we must
tackle on two fronts--that of the home-grown, clandestine lab, and also
the so-called Mexican meth. With sufficient--not extravagant, but
adequate--resources, federal law enforcement in partnership with our
state and local colleagues can turn the corner on the proliferation of
methamphetamine in our communities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would be pleased to answer any
questions from the Committee.
Senator Grassley. Mr. Chairman, can I ask permission to put
in the record a statement by the Agricultural Retailers
Association on combating methamphetamine production?
The Chairman. Without objection, we will put that in the
record at the appropriate place.
Senator Grassley. Thank you.
[The statement referred to follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Agricultural Retailers Association
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, I
appreciate the opportunity to provide the views of the Agricultural
Retailers Association (ARA) on combating methamphetamine proliferation.
ARA represents nearly 1,000 member companies, operating out of more
than 7,000 locations, providing farms and other customers with plant
nutrients, crop protectants, seed, feed and other supplies. ARA members
also provide agronomic, environmental and technical services to ensure
proper management of crop inputs, including custom application of plant
nutrients such as anhydrous ammonia and crop protection products.
This statement also represents the views of the Alliance of State
Agribusiness Associations, which is composed of 19 state agri-business
organizations who represent retail farm supply, feed, fertilizer, and
grain firms across the country. The Alliance works closely with ARA on
various legislative and regulatory issues of national significance to
the retail farm supply industry.
At the outset, we would like to offer our strong support for
specific provisions in legislation (S. 1220) introduced by Senator
Charles Grassley that would make the transport of anhydrous ammonia
across state lines for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine, a
federal offense. In addition, S. 1220 would allocate $500,000 to
research aimed at discovering a chemical deterrent to be combined with
anhydrous ammonia that will nullify its use as a reagent in the
methamphetamine production process while maintaining its efficacy for
use in agriculture.
Clandestine drug makers obtain small amounts of anhydrous ammonia
needed by draining it from nurse tanks used by agricultural retailers
to deliver the product to the farm for use as fertilizer. This theft
and illicit use of anhydrous ammonia has posed real concerns to
retailers and their farmer customers.
Unfortunately, our industry has been unintentionally caught up with
the menacing problem of methamphetamine proliferation. The common
method for small-scale illegal production of methamphetamine involves
the use of precursor chemicals obtained from commonly available cold
medicines. Other precursor chemicals such as sodium or lithium metal
are used to provide a chemical reaction.
The other material needed is anhydrous ammonia. Anhydrous ammonia
is an efficient source of nitrogen. Nitrogen from ammonia plays an
especially important role as a constituent of chlorophyll which is
necessary for photosynthesis and plant growth. It is popular with
farmers because it is the lowest cost form of nitrogen fertilizer
available.
industry task force formed to address anhydrous theft
As a result of this growing problem, ARA, along with the State
Alliance, formed an anti-meth task force composed of agricultural
retailers, equipment manufacturers and fertilizer manufacturers in
October of 1998. The task force developed a vision to eliminate the use
of anhydrous ammonia as an ingredient in the illicit production of
methamphetamine. In considering various goals and objectives, the task
proposed the following recommendations:
1. Pursue the potential use of an additive that could be added to
make the use of anhydrous ammonia unusable or undesirable for
methamphetamine production.
2. Propose the development of a comprehensive communication and
education program to ensure that agricultural retailers and farmers
are fully aware of theft, how to recognize when a theft has
occurred, and who to contact in the case of theft.
3. Work through state alliance members to foster greater coordination
between agricultural retailers and local law enforcement agencies.
4. Serve as a clearinghouse for states in support of state
legislation that will provide liability protection to retailers
from equipment tampering and make the theft of any amount of
anhydrous ammonia a felony.
5. Provide retailers information on various mechanical and security
measures that would provide varying levels of theft deterrence.
With the development of these recommendations, the industry task
force has taken a number of specific steps. First, the task force
developed an industry white paper on the theft of anhydrous ammonia in
order to provide a better understanding of the fertilizer itself as
well as how it is used in the meth production process.
Second, the task force prepared and delivered several thousand
brochures to agricultural retailers across the country to alert them to
the signs of theft; how to respond to suspicious activity; how to deter
theft at dealerships. These brochures were also provided to farmers to
raise their awareness of the problem.
Third, the task force has worked with state and federal law
enforcement authorities. At the federal level, ARA has had continual
contact with officials from the Drug Enforcement Agency and the White
House Office of National Drug Control Policy. ARA and DEA worked
together to develop a Department of Justice ``Alert'' on how to
identify ``suspicious purchases'' made by individuals involved with
meth production.
Fourth, the task force has evaluated various types of deterrence
that could be used to enhance security at a retailer's facility. The
task force evaluated options such as lighting, fencing, and the use
valve-locking devices for anhydrous ammonia nurse tanks. While each
option provides some level of deterrence, they are also costly to
install.
Fifth, the task force gathered chemists from industry, the academic
community and law enforcement to investigate the possibility of an
additive that can be added to make anhydrous ammonia unusable or
undesirable for meth production. It is hoped that federal funding can
be obtained to further this investigation.
Finally, the task force has served as a clearinghouse for several
states, particularly in the Midwest, which have adopted tough penalties
for theft of anhydrous ammonia and/or tampering of anhydrous ammonia
equipment.
need for federal legislation
While the task force has made much progress in addressing the theft
of anhydrous ammonia, there is further effort needed to accomplish its
full objectives. While various states have adopted tougher laws to
combat theft of ammonia, these laws are not uniform from state-to-state
and have encouraged theft in a state with lesser penalties and
interstate transport to an adjoining state where it is used in the meth
production process.
To illustrate the point, we would offer an example. In late May,
three individuals from Missouri entered the state of Illinois to a
retailer facility in the southwest part of the state with the intention
of stealing anhydrous ammonia. Local law enforcement had staked out the
facility and arrested the three individuals. At the time, the state of
Missouri had enacted tougher penalties for theft of anhydrous ammonia
in 1998. A St. Louis Post Dispatch story noted that the individuals
knew that stealing anhydrous ammonia was a felony in their state but
not Illinois. [A new tougher law had passed in Illinois in early 1999
but has not yet been signed into law.] This particular facility has
been hit by thieves more than 35 times in 1999 alone.
A federal statute making the theft of anhydrous ammonia and
transporting it across state lines for purposes of illicit drug
production a felony would provide a broad deterrent for thieves who
``cherry pick'' states knowing that their penalties are less harsh.
Secondly, the pursuit of a chemical additive to deter the use of
anhydrous ammonia in the meth production process would likely be the
most effective deterrent of all options considered by the task force.
However, it is a complicated and exhaustive process to investigate and
test various alternatives.
Not only must the additive be effective in making anhydrous ammonia
unusable in the meth production process, it must also not alter the
agronomic efficacy of the product as fertilizer for agricultural
purposes. Moreover, the additive must not adversely impact fertilizer
storage or application equipment. There is an urgent need for federal
assistance if we are to be able to comprehensively pursue this
investigative process.
Iowa State University has been involved with the task force in its
initial testing of additives. The legislation proposed by Sen. Grassley
would provide for DEA to enter into a formal agreement with Iowa State
University to permit the continuation and expansion of its current
research into the development of possible additives. It would also
authorize $500,000 for DEA to carry out the agreement.
summary
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the Committee's strong interest in
developing appropriate legislation that will effectively combat the
proliferation of methamphetamine in our cities and small rural
communities. We are hopeful that the legislation will include the above
provisions that will stop the theft of anhydrous ammonia and resolve
this growing problem.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to express our views. We stand
ready to respond to any questions of you and Committee members.
The Chairman. Ms. Kypridakes, we are happy to have you
here, honored to have you here, and look forward to your giving
us your expertise in this area.
STATEMENT OF KATINA KYPRIDAKES
Ms. Kypridakes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hatch and
members of the committee, first, thank you for allowing me to
bring information that I hope is pertinent and helpful to the
purpose of your hearing today. The information I will give you,
which I call the California perspective, is, because of
California's unique, albeit dubious position as a source
country for methamphetamine, somewhat predictive of the ever
changing face of this problem.
It is a perspective which has been molded from the
collective State law enforcement consciousness that displays
California as both a negative and positive example for the
Nation, negative insofar as our State continues to lead the
Nation in clandestine laboratory seizures, in turn providing an
ongoing source of methamphetamine trafficked across the
country, and positive as the State has led the national fight
against methamphetamine, while at the same time continuing to
bear the brunt of the illegal drugs' destructive effects.
Before looking at the impact of the drug not only in
California but on the Nation as a whole, I would like to
briefly touch on some of the history of not only
methamphetamine but amphetamine. This once obscure drug is now
recognized across the United States as one of the most
destructive illegal drugs ever known. Yet, despite its recent
notoriety nationally, methamphetamine has a long and ugly
history in California.
Since California's first methamphetamine lab seizure in
1967, law enforcement's fears about this drug were confirmed
then and continue to be confirmed at what was then brought to
light from the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic, where some of the
pioneering work in drug abuse recognition and counseling was
initiated.
What was originally a ``hippie'' counterculture environment
producing methamphetamine proceeded to become predominantly
controlled by outlaw motorcycle gangs such as the Hell's
Angels. The Hell's Angels then steadfastly maintained control
of the manufacturing and distribution of large quantities of
this drug until the mid-1980's, when gradually law enforcement
officials in California began seeing Mexican laboratory
operators and multiple-pound quantities of the drug appear.
Gradually, over a period of 5 to 10 years during the
1980's, several things occurred which gave the Mexican cartels
growing dominance in the methamphetamine industry. First, the
aggressive and violent nature of the Mexican traffickers
literally forced and out-priced the motorcycle groups out of
the production business. Secondarily, cheap and sometimes
coerced Mexican labor from across the border was imported into
California to run large-scale commercial laboratory operations.
