U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–398 PDF 2004

ICE IN THE OZARKS: THE METHAMPHETAMINE

EPIDEMIC IN ARKANSAS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 28, 2004

Serial No. 108–245

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnnesota

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

DOUG OSE, California

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

——— ———

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

NICHOLAS COLEMAN, Professional Staff Member and Counsel

MALIA HOLST, Clerk

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on June 28, 2004 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Bryant, William J., Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Little Rock, AR,

Office (New Orleans Field Division) Drug Enforcement Administration . 8

Counts, Larry, director, Decision Point drug treatment facility ................... 168

Cromwell, William M., Acting U.S. Attorney, Western District of Arkansas .................................................................................................................. 24

Dufour, Bob, director of professional and government relations, Wal-Mart

Stores, Inc. ..................................................................................................... 178

Gibbons, David, prosecuting attorney, 5th Judicial District ......................... 76

Gunn, Mary Ann, circuit judge, Fourth Judicial District, Fourth Division . 98

Hickman, Danny, sheriff, Boone County ........................................................ 73

Hoggatt, Greg, director, Drug Free Rogers-Lowell ........................................ 182

Howard, J.R., executive director, Arkansas State crime lab ........................ 61

Hudson, David, Sebastian County Judge ....................................................... 56

Leach, Merlin D., executive director, Center for Children & Public Safety 186

Louie, Shirley, environmental epidemiology supervisor, Arkansas Department of Health .............................................................................................. 68

Macdonald, James, Federal on Scene Coordinator, Region 7, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ....................................................................... 32

Pyle, Michael ..................................................................................................... 192

Rutledge, Keith, State drug director, Office of the Governor of Arkansas .. 46

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Bryant, William J., Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Little Rock, AR,

Office (New Orleans Field Division) Drug Enforcement Administration,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 12

Counts, Larry, director, Decision Point drug treatment facility, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 170

Cromwell, William M., Acting U.S. Attorney, Western District of Arkansas, prepared statement of ........................................................................... 26

Dufour, Bob, director of professional and government relations, Wal-Mart

Stores, Inc., prepared statement of ............................................................. 180

Gibbons, David, prosecuting attorney, 5th Judicial District, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 78

Gunn, Mary Ann, circuit judge, Fourth Judicial District, Fourth Division,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 100

Hickman, Danny, sheriff, Boone County, prepared statement of ................. 74

Hoggatt, Greg, director, Drug Free Rogers-Lowell, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 184

Howard, J.R., executive director, Arkansas State crime lab, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 63

Hudson, David, Sebastian County Judge, prepared statement of ................ 58

Leach, Merlin D., executive director, Center for Children & Public Safety,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 188

Louie, Shirley, environmental epidemiology supervisor, Arkansas Department of Health, prepared statement of ....................................................... 70

Macdonald, James, Federal on Scene Coordinator, Region 7, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, prepared statement of ............................... 34

Pyle, Michael, prepared statement of ............................................................. 194

Rutledge, Keith, State drug director, Office of the Governor of Arkansas,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 49

Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Indiana, prepared statement of ............................................................... 4

(1)

ICE IN THE OZARKS: THE

METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC IN ARKANSAS

MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY AND

HUMAN RESOURCES, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, Bentonville, AR.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., at the

Northwest Arkansas Community College, White Auditorium, One

College Drive, Bentonville, AR, Hon. Mark E. Souder (chairman of

the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Souder and Boozman.

Staff present: Nicholas Coleman, professional staff member and

counsel; and Malia Holst, clerk.

Mr. SOUDER. Good morning, and thank you all for coming. This

hearing continues our subcommittee’s work on the problem of

methamphetamine abuse, a problem that is ravaging the State of

Arkansas and the entire Nation. I’d like to thank Congressman

John Boozman for inviting us here to Bentonville and for his leadership in confronting the meth epidemic.

In 2003, Congressman Boozman testified before our subcommittee about the meth problem in northwest Arkansas, and since then,

we have frequently discussed ways to help communities like this

one reduce drug abuse.

Meth is one of the most powerful and dangerous drugs available,

and it is also one of the easiest to make. It can be ‘‘cooked’’ using

common household or agricultural chemicals and simple cold medicines, following recipes easily available on the Internet. The meth

here in Arkansas and in other States comes from two major sources

of supply. First, most meth comes from the so-called ‘‘superlabs’’ in

California and northern Mexico. By the end of the 1990’s these

super labs produced over 70 percent of the Nation’s supply of meth.

These super labs are operated by large Mexican drug trafficking organizations that have used their established distribution and supply networks to transport meth throughout the country. According

to recent news reports, these groups have introduced the form of

meth called ‘‘crystal meth’’ or ‘‘ice’’ to Arkansas, which is very pure

and extremely addictive.

The second major source of meth comes from small, local labs

that are generally unaffiliated with major drug trafficking organizations. These labs have proliferated throughout the country, and

Arkansas has been particularly hard hit, with one of the highest

rates per capita of lab seizures in the country. The total amount

2

of meth actually supplied by these labs is relatively small; however,

the environmental damage and health hazard they create makes

them a serious problem for local communities, particularly the

State and local law enforcement agencies charged with the duty to

uncover and clean them up. In my home State of Indiana, for example, more than 20 percent of the labs raided by the police were

discovered only after they had exploded and started fires. Children

are often found at meth labs, and have frequently suffered from severe health problems as a result of the hazardous chemicals used

in drug manufacturing.

Our hearings during the 107th Congress were mostly held in

Washington and looked at this problem from a national perspective. This year, however, we have taken a different approach. We

have instead been holding hearings in specific regions that have

been hardest hit by meth trafficking and abuse. In February, we

held a hearing in northeastern Indiana, followed by a hearing in

Detroit, Michigan, where large quantities of meth precursor chemicals like pseudoephedrine were being smuggled until very recently.

In August, we will hold a hearing in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, where

the use of crystal meth is growing rapidly and also takes the most

money from the Federal Government for the meth problems.

Everywhere we go, we hear about many of the same issues; the

environmental damage caused by the labs; the high cost and long

hours required for law enforcement agencies to process lab sites;

and the heartbreaking stories of children exposed to drugs and

chemicals and in need of emergency medical care and a safe place

to go. We hear about how addictive and deadly this drug is, and

how difficult it is to provide treatment and get meth users off

drugs.

The Bush administration, and especially its Office of National

Drug Control Policy [ONDCP], has pushed for strong and effective

action against meth abuse. We will need to take action at every

level—Federal, State and local—to respond to this problem. Let me

briefly mention three issues that need to be addressed.

First, what do we need to do to reduce the supply of meth? In

the late 1990’s, the Federal Government responded to the meth

problem both here and elsewhere with stricter laws against the

precursor chemical trade and tougher enforcement. The proliferation of smaller meth labs, however, means that we probably will

have to further restrict the ability of meth cooks to get precursor

chemicals—especially pseudoephedrine. Already many States have

acted to restrict sales of cold medicines and other pseudoephedrine

sources. A major question Congress must address is whether to

enact a national standard for these sales, and, if so, what form it

should take?

Second, how should we deal with environmental issues created in

the wake of a meth lab seizure? We have to ensure that the toxic

chemicals produced and dumped by lab operators are cleaned up,

but these criminals rarely have enough money to compensate the

Federal Government for those costs. If we impose the costs on

unsuspecting land owners or landlords, however, we may give them

a disincentive to monitor their property and report suspicious activity to the police. In California, for example, some farmers prefer to

bury the remains of meth labs they find on their property, because

3

if they report them, they will be liable for the clean-up costs. So

we are having lots of unanticipated consequences. We will have to

carefully consider how we assign the responsibility for this difficult

and expensive task.

Finally, how do we get meth addicts into treatment, and how do

we keep young people from starting on meth in the first place? We

can all agree that education and outreach are vital, but the hard

part is figuring out what works best. What works for marijuana,

ecstasy or cocaine may not work as well for meth.

This hearing will address these difficult questions and hopefully

bringus closer to some answers. Again, I thank Congressman

Boozman for inviting us here, and for the assistance that he and

his staff provided to our subcommittee in setting up this hearing.

We will welcome in the first panel three witnesses who have joined

us to discuss the Federal Government’s response to the meth problem; Mr. William J. Bryant, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of

the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Office in Little Rock, AR;

Mr. William Cromwell, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Arkansas; my understanding, that’s his career position as

acting district attorney second time through; and Mr. James MacDonald, the Federal On Scene Coordinator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Region 7.

At a hearing like this, it is vitally important for us to hear from

State and local agencies forced to fight on the ‘‘front lines’’ against

meth and other illegal drugs. We welcome Mr. Keith Rutledge, the

Governor’s State drug director; the Honorable David Hudson, a Sebastian County judge; Mr. J.R. Howard, executive director of the

Arkansas State Crime Lab; Miss Shirley Louie, environmental epidemiology supervisor of the Arkansas Department of Health; Sheriff Danny Hickman of Boone County; and Mr. David Gibbons, prosecuting attorney for the 5th Judicial District.

We also welcome five witnesses who work in the field of drug

treatment and prevention. They’re of vital importance here in

northwest Arkansas. The Honorable Mary Ann Gunn, circuit judge

for the Fourth Judicial District, who has worked extensively with

the Drug Courts initiative here; Mr. Larry Counts, director of Decision Point Drug Treatment Facility; Mr. Gregg Hoggatt, director of

the Drug Free Rogers-Lowell; Mr. Michael Pyle, a recovering methamphetamine addict; and Dr. Merlin D. Leach, executive director

of the Center for Children & Public Policy. Finally, we’d also like

to welcome two representatives of the retail and trucking industries, whose assistance and expertise we will need to stop the problem of meth production and trafficking; Mr. Bob Dufour, director

of professional and government relations for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.;

and Mr. Lane Kidd, president of the Arkansas Trucking Association. We thank everyone for taking the time to join us this morning, and look forward to your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]

4

5

6

7

Mr. SOUDER. Now I’d like to yield to my friend and colleague

Congressman Boozman.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, and staff members on the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources,

I want to welcome you to northwest Arkansas. I truly appreciate

the committee taking the time to come to Arkansas to see firsthand

the methamphetamine epidemic in our region. I would also like to

welcome our witnesses. You’re all on the front lines in the daily

battle against methamphetamine in Arkansas. I appreciate all that

you do, and I look forward to hearing your insightful testimony.

Last, I would also like to recognize and thank you for coming, the

many distinguished guests in our audience that are joining us

today.

The threat posed to our Nation by the traffic and abuse of meth

is high and increasing. According to the National Drug Intelligence

Center’s 2004 national drug threat assessment, it was reported

that meth is the second largest drug threat across the Nation according to State and local law enforcement. It is second only to cocaine. So although meth represents a small percentage of drug use

in America, the repercussions of using meth make it the second

biggest drug threat in our Nation. The highly addictive nature of

the drug paired with the intense feelings of paranoia, agitation and

depression cause extensive cases of child abuse, spousal abuse, robbery, and theft. The ripple effect caused by this drug is like no

other.

I took an informal poll around my district and heard overwhelmingly—notice I said ‘‘informal.’’ One of those words where I won’t

get rounded up by the chairman. But, anyway, when you visit with

anyone that’s related to law enforcement in a district, they’ll tell

you that over 70 percent of all crime in this region can be attributed to meth. We have another problem here in Arkansas, a technical problem, of not reporting all of our data to the Federal agencies. You may notice that the DEA statistics for meth lab seizures

in Arkansas are significantly below the Arkansas State Crime Lab

numbers. This is because we need to do a better job of reporting

our data to the Federal agencies.

If you’ll notice, in the latest national drug threat assessment,

Missouri was reported to have the highest number of meth lab seizures in the central States in 2003 with 1,075. Arkansas was listed

at No. 2 with 656 seizures. These are the Federal statistics. However, if you compare that with the Arkansas State Crime Lab numbers, you’ll see that Arkansas actually seized over 1,200 meth labs

in 2003. This figure far exceeds Missouri’s numbers. And, in fact,

when you look at the State Crime Lab’s numbers, we’ve experienced a 4,900 percent increase in meth lab seizures since 1995.

That’s not even 10 years.

In 1995, Arkansas seized 24 meth labs, and in 2004, it’s predicted that we will seize over 1,300 labs. We must get the word to

the Federal Government so that we can get some help.

I want to show you this real quick. This is a HIDA map. And I

know you can’t see it back in the back, but it illustrates where the

HIDTA areas are, the high intensity drug traffic areas are as far

as where the resources are put. The little dots represent resources

that have been put in place with the HIDTA program. As you can

8

see, we have this huge gap from Louisiana through Arkansas. This

is something that we want to look at. Is there a reason that all of

the sudden we don’t have any trafficking in this area; it’s all just

home cooked labs? Or, in realty, do we need more Federal intervention in this area.

Winning back our communities takes a balanced approach. The

DEA can help make sure our laws are upheld, but effective treatment and education is equally critical. We must have adequate alternatives for those who are caught in meth’s dangerous grasp. I’m

impressed by the effectiveness of the drug courts. Many addicts do

not realize they need help. Drug courts make them accountable and

keep them clean. We can fight this problem together with local,

State, and Federal resources working together. We can loosen the

grip methamphetamine has on our Nation.

Again, I’m looking forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses, and thank you to Chairman Souder and his staff for joining

us in Northwest Arkansas for such an important hearing.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Let me do a couple of procedure matters. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to submit written

statements and questions for the hearing record; that any answers

to written questions provided by the witnesses also be included in

the record. No objections, so ordered.

Second, I ask in that extent that all Members present be permitted to participate in the hearing without objection. It is so ordered.

Our first panel is composed of three representatives of the Federal Government. Mr. Bill Bryant of DEA; Acting U.S. Attorney

William Cromwell; Mr. James McDonald of the DEA. It’s our

standard practice to ask witnesses to testify under oath. If you’ll

stand and raise your right hands, I’ll administer the oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SOUDER. Let the record show that each of the witnesses has

answered in the affirmative. Mr. Bryant, good to see you again.

Mr. BRYANT. Good to see you, Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. You’re recognized for 5 minutes.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with this, it should go yellow

with 1 minute to go. We’ll be a little generous, but want to be able

to ask questions and get answers; and to do that, we’ll be staying

reasonably close as possible. Your full statements will be in the

record. Anything else you want to submit will be in the record. But

with three panels, I’ve got to make sure we get a wide variety.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. BRYANT, ASSISTANT SPECIAL

AGENT IN CHARGE, LITTLE ROCK, AR, OFFICE (NEW ORLEANS FIELD DIVISION) DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION

Mr. BRYANT. Good morning, Chairman Souder and Congressman

Boozman. My name is William J. Bryant. I’m the assistant special

agent in charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration in the Little Rock district office. On behalf of Administrator Karen Tandy

and the men and women of the Drug Enforcement Administration,

let me express my sincere appreciation for your ongoing support

9

and for this hearing on Ice in the Ozarks, The Methamphetamine

Epidemic in Arkansas.

Before I begin my testimony this morning, Chairman Souder, I

would like to take this opportunity to recognize you for your outstanding leadership in the area of drug law enforcement. As you

know, I served as the Chief of Congressional Affairs under Administrator Donny Marshall and also under Administrator Asa Hutchinson. During my time in this position, I had the opportunity to

work with you and your committee on issues both domestic and

internationally. You are a true leader, and you’ve taken your position as chairman of this subcommittee very seriously. I want to recognize you for your outstanding work that benefits all law enforcement, not just Federal law enforcement, but you always took the

extra time to see what State and local law enforcement is doing.

And for that, I applaud you.

I would also be remiss if didn’t recognize Congressman Boozman.

Upon my return to Arkansas, Congressman Boozman came down

to Little Rock, and because he sought me out. I’d didn’t have to

seek him out. He came to Little Rock, and he wanted to be briefed

on the methamphetamine situation in Arkansas, because he has a

true concern for the people in the State of Arkansas. We had a

week of discussion, and he committed his support to law enforcement in this community. He followed up with this commitment by

Congressman Boozman by having this hearing today, and I thank

you for that.

Mr. Chairman, as I mention in my written statement I submitted

for the record, the No. 1 problem in Arkansas is methamphetamine. The methamphetamine problemin Arkansas is a twofold

problem. It’s very similar to your situation in your home State of

Indiana. The twofold problems are small toxic labs and Mexican

drug trafficking organizations.

Small toxic labs are local independent operators who produce one

to two ounce quantities of methamphetamine. Locally, over 90 percent of these small toxic labs operate and produce methamphetamine for personal use and local distribution. Unfortunately, methamphetamine is a simple drug to produce. The ingredients are not

only readily available but also inexpensive. Items such as cold medicine, such as ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, lithium batteries,

camp fuel, match striker plates, starter fluid, and iodine crystals

are some of the items needed to manufacture methamphetamine.

Unfortunately, year after year the small toxic labs seizures continue to increase in Arkansas.

According to statistics from the Arkansas State Crime Lab, a

total of 16 clandestine laboratories were seized in 1993 for a total

of 1,208 seizures in 2003. So far in 2004, we are on a pace to exceed the 2,000 lab seizure statistics.

Meth labs create a environmental hazard with enormous cleanup costs. The DEA assists State and local law enforcement agencies

with the clean up of meth labs for funding supplied by Congress.

In 2002, the DEA assisted Arkansas law enforcement agencies in

545 lab clean-ups which totaled $1.8 million with an average cost

of $3,300 per lab. In 2003, DEA was able to negotiate a new contract with hazardous waste and disposal companies to reduce the

cost of clean-up. In 2003, DEA in Arkansas assisted law enforceVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:14 Feb 03, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\97398.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
10

ment with 810 clandestine lab clean ups for a total of $1.3 million

with an average cost of $1,725 per lab. Due to the increase in the

number of labs, DEA opened a second response site for the hazardous waste contract in Fayetteville, Arkansas, in January 2004. This

resulted in a cost savings for State and local law enforcement agencies on overtime costs.

These laboratory operators known as cooks typically have no

chemical background or training, which leads to these laboratories

resulting in fires and explosions. In 2001, the State of Arkansas

EPIC stats revealed we had 15 fires and explosions. Unfortunately,

it continued to increase. In 2002, we had a report of 20 fires and

explosions and then 28 fires and explosions in 2003.

DEA has taken the lead in the law enforcement area of clandestine laboratory training. I’m glad to report DEA has trained over

a total of 451 State and local law enforcement officers in Arkansas

with clandestine laboratory training, which includes the State and

local certification school, site safety officer school and tactical training. No only do these meth labs pose a danger to the law enforcement community, they pose a danger to the children of our State.

In 2001, EPIC statistics showed 121 children were affected here in

the State of Arkansas. Unfortunately, again this number increased

in 2002 reporting 207 children and in 2003, 219 children.

The secondfold problems are Mexican drug trafficking organizations here in Arkansas. We have definitely seen an increase in the

Mexican drug traffic organizations in Arkansas, primarily involving

the distribution of methamphetamines. DEA investigations have

found Mexican drug traffic organizations transport multi-pound

quantities of methamphetamine to the State for distribution. DEA

intelligence in Arkansas indicates that some of these organizations

are capable of distributing 20 pounds or more of methamphetamine

in a 1-month timeframe.

I thought the name of this hearing was very appropriate, Ice in

the Ozarks, due to the fact that this past 12 months DEA has observed a significant amount of methamphetamine ‘‘ice’’ being distributed in the State of Arkansas by methamphetamine drug trafficking organizations. As you know, ice is a colorless, odorless form

of d-methamphetamine. It resembles glass fragments or shiny bluewhite ‘‘rocks’’ of various sizes. Ice typically has a high purity level,

particularly if smoked using a glass pipe. Ice is also compared to

crack cocaine. Crack cocaineabusers experience a high of about 20

to 30 minutes, while ice may last 12 hours or more.

I’ve noted several significant investigations in my written statement that outlines a significant amount of methamphetamine and

methamphetamine ice being seized in our State. DEA has joined

forces with our State and local partners to address methamphetamine-related trends from large traffic organizations down to small

time producer operating out of their homes. Placing emphasis on

DEA priority target programs, eliminating small toxic labs, combining Federal regulations with local initiatives to reduce the availability of pseudoephedrine in the illicit market and enforcing more

chemical controls on meth.

In conclusion, the seriousness of the problem resulting from

methamphetamine threat cannot be overstated. Perhaps more than

any other drug, methamphetamine puts all of us, users and

11

nonusers alike, at risk. The innocence of children, the fortitude of

law enforcement and the pristine state of our ecosystem are not immune to meth’s dangers. As a single mission agency, DEA will continue to devote its resources to identify, investigate, and dismantle

the organizations responsible for the spread of meth across Arkansas and our country.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee, and I will be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bryant follows:]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Mr. SOUDER. As you can see, we have no yellow. You can tell

you’ve worked in Washington a little bit because you had to lose

a Southern accent to get that much in, in 5 minutes.