Once law enforcement authorities caught on to the illegal
use of chemicals which were being routinely used, strict
regulation packages were enacted by California which closely
regulated and monitored precursor chemicals. At the same time,
however, Mexico had no, and continues to have no precursor
chemical regulations of their own. Hence, necessary chemical
precursors for the manufacture of methamphetamine began flowing
across the Mexican border, mixed in with other industrial
chemicals used for legitimate production of goods and services.
Telling you a little bit about the problem and what we see
today, labs are predominantly of--what we find today are
predominantly the ephedrine and pseudoephedrine reduction type,
whose product is six times stronger than the phenyl-2-propanol
method, or P2P labs which were once operated by outlaw
motorcycle gangs.
What has evolved over the past 10 years in California is
that law enforcement officers see primarily two very distinct
kinds of laboratories. The first type is, as has been
previously noted here, the industrial size or the super labs
capable of producing 5 to 10 times the amount of
methamphetamine that has been routinely produced by
conventional drug laboratories of the Hell's Angels.
From these super labs or these more commercial
laboratories, if you will, run exclusively by and for Mexican
drug trafficking organizations, our Bureau estimates that just
these labs alone are capable of producing over $2 million per
week in methamphetamine. Some drug trafficking organizations go
so far as to specialize in facilitating the production of meth
by providing laboratory sites complete with lab apparatus.
While routinely producing approximately 15 pounds per cook,
these laboratories could easily produce up to 500 pounds if
they wanted to produce that.
These organizations have developed distribution of their
product by using the already established distribution networks
for heroin, cocaine and marijuana. And as is shown in the chart
provided to you in my written testimony, in 1998 the Bureau of
Narcotic Enforcement seized 1,006 laboratories. 161 of these
were in the category of a super lab. The methamphetamine
produced by these 161 labs exceeded all of the methamphetamine
produced by the remaining 845.
The second type of laboratory which is being encountered
produces far less than one pound per cook. In most instances,
these stovetop or mom-and-pop operations produce anywhere from
2 to 4 ounces of methamphetamine. Unfortunately, these
laboratories account for 75 percent, or in our case 755 of our
1,006 seizures. While producing a relatively small amount,
these laboratories are the most volatile and harbor the most
violent individuals.
Because they carry out their illegal activity having little
background and/or training, not only are they unaware of the
dangers associated with what they are doing, but if they do
know, they simply don't care. And I would digress from my
statement at this point to simply say that we need to keep in
mind that many of these individuals receive their information
on how to carry out this activity through the Internet or by
word of mouth from other individuals. By purchasing commonly
used household chemicals and things readily available, they are
not breaking the law. So I commend the efforts in terms of
advertising and any publicly acquired information on how to
carry out this illegal activity.
These laboratories are mostly commonly found in homes,
trailers, motel rooms, and apartments, and are the ones most
often involved in accidental fires and explosions and are most
apt to have children present. With respect to the volatility,
again as pointed out previously, these chemicals are extremely
dangerous alone and even more volatile when used in combination
by people who don't know what they are doing.
In 1998, 208 of the 1,006 laboratories seized by the Bureau
of Narcotic Enforcement had 401 children present. This
unfortunately demonstrates the insidiousness of
methamphetamine. Everyone who uses meth has the potential to
become addicted, and every methamphetamine addict has the
potential to become a methamphetamine manufacturer. These
cookers will be added to the numbers of small producers who
live next door to you and to me, and perhaps are operating next
door to an elementary school. They will produce just enough to
maintain their habit and perhaps a little more to sell to their
friends, thereby enabling this insidious activity to continue.
In their quest, we can only hope that they do not harm any of
us or any other innocent bystanders.
The violence component cannot be stated enough. Abused for
its stimulant effects, at therapeutic and slightly higher
dosage the drug promotes feelings of euphoria, increased self-
esteem, self-confidence, and feelings of power and importance.
High doses--I won't go into a lot of detail here, as I see the
red light is on, but there are three types of users, as the
treatment community tells us--the low-intensity users, binge
users, and high-intensity users.
These people at the binge and high-intensity use go through
4- to 24-hour phases of ingesting additional drugs and
perpetually rushing, tweaking and crashing. They experience
extreme weight loss, aggression, toxic psychosis, and other
physical effects which can ultimately lead to stroke or heart
attack.
One of the other issues which is mentioned in the bill and
which is of critical importance to those of us who work in law
enforcement is what happens to the environment. Drug agents
have discovered thousands of drug laboratories in locations
causing incalculable damage to the environment and potential
and actual damage and danger certainly to California citizens,
or anywhere else in the country where these are encountered.
In most clandestine drug laboratories, as Senator Feinstein
pointed out, 6 pounds of toxic and often lethal chemical waste
is left at the laboratory site for every pound of
methamphetamine produced. Since these sites are covert, the
operators attempt to hide the visible signs. Toxic residues are
most often buried in rural areas. They are flushed down
toilets, however, in residential areas and they go into city
water systems and they are piped into nearby streams and lakes.
Last year, the State of California Department of Toxic
Substance Control spent well over $8 million just in California
to clean up the toxic waste from clandestine drug laboratories.
While this was once a problem localized to remote or rural
areas, dumping of toxic waste from lab activity is now an urban
problem as well, with so many small stovetop operations.
One should remember, however, that these expenditures are
only for gross contaminant removal. Site remediation, which
most of us envision as complete toxic removal, is never
accomplished because of the exceptional cost. What this means
is that many businesses, dwellings, hotels, and national parks
should not be reinhabited unless they are completely
demolished, removed, and reconstructed. However, this rarely
happens. Most unfortunate is the government's inability to
recover the costs associated with these tasks because of weak
environmental laws related to illegal drug activity.
Just to touch a little bit on some of the emerging trends
in speaking about the environmental impact, as was pointed out
by Mr. Marshall and in demonstrating the clandestine lab
activity, I won't go into examples because I believe that we
have all heard those examples numerous times before and I can
only express the dangerousness of having to deal in clandestine
laboratories.
But I think that certainly what was demonstrated here
earlier points out the need for adequate funding and that that
be made available for cleaning up clandestine laboratories, and
that law enforcement be appropriately and adequately trained
and equipped to investigate as well as seize clandestine
laboratories.
I think it is important to talk about one of the critical
emerging trends, and that is the illegal production now of
amphetamine. Amphetamine, like methamphetamine, is a potent
synthetic stimulant sold as a powder and currently widely
available in Southern California. Amphetamine is often
manufactured because methamphetamine cooks cannot obtain the
precursor chemicals necessary to manufacture meth.
The chemical most often selected is phenylpropanolamine, or
PPA. When used in the manufacturing process, it results in the
production of amphetamine rather than meth. As domestic
controls of methamphetamine precursors, particularly ephedrine
and pseudoephedrine, tighten, it is likely that amphetamine
production will increase. Amphetamine is marketed by illegal
importers, distributors and others as meth or as a meth
substitute. The drug traffickers don't make a distinction
between the meth and the amphetamine and often substitute it
when they can't produce the meth.
Further, recent medical research appears to disprove the
long-held belief that there is a significant difference in the
effect on the central nervous system between amphetamine and
methamphetamine. This information, along with difficulties in
securing precursors to manufacture meth, seems to confirm that
there is, in fact, an increase in the amount of amphetamine
being produced. Increasingly, over the past 2 to 3 years what
were ultimately documented to be amphetamine seizures were
originally suspected to be methamphetamine.
Further complicating that particular issue of the
amphetamine and encouraging the switch from methamphetamine to
amphetamine is the sentencing disparity between amphetamine and
methamphetamine. Substantial gaps remain in Federal law that
prevent an effective Federal law enforcement response to the
serious of meth and amphetamine distribution and use.
While penalties for meth cases have been increased
substantially in recent years, there has been no similar change
for amphetamine. Amphetamine distribution and use create the
same harms as methamphetamine distribution, and penalties need
to be increased accordingly. Strong Federal laws are needed on
this particular issue because State prosecutions for these
offenses are often hampered by laws which do not require
incarceration on conviction and by inadequate forensic
laboratory resources. Failure to enact sentencing guidelines
for amphetamines which correspond to meth will simply encourage
amphetamine production and serve to substitute one evil for
another.
In closing, let me leave you with a few thoughts. In 1998,
BNE seized 1,006 of those 1,655 clandestine laboratories by all
State law enforcement officials in California. During that same
period, DEA seized 1,654 labs nationwide. I think that puts the
nature of the problem in California in perspective nationally.
For the first time, there was no State in which there was
no clandestine lab activity noted by either DEA or some other
State law enforcement entity. Incomplete statistics for the
first 5 months of 1999 document that of the 470 clandestine
labs seized by BNE, in 103 of those clandestine laboratories we
found 180 children. In other words, children were present in
nearly one quarter of all of our lab seizures so far, children
who have not only been contaminated, but very likely abused in
some manner.
And we can also be sure in all of those 470 laboratories
that they produce toxic waste requiring removal, for which we
will not be reimbursed. Methamphetamine and/or amphetamine is
not only readily available in every major city and country
hamlet, but there is also a very good chance it is now being
illegally produced there as well. In the methamphetamine
manufacturing trade, every American citizen suffers a loss in
public safety, the environment, public health, and the
financial drain that drug manufacturing, distribution, and
abuse place on all of our social and governmental systems.
We must continue our efforts both at the State and Federal
levels to seek appropriate ways to not only punish those who
seek to harm our lives and freedoms, but in so doing to also
protect the innocent from further harm. We must deepen our
resolve and correct those things which we can, in hopes that in
so doing we will move closer to successfully combating this
problem which we must all face as a Nation. No one State or law
enforcement agency can do this alone.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for
allowing me to take this time to present my information to you.