Mr. Cromwell.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. CROMWELL, ACTING U.S.

ATTORNEY, WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

Mr. CROMWELL. I’ll try to get us back on schedule. Chairman

Souder, Congressman Boozman, members of the committee staff,

thank you on behalf of the Federal law enforcement presence in the

Western District of Arkansas for convening this meeting, for calling, I hope, the public’s attention to this problem. And it definitely

is a problem. I believe you’ll hear from every level of law enforcement, whether it be a police officer on the city beat, the deputy

sheriff in the county, Federal law enforcement from DEA or other

agencies, that methamphetamine and ice definitely cause a significant hazard for not only life, but economic hazard for the wellbeing of the United States.

The resources that are required to be spent by all levels of law

enforcement combating the problem are significant and could be

used in other areas. And I applaud the efforts of the drug courts

and other avenues of trying to treat the problem as opposed to incarceration. I think both avenues deserve exploration.

This problem has gone on in our district for a number of years.

In August, I will be in my 17th year with the U.S. Attorney’s office,

and the problem has grown exponentially throughout my tenure

there. And it’s one that even though resources are being used at

every level, we have not yet found the solution. And as Mr. Bryant

said, we have two primary sources of production for distribution of

that product in our district.

One, are the local cooks who definitely pose a problem, as Mr.

Bryant said, not only to those around them but to first responders,

too. Law enforcement, indeed post-September 11, have grown together and oftentimes the first responders will be the first at the

scene of a fire or explosion, and they’re exposed, perhaps not knowingly, to chemicals and other situations which this drug brings

with it. In addition to the hazards posed to the children, the first

responders and police, of course, we’ve already talked about the

costs in terms of addiction, which you will hear about later on.

I want to emphasize one case in my remarks deals with a case

that started on the streets of Decatur, Arkansas, with a traffic

stop. And a police officer made a felony arrest for an individual

who was in possession of drug paraphernalia. That can be as small

as a marijuana bong. But he had information which led to a ring

which was producing methamphetamine in California. It was determined through investigation that approximately 100 pounds of

methamphetamine and ice had been transported by this one individual from California to the streets of northwest Arkansas.

This was a collaborative effort between the DEA, many law enforcement areas of concern here locally, Benton County, Washington County, but the impact of it was they were working together.

They were sharing information. And what went from a very minor

State arrest, led to a very large seizure in terms of quantities of

methamphetamine, money, weapons, including automatic weapons,

25

and the arrest of an individual who was connected to a large traffic

ring in California. Although that is a significant case in our district, it was not the final case. This is an ongoing fight.

And as Mr. Bryant can attest, we just recently had another case

which led to the arrest of 12 individuals who are now in custody

who were, again, importing multi-pound quantities of methamphetamine from California to Arkansas, and specifically to northwest

Arkansas. And the States that we primarily have to deal with in

the importation of the drug, California and Texas, both share one

thing in common, and that’s the boundary of Mexico. And, obviously, law enforcement of the U.S. variety cannot reach into Mexico, we have to be effective here. And I want emphasize to you that

I think the OCDETF program has a significant impact in bringing

State and local law enforcement to the Federal table to work together.

Mr. Bryant has a resident agency in Fayetteville, Arkansas, just

minutes down the highway from here. But it’s staffed in large part

by State and local officers who are part of the solution in bringing

the manpower that’s necessary to fight the problem. And so I would

like to emphasize that I think the impact and the benefit of the

OCDETF program as it works here in northwest Arkansas.

And as you said, my written remarks are part of the record, and

I will save time and be ready for questions. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cromwell follows:]

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. MacDonald.

STATEMENT OF JAMES MACDONALD, FEDERAL ON SCENE COORDINATOR, REGION 7, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

Mr. MACDONALD. Good morning. I’m Jim MacDonald. I’m an OnScene Coordinator with EPA Region 7. Region 7 covers the States

of Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa. The written testimony

submitted is more of a national perspective on the EPA activities

in general, but I would like to just talk a little bit about EPA Region 7 activities that we’ve done here in the midwest.

In the mid 1990’s, we started getting quite a lot of calls from people in different situations associated with methamphetamine. They

would start to say, ‘‘My child was crossing this neighborhood resident’s yard, and we’ve noticed them dumping some chemicals. I

think it’s a drug bust happened. Could you tell me if it’s safe for

my kids to cross this yard?’’ Or, ‘‘I just rented an apartment, said

there was a drug bust occurred here previously. Is it safe for my

children to live in this particular residence?’’ we started getting

enough of these that we started to get more involved in this situation.

Methamphetamine is different from the other drugs in that it involves chemicals and labs. The other chemicals in terms of the drug

situation, we have not been involved. But methamphetamine pulled

us in because of the chemicals.

In the late 1990’s, we started a work group with our counterparts

in the States. Our counterparts in Missouri, just like the Department of Natural Resources, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, and the

Kansas Department of Health and Environment. We started a

work group with our Missouri Department of Natural Resources on

the methamphetamine situation to see what our involvement

should be, what their involvement should be. And both DEA was

a part of this and the highway patrol. And we started looking at

ways that we could be actively involved.

To the EPA, that became quite evident that training needed to

be done for first responders. Not just the fire departments that

we’d normally been involved with, but for law enforcement, because

their entrance into these labs for a person with protective equipment. We also realized that we needed to get some samples from

residuals of these drug busts, so we did a grant to the Missouri Department of Health, and we went out and sampled over 70 different

residences that had drug busts, some immediately after drug busts,

some days after, some weeks after, months after. Homes, trailers,

apartments, all sorts of places that these drug busts had occurred

for methamphetamine.

We submitted all this data. These were wipe samples, air samples from sewer cannisters, built-in pumps, soil samples, water

samples, to the Missouri Department of Health, tried to develop

some standards that we might go for clean up. Typically, EPA

works with our risk assessment folks, our health folks, to get these

standards for us to do our clean up. For instance, the dioxin clean

ups, one part per billion lead and mercury, all have standards developed by the health folks that we can go in and get clean ups.

33

We submitted these analysis to the Missouri Department of

Health, and they came up with a booklet Cleaning Up Former

Meth Lab Guidelines. We couldn’t find anything specifically. You

know, which chemicals? These are household chemicals, as was

stated previously, that you can go out and buy at different stores.

You might have some industrial ammonia, but most of them you

can purchase yourself readily.

So Missouri developed the guidelines, Kansas Department of

Health used that and developed some guidelines also for clean up.

There’s still no national standards for clean up of meth, but we’re

still looking and still possibly doing some more sampling in terms

of these residuals.

On the training issues, EPA and Region 7 has always been has

doing its HAZWOPER training, 40 hours HAZWOPER, based on

the OSHA 1910,120. So anybody involved in emergency situations,

hazardous materials needs to take this 40-hour training. We tailored it to law enforcement to bring law enforcement with the ability now to use first protective equipment. We also developed a 16-

hour HAZCAT, hazard categorization, for methamphetamine so

that the fire departments and other folks would be more aware of

what chemicals associated with the meth labs.

In Missouri they decided to develop collection stations scattered

around the State of Missouri where the law enforcement could

bring the chemicals to the collection station, which was usually fire

departments, would do a waste minimization and neutralize, clean,

whatever, and then reduce the amount of waste necessary for disposal. So in training those folks in terms of how to do this. The third thing we were involved with was a $2 million grant

that is facilitated by Senator Bond that went through our WICKER

program which I am the project officer for, was given to the State

of Missouri. For 5 years, approximately 400,000 per year to help

not only with collection stations but equipment, and salaries associated with that.

As I stated we have submitted the written testimony, but I’ll be

glad to answer any questions that you have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. MacDonald follows:]

34

35

36

37

Mr. SOUDER. I thank you each for your testimony. Let me first

see if I can get a little bit more specific about Arkansas and where

the different types are. We were handling questions before the

hearing started describing what we saw in other areas, and I want

to see if this is true for Arkansas. And, Mr. Bryant, maybe you can

kind of do an overview.

Would you say that the 70/30 Mexican drug trafficking versus

small lab holds here in Arkansas, or is the percentage coming from

small labs a little higher?

Mr. BRYANT. I would say it’s comparatively the same, yes, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. And then would the pattern of where the Mexican

drug trafficking organizations distribute be different? In other

words, is meth in Little Rock?

Mr. BRYANT. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. More like 90 percent from the Mexican drug trafficking organizations than in Fayetteville, versus, say, the northern

regions or the more mountainous regions or more rural regions.

Mr. BRYANT. I think right now, Congressman Souder, that northwest Arkansas, most of our investigations are on the Mexican drug

trafficking organizations as compared to Little Rock. So we have a

larger population that we work on up here in northwest Arkansas

as far as Mexican drug trafficking organizations. All our significant

investigations have been focused mostly in Benton and Washington

County. Where in Little Rock what you also see is we’ll have regular methamphetamine distributors, the white males, or whatever,

their source will be in California, and they’ll travel out to California to hook up with a source and supply in California, the Mexican

drug trafficking organizations, and then transport the meth back

to Little Rock.

But what we see here in this section of Arkansas is most of our

significant cases have been against Hispanics involved in these

Mexican drug trafficking organizations that live in this area.

Mr. SOUDER. Are both aspects of the meth problems, both the

Mexican drug organizations and the smaller labs, concentrated in

northwest Arkansas as opposed to the rest of the State?

Mr. BRYANT. No, sir. Unfortunately, northwest Arkansas does

have its fair share of the small toxic labs. We also have a tremendous amount in, say, for example, Little Rock. Little Rock Police

Department actually had its own clandestine lab group to address

the issues. And I think most of our lab seizures, small toxic labs

are seized in like the Pulaski County, Saline County area surrounding Little Rock. Southern Arkansas, we do have some small

pocket labs, but I would say for like Little Rock all the way north

between to like Jonesboro and other parts of the northeast part of

the State we also have a tremendous small toxic lab problem.

Mr. SOUDER. From your perspective, what would be the difference in the northern part of Arkansas, Missouri area from

southern Arkansas and into Louisiana?

Mr. BRYANT. What we are seeing, we’re seeing a trend coming

down south. You’re starting to see Louisiana and Mississippi and

Tennessee develop their own meth problems which are a little bit

below ours but continue to rise. When we first saw this meth problems—I’ve been stationed in Arkansas from 1991 to 1999, saw it

slowly start in Missouri, eased its way down to northern Arkansas,

38

and since that time period, it’s slowly moved throughout the State.

It’s just been more time period up in the northern part of the State

where they’re used to manufacturing meth.

Mr. SOUDER. We were in New Orleans just a few weeks ago, and

their DEA says it was coming into New Orleans, and also that the

HIDTA had always been located in the southern parts of trafficking

regions, but they were seeing a fair amount going through Louisiana in the northern part. I’m not sure what interstate that is that

it was going through, and that it’d stop off.

Mr. BRYANT. I think it’s Interstate 20 and Interstate 10 also.

Mr. SOUDER. And it’d come back. And they thought the center

was in Atlanta bouncing back to the south. Do you see any of that

in Arkansas and Louisiana and Mississippi or southern Arkansas,

bounce back from Atlanta?

Mr. BRYANT. What we’re seeing a lot of in the State of Arkansas,

we’re a relatively small State, and we have three major interstate

systems. We have Interstate 40, we have Interstate I–30 coming

out of Texas, and we also have Interstate 55 which runs off I–40

near Memphis up through the State of Arkansas to Illinois. So a

lot of the State police do these highway interdiction stops, and

we’re seeing a lot of loads where the people cooperate, and we’ll do

a controlled delivery. We’re taking a lot to Atlanta, we’re taking a

lot to Chicago, and we’re taking a lot to North Carolina is where

a majority of these loads seem to be going. A large load of methamphetamine from 15 to 25 pounds of methamphetamine.

Mr. SOUDER. Now, you had in your written testimony that one

of your big busts came out of Tijuana. Has that been a pattern over

on the west side with these super labs in the Mexican west side

in the California, or are you seeing any out of McAllen and down

across from Corpus?

Mr. BRYANT. The majority of our cases have come from California

and also just across the border in Mexico in Tijuana. A lot of them

are sources of supplies that we see are Hispanic from Mexico residing in California.

Mr. SOUDER. Why doesn’t it come up from the southeast Texas

portion? Why way over a couple of thousand miles west?

Mr. BRYANT. It just seems like maybe the influx of the Hispanic

population we have here in northwest Arkansas, may be relatives

or friends from that area of the country is the only thing I can explain.

Mr. SOUDER. In Indiana, we were trying to figure out, and apparently DEA is working on a case from a particular family because

we’re seeing Yakima and the Tri-Cities areas of Washington State,

Indiana, and Winette, Georgia, and then learned that there was a

migrant pattern of I think it was tomatoes actually, that was working through that zone because it made no sense that we were getting things from Yakima, coming from Tijuana to Yakima and

across because they were adding double the mileage route. Is DEA

looking more directly? I know Ms. Tandy has said, ‘‘Let’s get to the

bottom of the organization.’’ I’m trying to figure out the trucking

routes and stuff they have, because, clearly, it’s not a logical

‘‘What’s the closest point?’’ There’s got to be some other kind of networking trafficking pattern of that.

39

Mr. BRYANT. Well, Arkansas is a State has a lot of farms, migrant worker situations over the State, but the seizure we’re making are vehicles equipped with hidden traps where they’ve put it

in gas tanks or they have hydraulic hidden compartments. And the

organizations are using those to transport the methamphetamine

from California to Arkansas. We’re not charting any, like, 18-

wheelers with cover loads of lettuce and tomatoes. What we’re seeing a majority of are regular type passenger vehicles within hidden

compartments.

Mr. SOUDER. Congressman Boozman.

Mr. BOOZMAN. As you’ve alluded to, we have all these interstates,I–30, I–40, I–55, 71, the north and the south. And yet—I’ve

got to use this. I carried it all the way from Washington. But when

you look at the map, as far as the high intensity drug trafficking

areas, the resources are lacking, and I’ll show the chairman in a

second—literally from the west, Fort Smith, through almost half of

Tennessee, there are no resources. There are no resources north

and south.

Again, we probably have as much truck traffic, because we’ve got

so many trucking firms in the region, which, again, this is associated with truck traffick. It just seems like we should have some resources concentrated someplace in that area. I’ve heard reports

from some of my sheriffs that they’re so busy dealing with their

own problems, the fact that they’re understaffed and under

resourced just dealing with the problems in the county, that they

really have no interest in trying to help with anything passing

through there.

Can you comment on those kind of things.

Mr. BRYANT. Yes, sir. I’m glad you brought it you up. We do have

a working group now of chiefs and sheriffs in the State that, as you

know, in 2002, Arkansas tried to get a HIDTA here in Arkansas

itself. Unfortunately, no new funding was available, and what

we’ve done now is we have a working group here in Benton and

Washington County composed of chiefs and sheriffs and also down

in Pulaski County and near Jefferson County in the Little Rock

area, but they’ve formed a working group to form a HIDTA commission to join another existing HIDTA so we can get some of those

resources.

As we talked when I briefed you on the methamphetamine situation, we’re coming to Members of Congress here in the State of Arkansas for your support, or we can join possibly an existing

HIDTA, maybe the Gulf Coast HIDTA down in New Orleans to be

able to get some of the funding to be able to address these Mexican

drug trafficking organizations in Arkansas.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Is it possible that we are under reporting this

type of activity as we are the meth labs in the sense, again, that

we’re putting so few resources—I know that you-all are doing a tremendous job, but the local folks are putting so few resources that

they really—again, because of their funding problems, just don’t

want to deal with it.

Mr. BRYANT. It’s very difficult funding a difficult problem here in

the State of Arkansas. I know the State police are like a hundred

troopers down themself. What we try to do is, Arkansas has no

State wire tap law, so if any Title 3 intercepts take place, it’s going

40

to be up to the DEA to do that. It’s a very effective tool to attack

these Mexican trafficking organizations, and we work closely with

Mr. Cromwell’s office to be able to do that, but the sheriffs and

local police do not have the resources or funding available, even if

they had the law to be able to pursue this Title 3 capability.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Cromwell, also, Missouri, I believe, has a law,

a reporting law, as far as when they seize a lab, that by State law

they have to report it. Do we need to change anything in Arkansas?

I know both of you are working very hard to try and get the labs

that our cities and such reported. Do we need to do anything different legislatively at the State level or the Federal level?

Mr. BRYANT. Just so you know, DEA has kind of established a

new program for us to better track this. I’ve assigned personnel to

contact these State and local agencies when they do seize a clandestine laboratory for them to complete the EPIC form 143, send

it to us. That way, we make the checks and balances to see that

it is done, and then we forward those on to EPIC.

Next week, we are going to meet with Mr. Rutledge in his office,

and the ACIC, maybe we can start doing this electronically by computer with a current system called the Justice Exchange Computer

System here in Arkansas. But a lot of sheriffs office use them, so

we want to see if we can connect that with EPIC to be able to do

this electronically to make sure we’re capturing all this data.

Mr. CROMWELL. I know the DEA does an excellent job in tracking

their statistics, and I feel very confident that they’re gathering all

the information and data that you can put into the system. As far

as whether there needs to be a State law fixed at that level, I

would defer that to somebody close to that level.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Very good. Thank you-all so much.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Bryant, we’re going to be meeting, I think, in

the morning over in El Paso, and we’ve had this constant discussion about the reporting. Is it your stance that almost every State

is underreporting?

Mr. BRYANT. Yes, sir. As you know, it’s up to the local and State

agencies to do it themselves. It’s not DEA’s responsibility, but in

this State we work very close with our State and local counterparts. But we’ve got to think of a better system to gather this information. Because right now there’s no check and balance system for

us to make sure that all the States are reporting this.

Mr. SOUDER. Let me ask a question of Mr. Cromwell. One of the

challenges we have, and I know this has been true in Indiana, as

we put the DEA in, is that many State laws either you can’t extend

to Arkansas that’s not a wire tap law that the State uses, or increasingly we’re federalizing some of the cases. Are you Federalizing cases that if they have similar laws in the State that they could

utilize, you wouldn’t Federalize.

Mr. CROMWELL. No, sir. The investigative technique of the Title

3 relief is the only instance in which I would see a case being

brought to our office that wouldn’t normally fit our guidelines. And,

normally, we’re looking at quantity and multi-state connections

and money laundering aspects, and as a result, I feel the State

drug laws are very adequate to prosecute individuals. And we have

an excellent, excellent relationship, I believe, with our State counterparts in working with them if they believe a case has connecVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:14 Feb 03, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\97398.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
41

tions outside their jurisdiction. They’re very good to bring those

cases to us so we can allow the DEA to work across State lines.

But I think our State drug enforcement laws are very adequate.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you see any growth in the Federal court pressure on meth.

Mr. CROMWELL. Absolutely. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. What are your staffing situations?

Mr. CROMWELL. Our most recent additions to staff were for gun

initiative projects, safe neighborhoods, and for an anti-terrorism

slot. And those both were filled 2 years ago. So as far as even

though the methamphetamine problem has grown, manpower has

not gone along with it.

Mr. SOUDER. So do you have more of a backlog or do you not take

certain cases? How are you dealing with that?

Mr. CROMWELL. No, sir we have not raised our guidelines on the

quality of cases we’re taking. I’m just having more assistants who

do other types of criminal work being assigned to drug cases.

Mr. SOUDER. Let me ask, Mr. MacDonald, are you primarily

working right now in Missouri, or you’re working the whole region?

But where you have the most experience is in Missouri?

Mr. MACDONALD. Yes. That’s true.

Mr. SOUDER. Is Arkansas moving similar in guidelines that

you’ve mentioned for clean up with Kansas and Missouri?

Mr. MACDONALD. I really don’t know.

Mr. SOUDER. OK. We’ll ask that question later. When you look

from an EPA standpoint, have you seen any where you have these

concentrated areas of labs in northwest Arkansas, southern Missouri, places in Kansas, have you seen this impact water quality?

I mean, is it more a very localized ‘‘I’m worried about the house

I’m in,’’ ‘‘I’m worried about the yard’’. Have you seen any dangers

hitting aquifers yet?

Mr. MACDONALD. No, we have not. Most of the ones we deal with

are the smaller labs. And, yes, there has been some dumping, and

we’ve sampled, we’ve tracked it, and there’s some, of course, biodegradation going on. We haven’t seen any significant impacts, you

know, overall to the environment. There are concerns about any residuals inside the houses, and that seems to be the primary concern for the child endangerment issues. But right now, they’re following the guidelines with the States with the cleaning process, removing porous materials, filters and things like that. That should

take care of the problem. Again, we’re dealing with the smaller

labs, not like in California that we’re dealing with the large labs.