I will be happy to answer any questions you have or to provide
you with any other information.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kypridakes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Katina Kypridakes
Chairman Hatch and members of the committee, first, thank you for
allowing me to bring you information that I hope is pertinent and
helpful to the purpose of your hearing. The information I will give to
you today, which I call the California perspective, is, because of
California's unique, albeit dubious, position as a ``source country''
for methamphetamine, predictive of the ever changing face of this
problem. It is a perspective molded from the collective state law
enforcement consciousness that displays California as both a negative
and positive example for the nation. Negative in so far as our state
continues to lead the nation in clandestine laboratory seizures, in
turn providing an ongoing source of methamphetamine trafficked across
the country; and positive as the state has led the national fight
against methamphetamine, while at the same time continuing to bear the
brunt of the illegal drug's destructive effects. Before looking at the
impact this drug has had, not only on California, but the nation as a
whole, perhaps it will be helpful to briefly review the history of
methamphetamine and amphetamine.
history
This once obscure drug is now widely recognized across the United
States as one of the most destructive illegal drugs ever known. Yet,
despite its somewhat recent notoriety nationally, methamphetamine has a
long, ugly history in California. Since California's first
methamphetamine lab seizure in 1967, law enforcement's fears about this
drug were confirmed by the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic, where some of
the pioneering work in drug abuse recognition and counseling was
initiated. California's first methamphetamine drug laboratory was
seized in 1967 in Santa Cruz, California. Shortly thereafter,
methamphetamine production moved from a ``hippie'' counter-culture
environment to one controlled predominantly by outlaw motorcycle groups
such as the Hells Angels. The Hells Angels steadfastly maintained
control of the manufacturing and distribution of large quantities of
methamphetamine until the mid-1980's, when, very gradually, law
enforcement officials in California began seeing Mexican laboratory
operators and multiple-pound quantity distributors appear on the
illegal drug scene. Then, gradually, over a period of five to ten
years, several things occurred which gave the Mexican cartels growing
dominance in the methamphetamine industry.
First, the aggressive and violent nature of Mexican traffickers
literally forced and out-priced the motorcycle groups out of the
production business and almost strictly into the mid- to lower-scale
distribution. Secondarily, cheap and sometimes coerced Mexican labor
from across the border was imported into California to run large-scale
commercial laboratory operations under the direction of several key
personnel. Chemical precursors, which were once freely sold by the U.S.
chemical industry for legitimate use in manufacturing, were also being
sold to illicit drug manufacturers. Once the law enforcement
authorities caught on to the illegal use of these chemicals, strict
regulation packages were enacted by California which closely regulated
and monitored precursor chemicals. At the same time, however, Mexico
had no, and continues to have no, precursor chemical regulations.
Hence, the necessary chemical precursors for the manufacture of
methamphetamine began flowing across the Mexican border, mixed in with
other industrial chemicals used for legitimate production of goods and
services.
Why, you might ask, don't Mexican entrepreneurs produce the drug in
Mexico, where it is safer, rather than risking apprehension in the
United States, where there are a clearer set of legal restrictions
against such activity? Simply, because drug production and distribution
are nothing more than a business, and just as the cartels responsible
for the manufacture of cocaine and heroin keep their production
facilities close to the opium poppy or coca fields, the cartels
responsible for the manufacture of methamphetamine keep their
production facilities, i.e., the clandestine drug laboratory, close to
the chemical sites in rural areas where it can be produced in the
United States close to the market. This way, only the raw materials
(precursors), which carry a much less stringent penalty, need be
smuggled into our country. The methamphetamine is then marketed in a
method not requiring smuggling activity and allowing it to be
manufactured almost literally in the backyard of the customer.
the problem
Today, labs are predominantly the ephedrine/pseudoephedrine
reduction type whose product is six times stronger than the P2P labs
once operated by outlaw motorcycle gangs. What has evolved, over the
past ten years is that California law enforcement officers see
primarily two very distinct kinds of labs. The first type are
industrial-size ``super laboratories,'' capable of producing five to
ten times the amount of methamphetamine that had been routinely
produced by conventional drug laboratories operated by Hells Angels or
other outlaw motorcycle groups. From these ``super labs,'' or
commercial laboratories, run exclusively by and for Mexican drug
trafficking organizations, our bureau estimates that just these labs
alone are capable of producing over two million dollars per week in
methamphetamine. Some drug trafficking organizations go so far as to
specialize in facilitating the production of methamphetamine by
providing laboratory sites complete with lab apparatus. While routinely
producing approximately 50 pounds per ``cook,'' these laboratories
could easily produce up to 500 pounds of methamphetamine per day. These
organizations have developed distribution of their product by using the
already established distribution networks for heroin, cocaine, and
marijuana. In 1998, the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement seized 1,006
laboratories, 161 of which were in this category of laboratories. The
methamphetamine produced by these 161 laboratories exceeded all of the
methamphetamine produced by the remaining 845.
The second type of laboratories being seized are producing less
than one pound per cook. In most instances these ``stove top''
laboratories only produce 2-4 ounces of methamphetamine per cook.
Unfortunately these laboratories account for 755, or 75 percent, of the
1,006 laboratories seized by the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement last
year. While producing a relatively small amount of methamphetamine,
these laboratories are the most volatile and harbor the most violent
people. Because the individuals carrying out the illegal activity have
little background and/or training, not only are they unaware of the
dangers associated with what they are doing, if they do know they
simply don't care. These laboratories, commonly found in homes,
trailers, motel rooms and apartments, are the ones most often involved
in accidental fires and explosions, and are those most apt to have
children present. In 1998, 209 of the 1,006 laboratories seized by the
Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement had 401 children present. This,
unfortunately, is the insidiousness of methamphetamine. Everyone who
uses methamphetamine has the potential to become addicted, and every
methamphetamine addict has the potential to become a methamphetamine
manufacturer. These ``cookers'' will be added to the numbers of small
producers who live next door to you and me, or next to a school,
producing just enough to maintain their habit and perhaps a little more
to sell to friends thereby enabling the illegal activity to continue.
In their quest, one can only hope they don't harm innocent bystanders.
the violence component
Methamphetamine is a purely synthetic, potent stimulant of the
amphetamine class of drugs. Abused for its stimulant effects, at
therapeutic or slightly higher doses, the drug promotes feelings of
euphoria, increased self-esteem and self-confidence, and feelings of
power and importance. High doses or chronic use have been associated
with increased nervousness, irritability and paranoia, which in turn
leads to hyperactive behavior and dramatic mood swings. Heavy users
often exhibit extreme belligerence and paranoia. Withdrawal from high
doses can produce severe depression. Treatment professionals define
three amphetamine/methamphetamine user groups: low-intensity,
``binge,'' and high-intensity users. The low-intensity users may take
methamphetamine to lose weight or to stay alert and awake, while the
second group, ``binge'' users, follow an initial rush with repeated
dosing to maintain the original ``high of methamphetamine and
ultimately enter a phase some clinicians call ``tweaking''--a 4 to 24
hour phase in which a user need not, ingest any additional drug, but
remains high and exhibits little control over his or her behavior. This
``tweaking'' phase, which some addicts describe as nearly intolerable,
poses the greatest risk to family, friends, the public and police
because of the occurrence of rage, aggression, violence, paranoia,
anxiety, hallucinations, and hyperactivity. The third group, high-
intensity users, engage in an almost perpetual cycle of rushing,
tweaking, and crashing. These users may experience extreme weight loss,
aggression, toxic psychosis (including paranoia and hallucinations),
stroke, and heart attack.
Law enforcement, paramedics, doctors and nurses are placed in
dangerous and volatile situations every time they come in contact with
a methamphetamine user. These professionals, who are trying to help the
user, are transformed in the user's paranoid mind as threats. The
result of this paranoia is a violent, defensive reaction against these
persons trying to do their job. Most often the users exhibit the most
violent behavior against their spouses and their children. Stories
abound of users who have repeatedly physically abused their spouses,
physically and sexually abused their children, mothers who allowed
their children to starve to death, or to be burned in lab fires or
explosions. In addition, there are the random acts of violence
sometimes against perfect strangers. Often, if the user doesn't harm
anyone around him, he or she winds up killing or maiming him or
herself.
the environment
Drug agents have discovered thousands of drug laboratories in
locations causing incalculable damage to the environment and potential
and actual damage and danger to California's citizens. In most
clandestine drug laboratories, six pounds of toxic and often lethal
chemical waste are left at the laboratory site for every pound of
methamphetamine produced. Since these sites are covert, and the
operators attempt to hide the visible signs and smells of a drug
laboratory, the toxic residues are most often buried in rural sites;
flushed down the toilets at residential sites to go into city water
systems; or piped into nearby streams and lakes. Last year the State of
California, Department of Toxic Substances Control spent well over $8
million to clean up the toxic waste from clandestine drug laboratories.
While this was once a problem that was localized to remote or rural
areas, dumping of toxic waste from clandestine laboratory activity is
now an urban problem with so many small ``stove top'' operations
disposing their waste in the sink or down the toilet. One should
remember that these expenditures are only for gross contaminant
removal. Site remediation, which most of us envision as the complete
toxic removal, is never accomplished because of the exceptional cost.
What this means is that many businesses, dwellings, hotels, and
national park areas should not be re-inhabited unless they are
completely demolished, removed, and reconstructed. This rarely happens.
More unfortunate is the government's inability to recover costs
associated with these tasks because of weak environmental laws related
to illegal drug activity.
While this may not appear to directly affect our daily activity, I
would ask you to consider the following:
Many laboratories are set up in motel, rooms where a
``cook'' occurs overnight, and the next day the lab is gone.
The maid enters the room in the morning to clean, finds a mess,
which is usually unrecognizable to her as hazardous waste, and
so she vacuums the rug and uses common household chemical
detergents to clean. The room is now ready for rental to,
possibly, an unsuspecting family with children who will spend a
night in this now contaminated motel room. That evening or the
next morning, the family could awaken with watering eyes,
burning throat and lungs, and disorientation due to exposure to
the contaminants permeating the room.
A lab in Northern California next to a prominent
recreational area was discovered because of the strange and
rapid deaths of most of the trees along the riverbanks. Their
demise was traced to the seepage of exceptionally toxic
chemicals from a clandestine drug laboratory.