Mr. SOUDER. So, if we give adequate funding to clean up and

stay on top of the labs, are we making people more aware? I’m

used to being down in Columbia, and you can see flying overhead,

the Amazon basin, you can see the chemicals going into the river

from all the cocaine labs and that type of thing. So even in the fairly intense small lab zone, as long as we tackle them individually

and implement the right procedures, it’s not pouring into any of the

sink river basins or anything.

Mr. MACDONALD. We’re not seeing that. We’ve been working

with the forest services, too, as they’re picking up some labs there,

and we’re trying to track those. But we have not seen any what I

would consider major environmental problems from this. Again,

42

we’re dealing with what we consider household chemicalsused improperly, stored improperly, disposedimproperly. But, again, you

know, small cases.

Mr. SOUDER. There’s a little bit of this in California, but even in

California with the super labs, they aren’t concentrated together

like what we see in Columbia where there’s much of a danger.

And I want to say one thing for the record that when we’re trying to figure out how we allocate funds and move through, one of

Congressman Boozman’s challenges as he argues for Arkansas is

every place has different kinds of drug problems, and it’s a big battle and the matter of limited budgets trying to figure out how to

do it.

For example, in El Paso, we did their hearing there, the local

doesn’t even pick up anybody, hold anybody if they have under 200

pounds of marijuana, and DEA testified 500 pounds. We are so

overwhelmed along the southwest border that unless we can seal

off to a better degree the southwest border from the crisis of terrorism, the rest of the country is extremely vulnerable. And the

amounts and the quantities we’re dealing with down there, at each

stop off point along the Interstate, they’re dumping more out. And

so the degree we can get the bigger whole semi-loads down at the

border, and then often they’ll come to a regional distribution center, like Atlanta, and it will bounce back into the Gulf Coast

HIDTA.

So even in our HIDTA’s, we’re trying to figure out, OK—which

is the what part we’re dealing with with the legislative bill, is even

if you have a HIDRA, most of the HIDTA’s dollars should go to the

southwest border where the things are biggest, and then the next

group of HIDTA’s, and then the question comes is where are the

next HIDTA’s? So one possibility would either be to hook up with

the plainstates HIDTA or the Gulf Coast HIDTA. They don’t get as

much money as the others, but it gets you into the sharing networks of information networks of what are similar trafficking patterns. Are you a pass-through State, are you a central distribution

point, like Atlanta, which then—it’s still extraordinary to me, the

test ones that we’ve got, that they go to Atlanta, then they come

back almost all the way, but, hey, that’s the way trucking companies work, that’s the way distribution centers work, it makes sense

that the larger drug trafficking organizations work that way, too.

Do you have any further questions.

Mr. BOOZMAN. No. I just want to thank you-all again for your efforts. I’ve gotten to work with Mr. Bryant and Mr. Cromwell some,

and they’re doing a tremendous job in the interim capacity, and I

really do appreciate that. And I have not gotten to work with Mr.

MacDonald as much, but, again, I know all of you-all are really

fighting a battle.

One of the frustrations I see, as far as what Mr. Souder was alluding to was that it seems like with drugs, you do a good job, and

you chase it off to a surrounding State or surrounding county or

whatever. And something I would like to see, perhaps at some

time, is maybe some sort of a drug task force that, you know, if

you have the high intensity drug plan set up, they do a good job.

They shut it off there.

43

Meth’s a little different than some of these other drugs, because

it’s not like it’s coming from Columbia or necessarily from Mexico,

it’s something that could be made anyplace. And so as a result of

that, what I would like to see, is perhaps some sort of a situation

where we have a mobile task force that, you know, went to an area

chased it out of there and then maybe followed it as it went to another area.

But I do appreciate you-all, and appreciate your efforts.

Mr. CROMWELL. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. One of the things we’re trying in Congress is Ose

has a bill, and what’s happening in the appropriation process, because there isn’t a systematic way to deal with meth, individual

members have been getting in about task forces and things, like in

Missouri, and we’ve got to figure out how to coordinate this so that

they can get interrelated, and that there’s a separate way to deal

with meth by Congress. I have a few followup questions I needed

to ask. One for Mr. MacDonald on the EPA.

Do you know, has EPA ever taken legal action against a land

owner or a landlord for damage.

Mr. MACDONALD. No, sir, not that I know of. We’ve been called

in to do some sentencing enhancements dealing with the Clean

Water Act and RCRA. On two occasions I’ve involved with that.

You know, they kind of fit in with guns and child endangerment

and then the environmental enhancements.

Mr. SOUDER. In Missouri, those cases?

Mr. MACDONALD. One was in Iowa and one was in Kansas.

Mr. SOUDER. Can you get us some information on that for the

record?

Mr. MACDONALD. Sure.

Mr. SOUDER. Also, the guidelines to Missouri where you said

Kansas was based off Missouri? If we can insert that into the

record since you referred to that, it would be helpful.

Mr. MACDONALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. In the enhancements, were those against land owners or were those against the actual cookers?

Mr. MACDONALD. Against the cookers.

Mr. SOUDER. OK. And we talked a little bit about this, and we’ll

followup this more on the precursor restrictions on the regulations.

Oklahoma has the toughest law in the country, and I wondered if

Mr. Bryant and maybe Mr. Cromwell could discuss a little bit that

Oklahoma law and what impact that’s had on Arkansas and

whether you think that’s the way we ought to be looking at controlling pseudoephedrine.

Mr. BRYANT. As far as the Oklahoma State law, I can give you

a thumbnail sketch of my knowledge of it. But, basically, it requires to make pseudoephedrine a Schedule 5 controlled substance.

It’s required to be sold in a pharmacy, a person has to present a

driver’s license and sign a written log, or the store has to keep receipts that they’ve sold that pseudoephedrine. They let them sell

gel caps without a restriction.

Basically, from the news reports I’ve seen out of Oklahoma, the

first month it was enacted, it was like a 29 percent reduction in

the lab seizures in the State of Oklahoma. What we’re seeing DEA

intelligence and from our sources is that we’re having a lot of the

44

methamphetamine laboratory operators, they’re coming over to Arkansas to get their pseudo because it’s a less stringent law. So we

definitely need to look at that situation.

I briefed some State legislators here in Arkansas, but we really

need something nationwide to address this issue. Because if we

don’t do it nationwide, what you’re going to find is the traffic’s

going to go to the bordering States who do not have the laws to

secure their pseudoephedrine.

Mr. SOUDER. I believe we have an individual testifying later, and

one of the things he said, my understanding, is that he said that

people even go up to Chicago to get it. In other words, if you don’t

have some kind of a Federal law.

Well, there is another thing that’s in his written testimony that

I wanted to ask you about. He says that sometimes, particularly for

the larger even home-type labs there’s a witness—not witness—

well, it’s kind of a witness intimidation. In other words, these labs

come into the area, as they get larger, it describes people in the

trees as guards and stuff, and the neighborhood people leave because they’re afraid to report. They’re intimidated in the neighborhoods.

Have you seen much of that and do you do anything? One of the

things in our new ONDCP bill, Congressman Cummings is the

ranking member of the subcommittee, the senior Democrat, put in

a thing because there’s a family there whose house was torched,

the Dossen family. The mother and all the kids were burned to

death. Do you see much witness intimidation here? Is it a growing

problem? And are there any programs to help protect people?

Mr. BRYANT. What we’ve seen here, Congressman Souder, is we

have seen some type of witness intimidation. Most of these meth

abusers, they use it, they stay up for 2 or 3 days at a time and

get very little sleep. They’re very paranoid. They see policemen behind every tree or every car that they see, they think it’s a policeman following them. Almost all the labs we did have firearms.

We’ve done several murder cases, contract hire to kill in Arkansas

on methamphetamine violators. We also filed some RICOs on some

laboratory operators. They can file witness intimidation charges on

them.

Part of the meth business is the violence. Like I said before,

they’re very paranoid, they’re all armed, and they use violence as

a necessary technique. And also employ counter-surveillance techniques as, you know, they put security cameras on the property, on

the roadways. Especially in the rural area, if their house is set way

back where the lab is, they’ll have a camera on the gate so they

can see law enforcement coming, you know, half a mile before they

ever get to the house and make entry. So we are seeing that in the

State.

Mr. SOUDER. On the murder for hire active cases, can you talk

about it for a second?

Mr. BRYANT. One, I believe, was over in Searcy in White County.

They killed a young lady. We prosecuted them. I believe we never

did get the body, but we were able to prosecute them for the capital

murder conviction on that. They killed her because they thought

she was going to testify.

45

We also had another case in the Pope County area, was a murder

for hire where they killed a witness in front of his two children.

Shot him in the head with a deer rifle the day before he was supposed to testify. We were able to clear that several years later and

then prosecute that gentleman.

Mr. SOUDER. Can you provide us a little bit more on those cases,

particularly when they’re federally related? We have an obligation—there’s no way we’re going to get people to cooperate with us

if they think they’re in that much danger. Could you describe the

RICOcase, how your RICO case.

Mr. BRYANT. This gentleman in White County, and you’re going

to have a witness later today, J.R. Howard, and he was one of the

case agents on this case.

Mr. SOUDER. OK. We’ll follow with him.

Mr. BRYANT. And he can give you all the details because he was

one of the investigating officers on that.

Mr. SOUDER. OK. Congressman.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Very quickly, I see that we’ve got some of our distinguished judges here. Mr. Cromwell, you mentioned the problem

of not having enough personnel. How about as far as you know—

I know that you-all have that problem. What about as far as our

judges? This is your chance to——

Mr. CROMWELL. Shine.

Mr. BOOZMAN [continuing]. Shine.

Mr. CROMWELL. Or fail.

Mr. BOOZMAN. I just know you’re back there taking notes.

Mr. CROMWELL. I believe that the statistics in the Western District of Arkansas definitely justify additional judicial resources as

well as our Department of Justice resources in this district. I know

that last year we were far in excess of any year we worked previously, and this year we’re ahead of that already. So I believe both

at the Federal bench and from the Federal prosecution standpoint,

we could use additional resources.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you.

Mr. CROMWELL. If I might add one thing. I wholly endorse a Federal law, just as Mr. Bryant said, addressing access to

pseudoephedrine, but I think one of the things that needs to be addressed, too, is that Canada is a large source both by trucking and

on-line orders of ephedra. And that needs to be addressed between

the two countries.