Another drug laboratory located in Central California
leached thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals into the Merced
River. The Merced River runs through Yosemite National Park.
San Francisco agents, assisting in a probation search,
discovered and seized a fully operational methamphetamine
laboratory in the middle of its production process. A search
warrant for the entire residence was served, and agents found
other chemicals and glassware consistent with clan lab
manufacturing. Also discovered was a bomb. The residence was
located one-quarter mile from a major coastal oil refinery.
Other equally alarming situations are too numerous to list in this
testimony but are available upon request.
emerging trends
Just as we have seen a number of changes over the years in drug
trafficking, some new trends appear to be emerging in the illegal
manufacturing of methamphetamine. One of the most troublesome of these
is the increase in the number of amphetamine incidents, both in illegal
production and product seizure. Amphetamine, like methamphetamine, is a
potent synthetic stimulant which can be sold as a powder and which is
currently widely available in Southern California. Amphetamine is often
manufactured because methamphetamine ``cooks'' cannot obtain the
precursor chemicals necessary to manufacture methamphetamine, and they
therefore select other precursor chemicals. The chemical most often
selected is phenylpropanolamine (PPA), which, when used in the
manufacturing process, results in the production of amphetamine, rather
than methamphetamine. As domestic controls of methamphetamine
precursors, particularly ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, tighten, it is
likely that amphetamine production will increase. Amphetamine is
marketed by illegal importers, distributors, and others as
methamphetamine or a methamphetamine substitute. Drug traffickers do
not make a distinction between methamphetamine and amphetamine and
often substitute amphetamine for methamphetamine without notifying the
customer, consumer or transporter. Further, recent medical research
appears to disprove the long-held belief that there is a significant
difference in the effect on the central nervous system between
amphetamine and methamphetamine. This information, along with
difficulties in securing precursors to manufacture methamphetamine,
seems to confirm that there is in fact an increase in the amount of
amphetamine being produced. Increasingly over the past two to three
years, what were ultimately documented to be amphetamine seizures were
originally suspected to be methamphetamine. While the general trend in
the number of seizures of amphetamine since 1996 has been downward,
there have been a significant number of amphetamine seizures in the
last quarter of 1998 and the first quarter of 1999. As precursor
chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine become more difficult to
obtain, some manufacturers will shift over to the manufacture of
amphetamine using phenylpropanolamine (PPA). PPA is easier to obtain,
particularly because it appears in more commercial over-the-counter
products than does pseudoephedrine or ephedrine.
Further complicating this issue, and encouraging the switch from
methamphetamine to amphetamine, is the sentencing disparity between
amphetamine and methamphetamine. Currently, substantial gaps remain in
federal law that prevent an effective federal law enforcement response
to the serious problem of methamphetamine and amphetamine distribution
and use. While penalties for methamphetamine cases have been increased
substantially in recent years, there has been no similar change for
amphetamine cases. Amphetamine distribution and use create much the
same harms as methamphetamine distribution and use, and penalties need
to be increased accordingly. Strong federal laws are needed on this
particular issue because state prosecutions for these offenses are
often hampered by laws which do not require incarceration on conviction
and by inadequate forensic laboratory resources. Failure to enact
sentencing guidelines for amphetamine which correspond to
methamphetamine will simply serve to encourage amphetamine production
and serve to substitute one evil for another.
In closing, let me leave you with a few thoughts. In 1998 the
California Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement seized 1,006 of the 1,655
documented clandestine laboratories seized by all law enforcement
agencies in the state. During that same period the Drug Enforcement
Administration seized 1,654 clandestine laboratories nationwide, and
for the first time there was no state in which there was no clandestine
laboratory activity noted by either the Drug Enforcement Administration
or state law enforcement. For the first five months of 1999 there have
been 470 clandestine laboratory seizures by the Bureau of Narcotic
Enforcement. In 103 of those labs we found 180 children. In other
words, children have been present in nearly one-quarter of all lab
seizures--children who have been not only contaminated, but very likely
abused in some manner. And we can be sure all 470 laboratories in
California produced toxic waste requiring removal for which we will not
be reimbursed. Methamphetamine and/or amphetamine is not only readily
available in every major city and country hamlet, but there is also a
very good chance it is now being illegally produced there as well.
In the methamphetamine manufacturing trade, every American citizen
suffers a loss in public safety, the environment, public health, and
the financial drain that drug manufacturing, distribution and abuse
places on all of our social and governmental systems. We must continue
our efforts, both at the state and federal level, to seek appropriate
ways to not only punish those who seek to harm our lives and individual
freedom, but in so doing to also protect the innocents from further
harm. We must deepen our resolve and correct those things which we can
and hope that in so doing we will move closer to successfully combating
this problem which we must all face as a nation. No one state or law
enforcement agency can do this alone.
Mr. Chairman and Members, thank you for allowing me to take this
time to present my information to you. I will be happy to answer any
questions you have or provide you with any other information you deem
appropriate. Again, thank you.
The Chairman. Sheriff Doerge, we will turn to you now.
STATEMENT OF RON DOERGE
Mr. Doerge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Ashcroft,
for this opportunity. I hope to bring you a view from the local
front lines. Much of the equipment you see here we deal with
many times. We have made 15 drug raids on methamphetamine labs
in my county this year alone, wearing equipment just like that.
Apparently, that one number in Missouri is from Newton County
last year. We had a super lab in Newton County last year.
I am the Chairman of the Southwest Missouri Drug Task
Force, representing four counties, which is approximately 2,500
square miles of southwest Missouri. Our members are alarmed at
the escalation of hundreds of small, clandestine
methamphetamine labs in remote areas of our counties. There is
a growing trend among drug manufacturers to switch from bathtub
crank operations in small towns and large cities to riverside
cooks and roadside cooks. And the riverside cooks and roadside
cooks are in remote areas and they offer concealment and dump
sites for methamphetamine sludge and waste.
In the first 6 months of this year alone, we have arrested
numerous meth manufacturers who have led us to dump sites. In
one case, in mid-May, a 17-year-old was arrested along with his
natural parents who had taught him to cook methamphetamine.
They were arrested at their residence in the small town of
Seneca, MO, where they were cooking methamphetamine at the time
of the arrest. Information was obtained that this trio had
dumped large amounts of sludge and waste several times in Big
Lost Creek, which is just 2 miles above the town they lived in.
Additionally, they led investigators to sites in Grove, OK,
at a Boy Scout camp where they had completed the cooking
process 3 times in a 48-hour period. They left this site
riddled with syringes, paraphernalia, sludge and waste strewn
about the area. This group has cooked and dumped waste in many
other locations, including Table Rock Lake, and Stockton Lake,
both in southwest Missouri.
As another example of danger to our children from meth
labs, on July 3, in Newton County, we conducted a raid at a
residence in Joplin, MO. Three individuals were arrested and
charged with methamphetamine manufacture. By the way, we had
arrested them the November before; they were repeat offenders,
which most of these people are we are dealing with over and
over again. And it was discovered the sludge and waste from
that operation was being dumped 3 feet from the Stapleton
Elementary School playground.
Task Force members believe waste is being dumped in many
sites throughout our counties everyday, and the effects on our
environment, particularly the quality of our drinking water,
will be catastrophic if allowed to continue. Local members and
agencies of our Task Force are struggling to store hazardous
materials seized in these drug labs in our enforcement areas.
Often, chemical trucks have to travel long distances, over 100
miles, to Joplin, and that is the large labs.
But many times, the truck cannot respond to smaller
operations and it is left to local agencies to attempt to store
the chemicals seized in these operations. Often, the chemicals
are placed in evidence lock-ups, leading to many mishaps. In
Newton County alone, 5 officers this year have been overcome by
fumes from evidence.
The adverse impact of these operations is not only
hazardous to officers, but anyone swimming or fishing in our
streams, lakes and farm ponds--and farm ponds are being used
more and more--or anyone drinking our water. The operations
certainly have affects on our children, as we have pointed out.
We realize the Drug Enforcement Administration is
overwhelmed with calls for assistance from local agencies and
cannot respond to all requests. Therefore, we seek help in
expanding the resources we have available to us through the
Drug Enforcement Administration and HIDTA and the continued
support and expansion of drug task force grants which have been
extremely successful in our remote areas. We, however, need
additional undercover officers and resources to continue to
wage a war that is primarily being fought in the rural areas of
our State.
In addition to these recommendations we have already made,
our Task Force respectfully requests your help in augmenting
the chemical response teams so that they might arrive in a
timely manner. We also ask that you eliminate methamphetamine
recipes, ingredients, and instructions for manufacturing on the
Internet. By the way, I have an example of that here. This was
taken off the Internet at one of our local libraries by a 16-
year-old, in his own handwriting, in living color, if you would
like to see that.
We hope to increase the penalty for drug manufacturing, and
also in some cases the sale of certain chemicals. We also
request the opportunity for stronger prosecution--we are
dealing, as I said, with those repeat offenders over and over
again--and reduced suspended sentences because so many of these
are pled down over and over again and we keep seeing the same
people, increased jail time for repeat offenders, and create
new harsh laws dealing with methamphetamine manufacturers who
are poisoning our environment.
In closing, the problem will not be controlled until it
becomes so dangerous and so costly to manufacture and sell
drugs that only the most desperate will attempt it. This is the
view of our Task Force. Nothing deters crime like the certainty
of punishment. And I have submitted, as I said, several
examples of how this can be taken off the Internet, and in that
one case in particular we were very concerned that they went to
our local library. And this wouldn't print out, but he had the
time to take this down. And as you can see, there are stains on
this material and that was because it was used many times in
the manufacture of methamphetamine by that 16-year-old boy.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Sheriff.
[The information of Mr. Doerge follows:]
Newton County Sheriff's Department and Jail,
Neosho, MO, July 26, 1999.