Mr. SOUDER. Just so you know, because I agree with you, and if

you have any further specifics you want to add to that, at the Detroit border, we’re getting more cooperation at the border, and they

have some new laws, and they took down a load of

pseudoephedrine. It was equivalent of 40 percent of what had previously ever been seen. This has been in the last, like, 60 days,

something like that. Which is just incredible, because if you take

40 percent in one load of what we had seen in the U.S. total in

pseudoephedrine gives you an idea of the quantity of this stuff

pours in.

Annually we have the U.S./Canada problem interest exchange,

and I’m the drug point person, so I was Mr. Unpleasant raising the

pharmaceutical question, which is getting very caught up in prescription drug questions. Bottom line is, either we have an FDA

46

and we have drug laws or we don’t have drug laws. And given the

way we’re headed right now, which looks like a relaxation of pharmacy laws with Canada, we’re going to have a big problem here.

Because politically it’s becoming very difficult to sustain a differential price structure because in America we’re a little tighter on

pharmaceuticals.

We may get a compromise that says if they go through an FDA

type approval, then they can go through the pharmacies, but as

DEA will testify, and as you certainly know in prosecution, nothing

is tougher than the Internet. And I am very worried about where

this is headed with Canada unless they’ll tighten up with Antwerp

and Belgium. And their argument is they’ve tightened some, and

at our last Washington hearing, DEA has not been able to identify

where, if indeed we have made progress at the Canadian border,

Belgium and Holland have not reduced the production; therefore,

where is it coming in? And we’re wondering whether it’s Bahamas

or somewhere south, maybe even New Orleans.

Somewhere, if you seal off one border, they’re going to push. And

so we’re pushing the Canadians, but this a strike at a perimeter.

But we’re going to have to watch our south as well, where we have

less actually control of our border than the north.

I thank you all for your testimony. Puts the full testimony in the

record.

And if the next panel could come forward, Mr. Keith Rutledge,

State drug director of the Office of the Governor of Arkansas; the

Honorable David Hudson, a Sebastian County judge; Mr. J.R. Howard, executive director of the Arkansas State Crime Lab; Miss Shirley Louie, who’s the environmental epidemiology supervisor, Arkansas Department of Health; Sheriff Danny Hickman, Boone

County Sheriff’s Office; Mr. David Gibbons, prosecuting attorney

for the 5th Judicial District.

As soon as you-all get seated, we’ll have you stand and take the

oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SOUDER. Let the record show that all the witnesses responded affirmative.

Thank you-all for participating this morning, and we’ll start with

Mr. Rutledge.

STATEMENT OF KEITH RUTLEDGE, STATE DRUG DIRECTOR,

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF ARKANSAS

Mr. RUTLEDGE. Mr. Chairman Souder and Congressman

Boozman and the staff, on behalf of the Governor and the people

of the State of Arkansas, I want to tell you how much we appreciate your being here and inviting us to participate.

My name is Keith Rutledge, and I’m the State drug director for

the State of Arkansas and work out of the office of the Governor.

And I’m also in that role the chairman of the Arkansas Alcohol and

Drug Abuse Coordinating Council, which is a body of 25 people,

State agencies and private people who deal with education, planning, prevention, law enforcement, the entire spectrum of the drug

and alcohol problems in the State of Arkansas.

First off, I have submitted my written testimony previously, and

so you have that. And I want to briefly go through that with some

47

high points that I think are important from the standpoint of the

State of Arkansas, and as it relates to what’s already been testified

to.

As I see it from the State Drug Director’s position, we have two

problems with methamphetamine. One is the major super labs and

the trafficking problem that comes in from the Mexicans and the

California connection, but the 1,200 or so labs that we’re talking

about are all home grown. That’s all local stuff. And that’s the ones

that really are concerning our local sheriffs and our police and our

multi-jurisdictional drug task forces, which also come within my

purview.

And I had noticed by looking at the data and the treatment people, you’ll hear more from those people shortly, but in the past 10

years or so, there’s been 1,100 percent increase in the number of

methamphetamine admissions to those public facilities for treatment, which makes it No. 1 in the State of Arkansas, outside of alcohol treatment. It passed crack cocaine, and all these other things.

And 97 percent of those people are Caucasians, which means that

this is a real cultural drug.

But what really concerns me here, last summer when I took this

job and previously I’d been a prosecutor and a circuit judge, and

knew that, you know, that this was a problem in domestic violence

and other crimes, and we’ve had all this tremendous increase in

the number of people in the Arkansas penitentiary. But the first

person that called me—or one of the first people that called me

after I took this job on July the 1st last year was the head of the

Federal Government’s rural housing—I forget what they call it.

They used to call it Farmer’s Home Administration. We’ve got a

new name for it. But, anyway, he’d known me for a long time, and

he came to me, and he said, ‘‘Keith, we got a potential problem

with our office and the HUD office in that we get back a lot of

properties that are’’—where they’ve had loans on them, and they

were concerned about the liability where the meth has been manufactured in those homes. That’s something I hadn’t thought about.

But I know that both HUD and the rural development people are

really concerned about that.

And so I got to looking at that, and I thought, well, you know,

that is a new aspect of this that I hadn’t thought about. And then

I got to looking at the other aspects that I saw as a circuit judge,

and one of those was the domestic violence thing that we really are

seeing. And, also, the children in the homes where meth is being

manufactured, we don’t have a real good tracking system, and I noticed that ONDCP has some estimates on those kind of things, but

I have talked to the juvenile judges across the State about that

particular problem, because those children end up in their courts

a lot of times, having to take them, and this is a real significant

problem. Also, the environmental damage, you know.

And so I look at all these things, and my job is broad based in

that sense. What I would like to do is recommend to this body, and,

Congressman Boozman, this is something that I think you alluded

to a while ago, but I would like—and I’ve got some recommendations in my prepared statement, and as Mr. Bryant said, we’re

going to meet with DEA and ACIC on trying to figure out a better

way to get the EPIC forms in. But also the one thing that I have

48

looked at, and as a recommendation, is trying to come up with a

system in the State of Arkansas, and it may need some Federal

funding, where we can approach this as an epidemic.

In other words, the word is right; it is an epidemic. Where we

could go in, for instance, at the State level and assist these local

prosecutors and law enforcement and treatment people and prevention people and bring in some assets. In Mr. Gibbons district down

there and bring in for 60, 90 days and say, just swarm that place

with law enforcement and others, treatment people, prevention

people, and try to move those people out of that area and then go

on to the next one, leaving a long term program in place.

And I would certainly be amenable to any questions that you

may have, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here today.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rutledge follows:]

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

Mr. SOUDER. Judge Hudson.

STATEMENT OF DAVID HUDSON, SEBASTIAN COUNTY JUDGE

Judge HUDSON. Thank you, I’ll be making comments relative to

the written statement from myself with attachments from the Fort

Smith police chief, Randy Reed, and the Sebastian County prosecutor, Steve Tabor.

My concerns related to drug use focus on our jails. Our jail’s capacity to hold inmates, crowding due to drug offenders, jail expansion and related capital expenditures, and, most significantly, the

increased ongoing operating cost from larger facilities. We simply

cannot afford to incarcerate all drug offenders. The distinction

must be made between criminal violators we are afraid of and

those we are mad at. Lock up those we are afraid of and use other

programs to deal with those we are mad at, such as drug courts.

It is widely acknowledged that 80 percent of the individuals in

the Sebastian County Adult Detention facility are directly or indirectly incarcerated due to some form of drug abuse. Sebastian

County is currently in the process of expanding its jail at a cost of

$31⁄2 million with an increased operating cost projected at $400,000

a year. The county has been able to plan on jail expansion without

requiring a tax increase. However, any further jail expansion will

require additional revenues.

The methamphetamine drug abuse problem is considered a major

issue in the future expansion of the jail, continued crowding of the

existing facility and the need to increase taxes to operate such a

facility in the future. Our law enforcement officers and agencies do

a great job in apprehending drug abusers, and the prosecuting attorney’s office and judges are effective in administering judgment

and sentencing these individuals to jail and prison time. However,

for a certain category of these offenders, this solution is an expensive proposition with a high probability and likelihood of repeat offenders continuing to exacerbate the flow of arrests, crowding of

jails and prisons, and related expenditures.

The expenditure of tax resources to deal with the methamphetamine drug abuser in the areas of education, awareness, and the

drug courts’ use of judicial sanctions to help rehabilitate, is an effective national public policy partnership with our State and local

governments. Law enforcement in western Arkansas has experienced a dramatic increase in the number of clandestine methamphetamine laboratory seizures. Each year, methamphetamine

arrests and drug seizures double those of the preceding year. This

has had a profound effect upon law enforcement, manpower and

asset allocation.

Combating this growing epidemic has become a complicated process which crosses traditional jurisdictional boundaries and requires

investigators to consistently share information, specialize abilities

and enforcement strategies. High intensity drug trafficking area

programs expand and organize investigative methods and abilities

among local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies. HIDTA

programs coordinate law enforcement efforts to target those responsible for the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine distribution

and transportation.

57

Recent Federal, State, and local investigations uncovered drug

routes leading directly from Mexico to environments within Arkansas and surrounding communities. A collaborative effort promoted

by HIDTA programs would prove extremely beneficial to the State

of Arkansas and regional law enforcement agencies. Assistance

from the Federal Government with regards to developing a HIDTA

in our region would encourage collaboration and intelligence efforts

and would dramatically affect direct interstate distribution of

methamphetamines in the State of Arkansas.

The widespread use of methamphetamines is the single worst

contributor to crime in the State in this area of Arkansas. Not only

are large numbers of people arrested each year for the use, sale,

or manufacture of this drug but many more are arrested for other

crimes directly related to the use of methamphetamines. For example, a methamphetamine user is more prone to the commission of

violent offenses while under the influence of the drug. Many assaults, homicides, and robberies occur as the direct result of methamphetamine use. In addition, large numbers of methamphetamine

users resort to the commission of property crimes in order to support their habit, because they’re unable to successfully maintain

employment and fund their addiction.

Because of a disturbing trend for methamphetamine labs we

have in residential areas, increased attention has to be given to the

State for clean up of laboratory sites. Every dollar spent in the

drug court is an outstanding investment which will reap untold

savings to the system. For every person who successfully beats

their addiction through the efforts of drug court, many thousands

of dollars are saved is the long run in the cost of investigations and

incarceration. I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I wish

you well as we fight this very difficult issue.