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hatch and Committee Members: As Chairman of the
Southwest Missouri Drug Task Force representing four counties, and the
cities and towns therein, comprising approximately 2500 square miles of
Southwest Missouri, our members are alarmed at the escalation of
hundreds of small, clandestine methamphetamine labs in remote areas of
our counties. There is a growing trend among drug manufacturers to
switch the ``bathtub crank'' operations in small towns to the
``riverside cooks''. These roadside and riverside ``cooks'' are in
remote areas as they offer concealment and dump sites for
methamphetamine sludge and waste.
In the first six months of this year alone, we have arrested
numerous meth manufacturers who have led us to ``dump'' sites. In one
case in mid-May, a 17 year old was arrested along with his natural
parents who had taught him how to cook methamphetamine. They were
arrested at their residence in the small town of Seneca MO., where they
were cooking methamphetamine at the time of the arrest. Information was
obtained that this trio had dumped a large amount of sludge and waste
several times in Big Lost Creek, two miles above the town they were
living in. Additionally, they had led investigators to a site in Grove,
OK at a Boy Scout camp where they had completed the cooking process
three times in a 48 hour period. They left this site riddled with
syringes, paraphernalia, sludge and drug waste strewn about the area.
This group had cooked and dumped waste in many other locations
including Table Rock Lake and Stockton Lake, both in Southwest
Missouri.
As another example of danger to children from meth labs, on July 3
in Newton County, we conducted a raid at a residence in the City of
Joplin, MO. Three individuals were arrested and charged with
Manufacturing of Methamphetamine, and it was discovered sludge and
waste from their methamphetamine operation was being dumped 3 feet from
Stapleton Elementary School.
Task Force members believe waste is being dumped in many sites
throughout our counties every day, and the effects on our environment,
particularly the quality of our drinking water, will be catastrophic if
it is allowed to continue. Local members and agencies of our task force
are struggling to store the hazardous materials seized at these drug
labs in our enforcement areas. Often chemical trucks have to travel
from Tulsa, Oklahoma to Joplin, MO, over a hundred miles, to respond to
large operations and it is left to local agencies to attempt to store
many of the chemicals seized in these operations. Often these chemicals
are placed in Evidence lock-ups, leading to many mishaps. In Newton
County alone, five officers this year have been overcome by fumes from
this evidence.
The adverse impacts of these operations is not only a hazard to
officers, but anyone swimming/ fishing in our streams, lakes and farm
ponds or anyone drinking the water. These operations certainly have
adverse effects on our children at risk on playgrounds and at campsites
as our investigations have revealed.
We realize the Drug Enforcement Administration is overwhelmed with
the calls for assistance from local agencies and cannot respond to all
requests. Therefore, we seek your help in expanding the resources we
have available to us through the Drug Enforcement Administration and
HIDA and the continued support and expansion of drug task force grants
which have been extremely successful in our remote areas. We, however,
need additional undercover officers and resources to continue to wage
war that is primarily being fought in the rural areas of our state.
In addition to the recommendations already made, our Task Force
respectfully requests your help to augment the ``chemical response
teams'' who can arrive in a timely manner to assist law enforcement at
chemical sites throughout the state. We also ask that you eliminate
methamphetamine recipes, ingredients and instructions from
manufacturers on the Internet, increase the penalty for drug
manufacture/sales and those who sell the chemicals, pursue stronger
prosecution, reduce suspended impositions of sentences, increase jail
time for repeat offenders and create new, harsher laws dealing with
methamphetamine manufacturers who poison our environment.
In closing, the problem will not be controlled until it becomes so
dangerous and costly to manufacture and sell drugs that only the most
desperate will attempt it. Nothing deters crime like the certainty of
punishment. Attached are several examples of recipes, instructions and
ingredients which can be accessed at our local library through the
Internet. This information is easily accessible to children in our
area.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Sheriff Ron Doerge,
Chairman, Southwest Missouri Drug Task Force, Newton County.
The Chairman. Mr. Vasica, we will take your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOHN VASICA
Mr. Vasica. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to be here and be a part of this
process and concentrating on a problem of this magnitude. I am
honored to be invited here and being able to give you a
parent's point of view.
I wish that this hearing would not be necessary, but
current circumstances dictate otherwise. As a single parent, I
have been involved with the raising of a son who is now 19
years old. Unfortunately, he chose to dabble in something I
disapproved of, but could not control or prevent. This drug
took over his lifestyle to a point where nothing else mattered.
Neither school nor family were of any importance. His grades
went from A's and B's to F's, but after much pushing, he
finally did graduate.
During his half-hearted attempts at finding employment
after graduation, motivation and ethics were nonexistent.
Brushes with the law failed to deter him and his peers from
using this drug. Finally, after pushing it to the limit, he was
ordered by the court system to check into a rehab center. The
other option was jail. He chose the chance to get his life
together and has completed a program. I now have my son back.
But not for a minute am I kidding myself into believing
that all is well. This drug is as addictive as anything else
out there, and relapses are a fact of life. The physical damage
is sometimes irreparable, and I hope that I am not in that
situation where I come across this. These longtime consequences
can be devastating to a user. Much is unknown because it is a
relatively new drug.
In my opinion, in this case prevention is as important as
the cure. Emphasis must be put on the complete eradication on
the sources, namely the manufacturers of the drugs and the
suppliers of the ingredients that go into producing it. As
rampant as it is now, every means must be taken to stem the
flow from the makers to the users. The toxic substances that
are mixed together to manufacture it are all potential hazards
to the environment, which makes the ingestion into the human
body even more potent and scary.
Everybody within the close proximity of a user is affected
by it. This drug knows no boundaries and won't stop at
anything. I have been told that the first time the user tries
this drug, he gets hooked immediately. The world seems to
suddenly change on them. Pressures disappear and the euphoria
sets in. From that point on, life consists of worrying only
about where the next high is coming from. This leads to other
innovative methods to keep the cash flowing which is used to
buy more drugs. A whirlpool is created from which escape seems
impossible.
Watching from the outside is absolute torture, but parental
involvement is futile and frustrating. Love and logic are words
that have no meaning, and finally the time arrives when we
attempt to throw our hands up in the air and just let our kids
continue doing what they are doing and hope things work out--a
chance with terrible odds.
I am imploring all of the members of this committee to pass
this bill and eliminate this dreadful scourge from our
neighborhoods. When this drug is easier to get than a Pepsi, we
know that immediate and stricter law enforcement is vital to
achieve this goal.
Again, I wish to thank everyone who played a part in
enabling me to be present here today, and I applaud this
committee for recognizing the urgency of this massive problem
and the actions it is taking to make the eradication of this
killer drug a reality.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, John, for sharing your
family tragedy with us and I hope that everything does work
out. But it is addictive and it can grab them again, no
question about it. It is my hope that your testimony can
somehow help other families that are going through the same
ordeal.
Your testimony demonstrates that the methamphetamine
problem can strike any family.
Mr. Vasica. Absolutely, absolutely.
The Chairman. How do you think law enforcement can help to
prevent children from falling prey to methamphetamine or
amphetamine?
Mr. Vasica. I think if we cut the source right at the
start.
The Chairman. Cut the source. Well, as someone who
witnessed firsthand the signs of methamphetamine use and
addiction, can you describe the signs or the symptoms that
might alert other families so that they can maybe catch this
early enough?
Mr. Vasica. There are many, many signs, and I am sure
everybody on this panel is aware of them. The lack of
motivation, the lack of enthusiasm. They don't want to do
anything. They want to get high and go to sleep, want to get
high, go to sleep, don't eat. I mean, it is a disruptive way of
life. There is absolutely no--what is the word--they don't want
to do anything else except get high. That is their number one
concern. They will do anything--steal, borrow, beg, whatever it
takes to get that drug.
The Chairman. Mr. Marshall, as you know, I was the original
author of the Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996, which was
our first legislative effort specifically directed at
controlling the proliferation of methamphetamine. Now, one of
the purposes of this hearing, of course, is to continue those
efforts and make improvements in the law where those
improvements are needed.
I understand that aside from the reporting requirements
mandated in the MCA, the Methamphetamine Control Act, the DEA
and industry have been working together to fight the
methamphetamine problem, right?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, that is correct.
The Chairman. Now, can you explain how the DEA has been
working with merchants and retailers to minimize the chances
that the over-the-counter products and other substances will be
purchased and used in the manufacturing of meth or amphetamine?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, sir. We have been doing a number of
things and it hasn't been confined just to the over-the-
counter. We have been doing a lot of bulk shipments, too.
The Chairman. Specifically, one of the things I would like
you to go into is what voluntary measures adopted by industry
have proven most helpful to law enforcement in this area.
Mr. Marshall. I think that now that we are seeing the shift
from bulk chemicals to the over-the-counter in most places, I
think that we have seen the most results from our voluntary
partnerships with companies like Wal-Mart and Costco,
particularly in the State of Missouri and that general Midwest
area.
What we have found there is that we have entered into that
partnership and we have tried to educate the retailers, the
pharmacists, and those kinds of people in spotting the people
that are coming in for purchasing the remedies for
methamphetamine use other than the legitimate uses. And they
have begun reporting suspicious people coming in. They have
begun reporting larger quantities than a person would normally
purchase, and we have been able to use that and turn that into
investigations and intelligence gathering, and actually have
gotten a number of leads into actual laboratories.
But I think perhaps what has been more effective about that
particular approach is it simply made the chemicals harder to
get for a lot of those traffickers. I think that is a big part
of the reason that we are seeing the purities go down. I think
that is a big part of the reason that we are seeing the shift
from amphetamine to methamphetamine. We have also done a lot of
education with the agricultural people that Senator Kyl, I
believe it was, referred to, and we have just tried to build an
awareness with industry and other groups that can help us and I
think it is paying off.
The Chairman. Well, methamphetamine is said to be the drug
of choice in the Midwest, but it is also affecting a lot of
other States, including my own home State of Utah. Within the
last 5 years, the use of methamphetamine has increased in some
communities by as much as 300 percent and accounts for up to 90
percent of the drug cases in many areas.
Can you explain why methamphetamine use is so prevalent in
some areas compared to others, and do you think stronger
penalties for manufacturing methamphetamine can assist in
preventing it from spreading to other areas of the country?
Mr. Marshall. Let me try the first part of that question
first, why is it hitting some areas harder than others. Well, I
believe that the reason for that is quite simply that a number
of years ago we saw the Mexican-based organizations wrestle the
production control from the biker gangs. When it was in the
control of the biker gangs, that was a kind of a niche market
and they didn't provide that drug to a lot of people outside
their own circles.
Now, what the Mexican trafficking organizations did and
what contributed to this explosion is that they used their
well-established trafficking distribution networks in this
country. They have been using those networks for marijuana and
heroin for many, many years, and they used those networks to
really aggressively market methamphetamine. They saw that there
was a market for it and they saw that by producing this
methamphetamine, they didn't have the logistical problems that
they did with cocaine, heroin and marijuana.
They didn't have to wait for a biological product to be
harvested. They didn't have the long supply lines and the
smuggling considerations, and they didn't have to pay large
amounts of labor and aircraft or boat costs to smuggle this
product in. And so what they did, in my best professional
judgment, is they saw this market and they went about
aggressively developing that market. So, that is why you see
the explosion, I think, in the use. They expanded it to new and
different user markets.
And the other half of your question, Senator?
The Chairman. Well, the other half was just how basically
do you stop--well, I basically forgot what I was----
Mr. Marshall. Yes, I think I can----
The Chairman. Well, I think it was do you think that
stronger penalties will help to curtail this from spreading to
other areas?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, yes, I do. In fact, I know that there
have been some stronger penalties in place as a result of a
recent bill, and I believe there is a 10-year mandatory now
for, I believe it is 100 grams or more. I very definitely feel
that the stronger penalties will have a deterrent effect on the
manufacturers.
Now, unfortunately, as the other witness has said, that is
not going to have an effect, I think, on the users because once
they begin this destructive cycle, there are probably not too
many things that are going to deter them. But, absolutely,
penalties are an essential part of solving this problem.
The Chairman. My time is up, but let me ask you, Mr.
Warner, about mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses.
Stewart Taylor, who is highly respected by me and others, a
legal commentator, recently wrote a column in the National
Journal advocating the repeal of all Federal mandatory minimum
sentences for drug offenses. In addition, there is a bill
pending in the House of Representatives which is sponsored by
25 Members that would repeal all Federal mandatory minimum
sentences for drug offenses.
Now, do you support mandatory minimum sentences for
methamphetamine trafficking? And let me just ask this: How do
you respond to such critics of mandatory minimum sentences for
drug offenses?
Mr. Warner. Mr. Chairman, I believe that my position on
minimum mandatories runs very parallel with that of the
Department of Justice. I believe that minimum mandatory
sentences are appropriate in the most egregious violent crimes
and drug trafficking areas. Unfortunately, those who would
advocate the repeal of minimum mandatories usually use the
argument that, well, there are violent people, there are
murderers who are serving less time than those who have
merely--and I use that in quotes--``merely'' been trafficking
in or manufacturing drugs.
But as was noted earlier, guns and violence are part and
parcel of the drug trade. And quite frankly, my experience over
many years as a prosecutor suggests that there are appropriate
circumstances. Now, I don't think that we want to be knee-jerk
about this, and I know this committee hasn't been that way, but
I do believe that in the appropriate cases, the most serious
cases, minimum mandatories are appropriate and they do serve a
useful purpose of deterrence.
I might also add that as you look at this particular
problem of methamphetamine, which is different than other drug
areas because of the manufacturing aspect vis-a-vis some of the
things we have seen with heroin, cocaine, and so on, I believe
personally that there is a qualitative difference between those
who manufacture and those who distribute and those who use. Mr.
Marshall alluded to that just a bit.
Those who are manufacturing pose a very, very serious
threat to the public safety and to the environment. Many of
these things have been alluded to before. I won't rehash that,
but I do believe that in appropriate circumstances and in the
most serious cases minimum mandatories are indeed appropriate.
The Chairman. You and I have worked on a couple of
situations where basically good kids have gotten hooked on meth
and, you know, they get convicted, go to jail, and then they
come out and they are absolutely convinced that they can make
it and then slip right back into the same pattern. It is one
thing to do everything we can to prevent it, but how do we help
these kids that get hooked on it who want to get off but really
can't because they are addicted to it? How long does it take to
get over an addiction, assuming we have the right prevention
approach?
Mr. Warner. I don't profess expertise in that. I tell
people I am a prosecutor, I am not a social worker or a
physician.
The Chairman. Yes, but you have had experience in this
area.
Mr. Warner. I have had experience, and my experience
particularly with methamphetamine is that it is as addictive or
more addictive than any other drug I have ever dealt with. And
once people get on it, it is extremely difficult to get off. I
am talking in the area of 2 to 3 years, at least, of very
serious kinds of rehab that I have seen.
In fact, you know, people look at these tough sentences
that we give people that are involved in drugs, but I have
personally had occasions where people have come to me or have
written to me from prison or after they have been released and
have thanked us for prosecuting them and thanked us for putting
them in prison because we saved their lives because they were
on such a downhill spiral.
And in the Federal system at least, there are very good
programs for rehabilitation and treatment within the system.
Many times, our State systems aren't as good, but I believe
that the treatment aspect is absolutely essential. It is not
enough just to incarcerate and throw away the key. If someone
is addicted, they really do need that treatment while in
prison.
The Chairman. Well, I think the point I am making here, for
everybody who is watching or listening to this, is that you
have really got to watch your kids, and you have got to watch
your area and we have all got to be vigilant because once the
kid is addicted--and it could be the nicest young person in the
world, as the one young person that we dealt with. It could be
a terrific young person, but once he or she is addicted, it is
almost impossible to get him or her off of addiction, and it
takes up to 3 years of very intensive rehabilitation. This is
becoming a widespread problem in our society. And as Mr. Vasica
brought out, even if one goes through the 3-year
rehabilitation, he or she may slip back into it because the
drug is so addictive and so compelling. I just wanted to get
that across because this is not some itty-bitty problem; this
is a big-time problem.
Mr. Vasica, you wanted to say something?
Mr. Vasica. I have heard from the counselors in the rehab
center that my son was in that they never, ever get over the
addiction. It will always be in the back of their minds. Even
now I ask my son, do you ever think about it. He says, all the
time. But they teach them how to prevent from going back into
it. So, that addiction never, ever disappears. It is scary, it
really is scary.
The Chairman. It is an evil thing, I tell you.
Well, my time is up. Let me turn to Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Vasica, I am delighted that you have your son back. I
think that is really the good news of this hearing.
Mr. Vasica. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. If I might, I would like to begin my
questioning with Mr. Marshall. Just quickly, Mr. Marshall, who
would you say of the Mexican cartel leaders are the two
gentlemen that have had the biggest impact on the
methamphetamine cartel of Mexico which has begun this whole
super lab manufacturing process?
Mr. Marshall. That would be the Amezcua brothers, Luis and
Jesus.
Senator Feinstein. And were not the Amezcua brothers
actually arrested and in custody at one point?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, they were.
Senator Feinstein. And were they not freed by a Mexican
judge?
Mr. Marshall. That is my understanding, yes, ma'am, that
they were freed.
Senator Feinstein. And do we not have an extradition
request pending against them?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, we do.
Senator Feinstein. And did not the Mexican authorities know
that the extradition request was pending against them when they
were in jail?
Mr. Marshall. It is my belief that they did, but to be a
hundred percent sure about that you would have to ask the
Justice Department. I think I can say with certainty that they
did.
Senator Feinstein. But they were not extradited?
Mr. Marshall. That is correct.
Senator Feinstein. And are not the Amezcua brothers
responsible for the establishment in the mainstream the
development of the major methamphetamine market in the United
States?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, that is correct, they are. They, in a
sense, were the organization that started it all.
Senator Feinstein. Let me just make a comment, if I might,
to you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. This is a huge, huge problem, and that
is this particular Mexican cartel which has really developed
the methamphetamine trade as we know it in the world today, and
the two leaders were actually in prison. There was an
extradition request. I believe it was communicated to the
Mexican Government. As a matter of fact, they were actually
held in jail only pending resolution of the extradition request
and they were cut loose. I find this is just devastating in
terms of being able to maintain an effective battle against
methamphetamine.
The Chairman. Well, I think that is an important point.
If the Senator would just yield for a minute, I have to
step out for a minute, so as soon as you are completed, we will
turn to Senator Biden. Is that OK?
Senator Feinstein. That is excellent.
The Chairman. All right.
Senator Feinstein. Ms. Kypridakes, I want to thank you so
much for all your help. You have become, I think, one of the
United States' great experts on precursor chemicals and
methamphetamine, and I just want to salute the Department of
Narcotic Enforcement. You have made many, many arrests, over
1,000 this past year in California alone--I should say seized
labs and destroyed labs, and I think that is very impressive.
You state in your testimony that the Mexican drug cartels
have the incentive to smuggle precursor chemicals into the
United States and cook the meth here because penalties are
lower for smuggling precursors than for smuggling meth. I note
that under current Federal law, the maximum sentence for
importing any quantity of listed chemicals with the intent to
manufacture a controlled substance is 10 years. By contrast,
the penalty for smuggling 50 grams of meth is a minimum of 10
years and a maximum of life.
It seems to me that we can alter the incentives and reduce
the hazard to human health from cooking meth in the United
States by bringing these penalties into line with each other.
What do you think of this and what do the other witnesses think
of this? In essence, what I am suggesting is that the penalty
for smuggling the precursor in, be the same as manufacturing
meth.
Ms. Kypridakes. Well, I certainly think that that would be
a significant step to the source of those precursor chemicals.
In many cases, the source is coming from outside the country
into this country. And as I stated and as you reiterated, that
is simply because there is a lesser penalty if you do that. If
that were brought and aligned with manufacturing, so that if
you were bringing in those large quantities which are necessary
for what we have coined those super labs, you would certainly
be making a huge dent, I think.