[The prepared statement of Judge Hudson follows:]

58

59

60

61

Mr. SOUDER. How big is Sebastian County?

Judge HUDSON. We have a population of 115,000.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Mr. Howard.

STATEMENT OF J.R. HOWARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

ARKANSAS STATE CRIME LAB

Mr. HOWARD. Thank you, and good morning. The Arkansas State

Crime Lab was established in 1977, and it’s the only forensic laboratory in the State. The primary function of the crime lab is to

provide forensic services including drug analysis to all local, county, State, and some Federal agencies. I might add that within the

State there are over 450 police departments, 75 county sheriffs departments, and about 80 State police and investigators, and not

even taking into account the other State law enforcement agencies

that use the crime lab. So we’ve got many folks out in the State

loading our wagon for us.

Illicit methamphetamine labs were relatively unknown in Arkansas until the mid 1990’s. About that time, the simplified recipes for

methamphetamine manufacture became available and the availability of the recipe as well as the accessibility of components resulted in an explosion, sometimes literally explosions, in the number of meth labs beginning in 1995. And that increase continues

through today. The 400 percent increase in meth lab seizures from

1995 to 1996 kind of signifies the beginning of the upward spiral

of the meth lab seizures in the State.

Initially, the evidenced seized from the meth labs was processed

in the drug section of the crime lab. However, an 1,800 percent increase in the number of meth labs seizures from 1995 to 1998 resulted in an illicit lab section of the crime lab being established.

And it’s established specifically to handle analysis of evidence from

methamphetamine labs. At the time, three analysts staffed the illicit lab section. Currently, the illicit lab section is staffed by six

analysts, and they’re tasked with handling the 1,208 meth seizures

that were accomplished in 2003 and are also tasked in handling

anticipated—1,305 labs anticipated to be handled this year.

And in addition to analyzing the evidence, the analysts are also

tasked with responding to the crime lab sites at the request of local

or other law enforcement agencies, and they provide safety information to officers at the scene; they assist in rendering the site

safe; they collect evidence samples; they wind up testifying in

court; and also they provide training to law enforcement officers regarding the meth lab.

Cases we receive each year continue to outnumber the cases

processed which results in an unacceptable backlog of almost 1,000

cases in the illicit lab section. And this backlog is not a result of

any inefficiencies on the part of our lab personnel, but it’s due primarily to the sheer number of cases coming into the lab. Although

additional analysts are needed, current budget constraints hinder

the hiring of the additional analysts.

And just as the illicit lab section has no control over the number

of hours spent in court, we also have no control over the number

of man hours spent in responding to meth labs, because it’s totally

dependent on calls we receive from outside law enforcement agenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:14 Feb 03, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\97398.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
62

cies. And on average since January 1, 2004, illicit lab analysts have

spent 74 hours in court, which is almost 2 weeks in court, and 187

hours responding to meth lab scenes. And that’s over 4 weeks. And

each hour they spend in court or at the scene takes them away

from the laboratory condition where they analyze the evidence

that’s needed for court. And since 1995, the number of meth labs

seized has increased by almost 5,000 percent, while the number of

illicit lab analysts has increased from three to six. The backlog of

cases, as well as the congestion of the judicial system contributes

to another unique problem.

In many instances, persons charged with manufacture of meth

will bond out of jail and may be arrested additional times for manufacture of meth prior to going to trial on the first charge. The illicit lab section assists the Criminal Justice Institute in Little Rock

by providing instructors over the methamphetamine awareness

first responders course, and clandestine laboratory evidence sampling preparation for this course. It is through this training that

analysts hope to educate officers in the proper response techniques

to meth labs for safety service and to instruct officers in proper

techniques for evidence sampling and handling.

By achieving this goal, the analyst will decrease the call outs to

lab sites and increase efficiency of the cases submitted to the lab

because proper packaging and submission procedures have been

followed. Of course, as a result, it allows the analyst more time in

the laboratory.

And in conjunction with the need for training law enforcement

personnel and increased manpower, I, again, believe that changes

in the law to restrict the availability of ephedrine and

pseudoephedrine are much needed. I believe Congress should attempt to address this problem by listing ephedrine and

pseudoephedrine as a scheduled drug that either requires a prescription or at least restricted availability. As pertains to the State

Crime Lab, we’re in need of additional chemists to enhance the

staff of the illicit lab section and to support these chemists, we are

going to need additional vehicles and equipment as well as environmental training for our people.

Despite our manpower situation and our backlog of cases, our analysts, I would like to say, will continue to produce a quality product the criminal justice system can utilize in continuing the fight

against methamphetamine in Arkansas and across the Nation.

Again, I’d like to say thank you for allowing me this opportunity

to speak.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Howard follows:]

63

64

65

66

67

68

Mr. SOUDER. Miss Louie.

STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY LOUIE, ENVIRONMENTAL EPIDEMIOLOGY SUPERVISOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Ms. LOUIE. Gentlemen, thank you. I’m Shirley Louie. I’m chief

environmental epidemiologist for the Arkansas Department of

Health. And I thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you

the potential dangers to human health associated with exposure to

hazards that you find in areas where there have been clandestine

methamphetamine laboratories functioning, and also to discuss the

complexities of cleaning up those properties.

In Arkansas, as well as in other parts of the country, we’ve heard

that sites where meth has been produced are shifting away from

rural areas and oftentimes into more densely populated and urban

areas. In homes, trailers, apartment complexes. These laboratories

are not laboratories the way we look at a lab. There’s very little

control. There’s very little attention paid to safety. Oftentimes

there are fires and explosions, and the chemicals are not handled

in a judicious way.

Law enforcement here in Arkansas has done an outstanding job

of doing what we call primary clean-up, which is going in and taking out the chemicals, the paraphernalia, and then turning the—

after processing the site, they turn it back over to the property

owner. And then it becomes the property owner’s responsibility to

finish the clean-up detail. Almost all of these sites are contaminated with residuals of the meth process.

In many cases, the property owner, however, will just turn

around and have people reoccupy the property without much attention paid to where the contamination is or how much there is of

the contamination. And depending upon the methods used to clean

up, you can run into residuals of solvents or heavy metals or acids

or bases, or sometimes even chemicals that we don’t have any way

of being able to identify.

Persons can be exposed through a contact with contaminated surfaces or breathing in the dust. You can have rashes associated with

this sort of exposure, irritation to your eyes, your nose, your skin,

headaches, dizziness, and a myriad of respiratory and central nervous system problems. Children are particularly vulnerable because

of their activities, especially smaller children crawling around on

the floor, putting things in their mouths. Their skin is very, very

sensitive, and they have developing nervous systems. And because

of that, they are very vulnerable.

At this time, there are no rules and regulations in Arkansas that

cover what we call secondary clean-up. That’s clean-up that we

state should be necessary before you reoccupy a space. However,

the Arkansas Department of Health has developed what we call

guidelines to help property owners, tenants, and people who control

real estate, to help them figure out what to do. These are general

guidelines, they’re not meant to be all encompassing, and they are

guides and recommendations to help the public. They are not rules

and regulations that are enforceable. Arkansas Department of

Health does understand that enforceable rules and regulations may

be required to insure the quality and uniformity of what we called

secondary clean up.

69

There needs to be an adequate oversight if there’s going to be

proper reports. There also needs to be adequate and continuing

funding for any program that’s developed. I think relying on existing personnel and resources, as from already overburdened law enforcement and environmental protection and public health infrastructure will not be adequate to address this problem.

And you as law makers, as you continue these discussions and

establish regulations and policies and programs to help us address

these problems with secondary clean up of contaminated sites. I

hope you’ll ensure that these programs will be adequately funded,

they will be scientifically and technically sound, and also that they

will be protective of public health and the environment. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Louie follows:]

70

71

72

73

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Hickman.

STATEMENT OF DANNY HICKMAN, SHERIFF, BOONE COUNTY

Mr. HICKMAN. Thank you for inviting me here today. Boone

County is in northwest Arkansas, and Harrison’s the county seat.

My county is 35,000; small county. We see many problems. We border Branson, MO. And we’re a very rural county. Some of the meth

problems we’re seeing, we hear of people buying the precursors

every day, we just don’t have the manpower to maintain it. We’re

starting to see more violence in these meth cases. She’d showed

you a picture of a gun there; that particular case, the gentleman

that we had a 90-minute standoff with him. He had a 4-year-old

boy. It was very ‘‘touch and go’’ for quite some time. This man had

been up for days on meth. And it ended in a good resolve, the situation there.

But, also, you’ve got a picture of a—the gentleman spoke a while

ago of monitors. We’re running into a lot monitors that they know

we’re coming before we get there. In every lab situation, every lab

has weapons. We run into that every time. It’s a very dangerous

situation.

Myself and the Drug Task Force, our case loads have increased

about 50 percent over the past 5 years, and I may add that my jail

is overcrowded. I have a small 35-bed jail, and I’ve had as high as

80 people in my jail. And we’re seeing about 80 percent of my inmates are drug related.

I’m very high on education. I educate my staff as much as possible. And I’m very high on any educating the public, which we do

a lot of seminars to the public, and we connect well with the businesses. And the result of that, these businesses are able to call us

and tell us whenever there are people buying precursors.

And as you can I work real close with the Criminal Justice Institute, which I’ve got graduates from the Crime Scene Tech school,

which has helped our small department greatly. I’m just fortunate

to have sent two of my officers to the FBI Academy, the national

academy, which is, again, the education. Once again, I do think

that education has helped us out a lot as far as prevention.

I do think the blister packs, the cold medicine, we should continue on with the limited amount that are able to be sold to them,

but I think it should be in—I believe they should be made to sign

for these and give us a means to—a legal means to collect data

from the businesses whenever they sign for them and such as that.

We get data from pawn shops where people pawn stuff off. We need

to be able to get data so that we can continue dealing with our

drug cases that way.

Once again, thank you for allowing me to speak to you today.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hickman follows:]

74

75

76

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Gibbons.

STATEMENT OF DAVID GIBBONS, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY,

5TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Boozman. I’m truly honored to be here. I’m prosecuting

attorney for the 5th District. The 5th District is comprised of three

counties: Pope County, Johnson County, and Franklin County.

We’re at the foot of the Ozark Mountains. I–40 traverses us from

east to west, west to east, and the Arkansas River is our southern

boundary. I didn’t know if y’all know where that is.