Senator Feinstein. For example, amphetamine, which is going
to be more and more used if there is a clamp-down on other
precursors?
Ms. Kypridakes. That is correct. So there are limits on the
amount of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine which people can obtain
in this country, so they are seeking phenylpropanolamine
through a variety of means. Certainly, it is a lot nicer when
you are an illegal manufacturer if you have bulk quantities of
phenylpropanolamine. But, again, that is being smuggled as
well. And, again, if you are caught with that, the penalty is
far less than what you would be charged with had you had a
finished product.
Senator Feinstein. Mr. Marshall, might I ask you that same
question?
Mr. Marshall. Senator, yes, I would support that and I
think that that is a good idea. I think as we see a bit more
control over the bulk shipments, however, and over the bulk
smuggling, I think that the same concept perhaps could apply to
some of these substances up here, the pills and that sort of
stuff, the ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, when it is possessed
for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine and when it is
purchased by subterfuge for that purpose. I think it is an
outstanding concept and I would suggest you might want to
extend it to these for the same reason.
Senator Feinstein. Would you mind taking a look at the 1996
law? We had a huge debate, if you will recall, on the
pseudoephedrine as to the amount that could be sold without the
druggist having to register the sale. Do you think that that
cap is adequate?
Mr. Marshall. I think that is adequate because you want to
have a balance of controlling the substance and yet have a
safeguard in there for the legitimate uses. So I think that is
adequate. I think that what we have done, however, is we have
had these partnerships with retailers like Wal-Mart and Costco,
and I think they have found that as a suspicious order, as it
were, they kind of look at lower thresholds and they report
lower thresholds, I am told. But I believe to safeguard the
balance of the legitimate need with the criminal control, I
think that those amounts are adequate.
Senator Feinstein. Would it make any sense to put some
limits on the amount of amphetamine that you could sell?
Mr. Marshall. No; the amphetamine would be--I mean, that is
an illicit substance.
Senator Feinstein. Oh, you can't, that is right.
Mr. Marshall. Amphetamine, methamphetamine, those are
illegal Schedule I substances. Are you speaking of ephedrine
and pseudoephedrine?
Senator Feinstein. Well, then, where is it all coming from?
Mr. Marshall. Well, right now it is all--I say ``all''--the
trend right now for the ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are these
over-the-counter medications. That is where a lot of it is
coming from.
Senator Feinstein. I am confused. You are saying it is all
coming--the cooking ingredients are coming essentially from the
over-the-counter ingredients?
Mr. Marshall. We are seeing a trend now--and I think this
is as a result of the Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996 and
operations like Operation Backtrack and investigations where we
have seized large amounts of bulk chemicals. I think we are
seeing the trend now that the traffickers are getting most of
their ephedrine and pseudoephedrine from the over-the-counter
remedies. That is what we are seeing nationwide. Ms. Kypridakes
may comment on that from a California point of view.
Ms. Kypridakes. If I could just comment in this way,
because you asked the question about lowering that threshold
amount or what we placed in the MCA, and I believe that was one
of the major discussions we had one day in your office. One of
the things that I would simply point out--and I think that
Missouri can certainly bear this out, as well as some of the
problems that have been encountered in Utah and Iowa--a 24-gram
threshold is a significant amount of over-the-counter cold and
allergy preparations, certainly far more than the average
consumer is going to consume probably in a number of years, let
alone 1 year. And it is well above what any stovetop cooker
would require in order to manufacture in their homes.
Now, one of the things, and I will throw this out there, is
there is currently legislation in California which would lower
that threshold to 9 grams, which would mean three packages of
96 tablets, if you will, 12 grams being what the average
stovetop acquiring, so 4 packages of 3 grams apiece.
Senator Feinstein. So in other words, you would lower that
threshold from 24 grams, which is in the 1996 legislation, to 9
grams?
Ms. Kypridakes. That is about a done deal in California.
Senator Feinstein. And that is three packages of how many
pills?
Ms. Kypridakes. Ninety-six, I believe.
Senator Feinstein. Ninety-six. That is a lot of pills to
buy at one time.
Ms. Kypridakes. Sure. I know that Missouri has enacted
certain restrictions on the amount of over-the-counter cold and
allergy products that you can purchase, as well as some other
States. And one of the key elements that we also included in
some of the individual State legislation has been that blister
packaging was no longer exempt, which was one of the things
which was exempt in the Federal legislation.
And I certainly commend the voluntary compliance which has
taken place on the part of--I don't mean to--just so everybody
understands, there certainly are reasons for establishing
higher thresholds at the Federal level, and I want to commend
those companies which cooperated and wanted to cooperate in a
partnership with law enforcement, such as Wal-Mart and Costco
and some others across the country. But, again, I think we need
to look at the volume that we are allowing and just what it
takes for the average stovetop cooker to cook because those are
the majority of the labs and which pose the greatest threat to
all of us.
Senator Feinstein. Just one quick question because my time
is expired. When you seize a lab, do you find a lot of evidence
of the blister packs?
Ms. Kypridakes. Thousands and thousands of the little
packages.
Senator Feinstein. So the blister packs--they are getting
somebody to open each little pill before they cook it.
Ms. Kypridakes. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. And the blister packs have become a
major problem, would you say, Mr. Marshall?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, ma'am.
Mr. Warner. Senator, if I could just inject very briefly in
response?
Senator Feinstein. Certainly, Mr. Warner.
Mr. Warner. In Utah, I think one of the major reasons that
Utah has become unfortunately a high manufacturing State was
because of the easy access to precursor chemicals. Our State
legislature acted in 1998 to pass a State Precursor Act which
has helped us, and it limits possession and sale to 12 grams
under our State law. I am being told by our agents that this is
helping a great deal as they deal with this problem.
Senator Feinstein. Would you support going to 9 grams,
which is three 96-pill packs?
Mr. Warner. I don't know that I have got a specific number
in mind, but I do know that I can say based on anecdotal
experience that the law in Utah is helping us with the lab
problem.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Biden, we will finish with you.
Senator Biden. Let me ask for people watching this hearing,
we talk about 3 packs, 96 pills, 12 grams, 24 grams, 9 grams. I
think to the averaged informed person it doesn't mean much.
Give me, any one of you, an example of someone who legitimately
wishes to purchase these pills for purposes of dealing with
allergies or whatever their legitimate purpose is. They walk
into a drugstore. How many pills are they likely to buy? What
would be a normal purchase.
Is Sudafed on there? I guess a pack is there. When you go
in to buy a pack of Sudafed, I mean we must have some numbers
on what the average purchase would be for someone who is not
going to cook it, somebody who is going to use it in a
legitimate fashion.
Mr. Marshall. Senator, for myself and my family--and there
are three members of my five-member family that are kind of
plagued with allergies, unfortunately, myself being one of
them, and we normally buy one packet at a time, 30 or 60. And
occasionally, if we are going on a trip, we may buy a couple.
And the dosage unit, I believe, on those--I would have to
actually check the package, but I believe it is----
Senator Biden. Let me ask the staff to go down and grab a
package of this Sudafed for me, or whatever else is there,
please.
Ms. Kypridakes. Under the FDA provisions, the
pseudoephedrine can be up to 60 milligrams and the ephedrine is
restricted to 30 milligrams per dosage unit.
Senator Biden. I understand that. What I am trying to get
at is to put this in language that the mother or father who is
out there or the individual who is out there trying to
understand what we are talking about because it is a concept
that is hard for people to imagine.
I mean, were my wife not a teacher and were I not in this
business and I were practicing law and she worked for the
DuPont Company and we heard this on television replayed, it is
all kind of surreal to the average mother or father out there
that says, now, wait a minute now, they are talking about
cooking stuff that is Sudafed and night-time liquid caps, and
they are talking about 12 and 9 and 24 grams, and they can get
this over the Internet. I mean, this is like voodoo.
We deal with this so much. I have been dealing with this
for so many years of my life. We talk to each other and we
think people understand what the heck we are talking about. So
what I am trying to get at here is when people think that we
are being--the Senator from California or Delaware or Utah is
being unreasonable in restricting access to something, the way
the drug companies or others will portray it is we don't want
somebody to be able to walk in and buy a package of Sudafed.
Now, in this package of Sudafed, how much of the bad stuff
is there that allows somebody to cook this, in layman's terms?
Can they make anything out of this pack? Can they do anything
with this pack?
Mr. Doerge. Well, it takes several of those packs, Senator,
to effect a good cook. The problem with what we are saying here
is if we limit the amount of boxes that you can buy at any one
place, they just go from place to place.
Senator Biden. Right. That is the next thing I was getting
at.
Mr. Doerge. Correct.
Senator Biden. So the next point is we are trying to come
up with solutions. One of the things that the American people,
I think--at least in my experience, they look at us and they
sometimes doubt our intentions. In this area, they don't doubt
our intentions but doubt our judgment. So we come up and say we
are going to limit the ability to buy the equivalent of two or
three packs of Sudafed.
And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to say, OK, you
limit it and you can't buy more than four packs from one
drugstore. But you walk next door, you go to another drugstore.
You go to 4 different drugstores and it takes you 5 minutes to
buy 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 packs.
But I am trying to get at is this question. For each one of
you, including you, sir, who has gone through more trauma
related to this than anybody has, if there was only one thing
you could do--if you were sitting up here or you were the
President of the United States and could have an edict that
would attempt--one thing you could do to affect the consumption
of methamphetamine, of, you know, black beauties and dexies,
the way you hear kids talk about them--you never hear anybody
on the street say ``methamphetamine.'' You hear them talking
about crank or dexies or beans or black beauties or white
beanies. I mean, you know, that is the language of the street.
Now, what would you do? You only get one, you get one deal,
you get one thing. You are going to pass legislation. What is
the single most important thing, if you are willing to take a
shot at it, that you would want done other than the United
States having an epiphany or a great alter call and all of a
sudden see the Lord and not want to do anything? I mean, short
of that, what one thing would you do, Donnie?
Mr. Marshall. It is almost an impossible question to say
one particular thing, and I don't think one particular thing
would really impact on the problem. But I think as a law
enforcement professional, perhaps I am biased, but I believe
that stiffer penalties and more law enforcement measures
against the manufacturers and the traffickers would be the
biggest thing.
Senator Biden. Paul?
Mr. Warner. I agree with Mr. Marshall relative to the
manufacturer. As I said earlier, I believe there is a
qualitative difference in this particular drug between
manufacturing and trafficking and the users. I think we want to
focus--we, talking about prosecutors, law enforcement--we want
to focus on the manufacturers where we can because that is
where the production is, that is where this stuff is coming
from. When we can do something about the manufacturer and focus
on the manufacturer, then we stop the production at the front
end.
Senator Biden. Again, for the people watching this, the
manufacturer can be a 22-year-old kid who is in his basement
and has a lab like this, or a 16-year-old kid. Or the
manufacturer can be the object of the Senator from California's
affection and attention, Mexican drug cartel leaders. They are
vastly different.
We busted, State and local, about 5,000 labs last year, if
I am not mistaken, all told. So when people think manufacturer,
they are used to thinking of cocaine cartels. They are used to
thinking of heroin cartels, if you pick 2, 3, 4 or 5. What we
are talking about here is folks with old Volkswagen vans with
stacks coming out of the top manufacturing on the road--that is
how it got into your State, that is how it got to your State;
it didn't come any other way--or going out near Coeur d'Alene,
ID, and going deep in the woods polluting the ground, because
this stuff stinks, too. You know, people smell it.
So my point is that I think we have got to try to figure
out how to educate the public about this in the sense that a
manufacturer is not like--no one is going to take a coca leaf
at 16-years-old and go down in their basement and buy the coca
leaf and have a cocaine operation in the basement of their
house.
Senator Feinstein. They make crack in the kitchen.
Senator Biden. That is my point. That is the point. The
Senator is not listening to me.
Senator Feinstein. I am not agreeing with you.
Senator Biden. Well, if you listened to me, you would agree
with me. [Laughter.]
Let me explain what I mean by that.
The Chairman. Could we have a little less controversy among
our Democrats? [Laughter.]
Senator Biden. We have a very different deal here. This can
be made anywhere. Anything from crank to black beauties can be
made in the basement. The average person doesn't cook cocaine
the way in which we think of the distribution of cocaine. Even
crack cocaine is harder to do than this. That is the only point
I am making. And because of that, this is a more pernicious
problem.
And the Senator from California is right because she is the
first one that has been on dealing harshly with precursors, to
the point that a lot of the business interests in this country
weren't happy because she was dealing so harshly with it.
What I am trying to get at is it seems to me that one of
the keys to this, when you say you want to go after the
manufacturer, the person who is cooking the stuff, the person
who is cooking the stuff can be a little boutique that is
cooking a little bit or it can be a major Mexican cartel that
is making hundreds of millions of dollars transporting
precursor chemicals and/or in this country producing the
product as well. So it seems to me this is a little different.
The point I want to get at is this. Mr. Warner, you are a
prosecutor. We are up here talking about how tough we are going
to get on all of these things. Yet, we went out just this year
in the State Department-Commerce-Justice bill and we came in
$200 million below the President's request for U.S. attorneys,
we came in $300 million below the President's request for the
FBI, and we came in $160 million below the President's request
for the DEA.
Now, all of you have to sit there and say we thank you for
your help, Congress. Don't thank us this year. We didn't do the
right thing this year. We didn't do what we were supposed to do
this year. And it seems to me that if you want to have an
impact, the single greatest impact, because you are talking
about an incredibly large number of people, is people. We need
more people.
You can increase the penalties, which you should. You can
deal with treating the precursor chemical coming across the
border the same as the product that we outlaw coming across the
border. But if you don't have more DEA agents, if you don't
have more FBI agents, if you don't have more U.S. attorneys
focusing on this, they ain't going to get very far.
So, in my view, the single most significant thing we can
do, in addition to trying to deal with access to the precursor
chemicals here, is deal with the enforcement side, people.
Yes, Sheriff.
Mr. Doerge. Senator, if I may, I believe that 90 percent of
the methamphetamine operations in Missouri are done at the mom-
and-pop operations, and we are dealing with those people over
and over again. We put 100,000 officers on the street through
these great programs, and we appreciate that. But we didn't
have enough prosecutors and U.S. attorneys to take care of the
cases before we put all those officers on the street, before we
formed all these drug task forces. We do not have enough people
in place to prosecute, and we keep seeing these people come
back through and we keep seeing their faces time and time
again. And it drains our resources, drains our time.
I would like to be able to put those people away, and the
suspended imposition of sentences be reduced down because of
expediency and all the other things that they have to consider,
and have those people put away to the point that they would at
least have enough time in prison that we could deal with the
new ones coming on. And you weren't here before, but this was
taken off the Internet at our local library in our county and
this is ingredients and instructions on how to do a
methamphetamine lab. It is not being done in the basement so
much; it is being done on the riverbank in our area and they
are dumping the waste in our rivers.
Senator Biden. Right. I know my time is up and I will
conclude with this, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for your
indulgence. The truth of the matter is there are six major
pieces of this dealing with the precursors at one end and
dealing with cleanup at the other end, and there is in between
the idea of prosecution, penalties, incarceration, and
treatment.
And the truth of the matter is, in this area this is high-
intensity as it relates to personnel required to deal with
this. That is the only point I want to make to you. So if I
could only have one thing, I know what I want, and I will take
my political career on it having more impact than anything else
we could do. If I give you more prosecutors, if I give you more
DA's--if I am a responsible governor and give you more DA's to
prosecute, if I give you more DEA agents, I can do more with
that than I can do with any other single thing.
We should do everything, and the thing that bothers me the
most about all of this is why are we in a position where, in
the matter of 4 years, 12 to 15 percent more kids think that
this is not dangerous than before? And that goes to our overall
drug program which I won't bore you all with.
So I thank you all for your testimony. The point I am
trying to make here is this can be a mom-and-pop operation. The
more easy it is able to be done, the more requirement there is
for personnel-intensive efforts--cops, prosecutors, and
judges--to deal with it. That is the only point I wanted to
make.
The Chairman. Well, let me end the hearing with this. I
agree with virtually everything Senator Biden has said, but I
think there is something far more important than all of that,
and that is we have got to get back in this country to thinking
a little bit more about families and about what is right and
wrong and about community support.
Senator Biden, Senator Feinstein and I have worked very
hard for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. We are finding
that where we have Boys and Girls Clubs, drug abuse goes down
dramatically. And until we start revitalizing the spiritual
nature--and I am not necessarily talking about religion,
although certainly that is part of it--the spiritual nature of
America that has always been here, but has been lost in recent
years, or at least has been diminished in recent years, we are
not going to have the intestinal fortitude or the spiritual
fortitude to be able to fight this stuff.
You can have all the prosecutors in the world and you can
have all the policemen and sheriffs in the world, and this is
just going to proliferate across this land in ways that nobody
ever dreamed of unless we start emphasizing some of the family-
type things that really have to occur. You know, in a country
where marriage is now starting to slip as a sanctified
institution, it is not hard for me to see why kids are looking
for release in other areas. And if they don't have the
supervision and they don't have the family treatment and care--
a lot of these kids are being raised now in single-parent
households where the poor parents don't know what to do. They
have got to work and the kids are latchkey kids.
We have got to be very concerned about the spiritual nature
of America. And this is a great country. It is the most
spiritual country ever in the history of the world, but we are
losing it. We have got to get back to that first and then I
think we do have to do all these other things that Senator
Biden and others and myself have been calling for. We can
prosecute these people for the rest of our lives and it isn't
going to solve the problem unless we start changing the nature
of our society and get it back to where it really was before
the 1960's that have really ballooned into now the 1990's,
going into the next century.
So you have all been very helpful here today in helping us
to understand this plague, really this catastrophic drug
problem that is killing our young people. I want to personally
thank each and every one of you for the efforts you are making
to try and get this under control. And we will try and help you
here. We will try to get a really good methamphetamine bill
with the very best ideas of everybody on this committee. It is
one thing where I just cannot believe we can't get together and
work as Democrats and Republicans and come out with something
that will really assist you and help you.
But I also suggest this business of families and
spirituality and decency and honor has got to start being
emphasized. And, again, the Boys and Girls Clubs, the Boy and
Girl Scouts, the----
Senator Biden. Afterschool programs.
The Chairman. Afterschool programs, and frankly during-
school programs, but mainly programs in the home. We have got
to somehow or other start----
Senator Biden. Mr. Chairman, I want the record to show I am
returning these.
The Chairman. I have no doubt that you will.
Well, I want to thank all of you for being here. You have
been very helpful to us and we just appreciate you very much,
and I hope this hearing will educate a lot of people out there.
I have read your statement, Ms. Kypridakes, and I think it
is a very good statement. I have read all of your statements
and I think all of them are good, but your State has so much of
this and you have these super labs, the highest percentage of
them, and I think people ought to pay attention to some of the
things that you mention in your statement.
Mr. Doerge, your experience has been wonderful here.
Paul Warner, I know what great work you have done. And, of
course, the DEA is terrific.
And, Mr. Vasica, we all empathize with you and we are glad
that your son has got this under control.
Mr. Doerge. Mr. Chairman, if I may, please remember the
local agencies. Most of these cases start with local law
enforcement.
The Chairman. Right, right.
Mr. Doerge. And our local task forces need help.
The Chairman. Yes, and you guys are doing a good job, but
you are overwhelmed by it, and you have, I think, eloquently
expressed that.
Well, thank you all very much. With that, we will recess
until further notice.
Senator Biden. Thank you for the hearing, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. We will keep the record alive until August 4
for statements and additional questions. I hope you will answer
them by then, if you can.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]