Our title for this subcommittee hearing, Methamphetamine Epidemic in Arkansas, accurately reflects the situation in the 5th District. It truly is an epidemic, and it’s a growing epidemic.

In 2003 and 2004, the first 5 months of 2004, 52 percent of all

felonies filed were directly related to methamphetamine. Now,

when I say, ‘‘directly related to methamphetamine,’’ I mean it’s possession of methamphetamine, manufacture of methamphetamine,

possession of paraphernalia, the attempt to manufacture or deliver.

That, of course, doesn’t take into account the forgery, the hot

checks, the burglaries that people do to support their habit. Unfortunately, this epidemic, at least in the 5th District, appears to be

in large part an epidemic of our own making.

In 1997 when I first took office, 9 percent of the cases filed, and

these aren’t arrests or searches or labs uncovered, these are actual

felonies filed, there were nine manufacturing felonies filed in 1997.

Last year, in 2003, there was 67 manufacturing felonies filed, and

that includes not just straight manufacturing, that’s also paraphernalia with intent. We don’t have the product, but the intent is

definitely there to manufacture. So far, the first 5 months of 2004,

there have been 36 manufacturing felonies filed in those three

counties.

The manufacturing cases that we have are not truly super labs.

These are what have been called mom and pop labs, and probably

accurately reflects the way they are. Most of these labs in one generating period will produce less than an ounce, maybe a little bit

more than an ounce, but what I would like to drive home to this

subcommittee today is that the impact that those mom and pop

labs have goes way beyond the actual drug, the actual product in

this way. It takes a lot more manpower and a lot more resources

to investigate a lab. You’ve got to have the people, you’ve got to

work informants, and you’ve got to do the search warrant. You’ve

got to go in and execute the search warrant. That area has to be

secured. It takes a lot more manpower.

The clean up, there’s been reference to clean up. Approximately

95 percent with that specter of perjury looming over me, I don’t

want to—but approximately 95 percent of all of our labs require

clean up. We have a company from out of State that comes in and

does that. And then, with methamphetamine labs, the crime lab,

we put a tremendous amount of work on them because you have

a simple possession case or a distribution case, you’ve got one substance that needs to be analyzed. That is the meth. With a lab,

you’ve got to analyze all those other things so that I can take it

to a jury and say, ‘‘Well, this is red phosphorus, this is iodine,’’ this

77

is this, this is that, plus they’ve got to testify because they’ve got

to tell the jury how all this combines. It puts a tremendous strain

on the crime lab. But the trials themselves take long on these mom

and pop labs.

A simple possession case or a distribution case, you’ve got a day,

day and a half. A lab case could take 2 to 3 to 4 days. And, finally,

it puts a tremendous strain on the prisons because—and I want to

hasten, the meth manufacturing cases absolutely justify that these

people go to prison. And in Arkansas, they have to serve 70 percent

of their time before they’re eligible for parole, which is correct, and

that’s the way it should be. Nevertheless, that’s the impact it has.

One thing that I do want to bring out to this, this subcommittee

already knows that no matter the technique that’s used to produce

this methamphetamine, there’s one common ingredient and that’s

pseudoephedrine. Pseudoephedrine is to methamphetamine production in the 5th District as ball bearings were to Nazi war production in World War II. That is their point of vulnerability.

Mr. Bryant’s already made—Bill Bryant, already made reference

to the Oklahoma law. That law was passed in March. It’s House

Bill 2176. Basically, it says that pseudoephedrine has to be dispensed by a registered pharmacist or a registered pharmacy technician. This doesn’t apply to gel, this is just the solid form. But the

receiving person has to have a photo ID and sign a log, which the

sheriff alluded to, and no person can have more than 9 grams within 30 days without a valid prescription.

Jim Talley, a writer of the Associated Press in the Fort Smith

paper, Southwest Times Record on June 22nd said that Oklahoma—this is what the report is—in Oklahoma, the lab production

dropped 70 percent since that law went into effect in the early part

of April. He went on to say that 90 meth labs were reported to the

Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation in March. The figure fell

to 64 in April and then dropped to 29 in May. Now, that’s their figures, but when you think about it, these people that run the mom

and pop organizations, they don’t plan good, so that can very well

be accurate, and I assume that it is.

There’s no question that you have to attack this methamphetamine problem on all fronts; the drug courts, treatment, interdiction on ice—or interdiction. But in my opinion, to restrict the access of pseudoephedrine would drive a stake in the heart of methamphetamine production, in the 5th District.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:]

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

Mr. SOUDER. I’m going to make an absolute. One thing that’s

very discouraging and what’s absolutely clear is that the growth

rate expense, we don’t have the money to deal with it the way

we’re dealing with it. So I want to ask a couple of questions in that

vein. Let me start with Ms. Louie and Mr. Howard, maybe, but

start with Ms. Louie.

The chemicals that they’re using in the labs are clearly dangerous. Don’t take any of my questions otherwise. Do we have any

hard evidence of people getting sick or being treated or problems

occurring at homes where a lab was previously, and now somebody

else has moved in, and they’ve gone to the hospital? Do we have

any hard evidence, or is this mostly a concern or looking at what

could be?

Ms. LOUIE. Some of the information is anecdotal in that a mother

or father will bring their child into an emergency room, for instance, and they will have symptoms that are consistent with exposure to chemicals. But it’s oftentimes they don’t even know that

they’ve moved into a facility or a home or an apartment that was

once used as a meth production facility.

Physicians don’t make that cause and effect oftentimes. They

treat the symptoms, they try to make the child well, but without

that kind of information, and since these chemicals can also be

used in other areas, too, it’s not always clear cut why. We know

from experience, and in occupational settings, in accidental exposure settings that if a child is exposed to those chemicals which

clearly can be and oftentimes are detected on those properties, they

can and will be sick. And so I think even though that hard evidence is not there, it’s not because it isn’t real. Perhaps it’s because

we haven’t looked hard enough to find it.

Mr. SOUDER. Yes, we have a huge problem here because even in

Arkansas, what we’re hearing is that the labs aren’t producing

large quantities and that the—if we’re looking at it from an addition treatment side, the problem is not the home grown labs, the

problem is the Mexican trafficking organizations, even in Arkansas.

Because what we didn’t ask, but I know the answer to the question

is, is that it isn’t only that the home grown labs only provide 30

percent roughly of Arkansas, but it isn’t as addictive and it’s not

as explosive. In other words, the super lab’s purity and addictive

components are greater than the home grown because they’re using

different chemical forms and so on and so forth.

Looking at it from a drug treatment standpoint, it’s not the small

mom and pop labs. If we’re looking at it from the numbers who are

addicted, it’s not the mom and pop labs. If we’re looking at it from

violence to the general—if we’re looking at court cases related to

child abuse, court cases related to spouse abuse and other things,

it’s not the mom and pop labs. And yet, we’re spending an incredible amount of dollars with clean-up equipment, the time, and what

it absolutely is, is the mom and pop labs are the greatest danger

physically to local police forces because as they go in, these people

are armed. So clearly it’s a danger to them. It’s clearly the No. 1

thing that’s taking up the time of our local police forces, which

means it’s being diverted from other crime as they zero in on this,

particularly if they have to wait at the location. It’s taking the biggest percent of the prisons.

86

I had one county in my district that every single person is in on

meth. They can’t even arrest anybody with anything else because

they’re overcrowded, and everybody in there is on meth. That is

taking up the prison space.

Ironically though, with people who often have ounces as opposed

to pounds, which is the very reverse of our policy on marijuana,

that it has a huge impact on the law enforcement side. But what

I’m trying to sort through, after sitting through hearing after hearing, in the environmental context, we’re going to have to have a

very hard look at the environmental and healthcare side of this because most of these things are household chemicals that are already in the house in many cases. They’re in different forms.

And the question is, is there something we could do to spot check

in emergency rooms? You’ve got a couple of counties that have lots

of these labs. Could we do a spot check and look at something in

the 10 highest counties in the United States where there are labs

to investigate the emergency room? We may be making a false assumption here and pouring our money intensively into something

without the greatest return. In other words, one of the first cuts

may be has there been spillage, has the stuff been mixed, what

form of the danger it is. Because it isn’t sustainable.

There’s no way the Federal Government, which is more broke

than the State government, which is more broke than the local government, but the local government doesn’t want to raise taxes, the

State government doesn’t want to have to raise the taxes, and the

Federal Government, we’re trying to cut taxes, so the bottom line,

is that it’s not like there’s money. Any money we give you, we’re

just running up the deficit to give it to you. But we certainly aren’t

going to be able to sustain the type of increases that you were talking about. I mean, it’s exponential.

And I can see you’re backlogged 1,000 cases, and in every lab,

you have to have multiple things to take down a lab which makes

a couple of ounces, and to be able to prove it in court, we have an

unsustainable problem here. It isn’t whether the Federal Government is going to do it, the State government, or local government.

It’s not sustainable.

From the law enforcement I heard that we need to be brainstorming how we prioritize this system. So if you want to give us

some additional information, and nobody likes to make that cut, because we’d like to get them all, but we’re going to have to have

some kind of prioritization system as we’ve had to in other kinds

of narcotics and other kinds of challenges. Pseudoephedrine is definitely a problem and we clearly have to crack down, we have to get

more information. We’re working on some legislation.

Now, I want to ask you a couple of particular questions about

that. I really want you to brainstorm. You can’t possibly, as a prosecutor or a judge or a sheriff, or even EPA, you can’t go running

after all these labs, and we need to figure out what is the extent

of the risk, what are the major things that get us over from potential risks to risks but more short-term risk, the things that can

really be damaging. Clearly, it’s the child abuse risk, and if Arkansas doesn’t have that law, you ought to look at the California law

because anybody that’s cooking in their home where there are

small children, they put that child at risk for explosion purposes.

87

But, let me ask, do you use anhydrous ammonia here in some of

the labs? We have one case in Indiana, this idiot went into—because we need to look at somehow how to protect in some of the

rural areas, they have these areas where they have anhydrous ammonia in big tanks, and some idiot went in there, got one and a

half turns from blowing up a tank that would have taken a town

of 700 off the face of the earth. It was at the edge of town, they

were living out in the country. One and a half more turns on that,

because he couldn’t get it all the way off, one and a half more

turns, it would have instantaneously killed all 700 people in the

town before they even knew they got hit.

Now, that’s a different level of risk than some home cooker who,

basically, has himself in the house or his spouse in the house or

little kids in the house. Because they’re going to burn the place up,

they’re going to wound the kids, that’s risk immediately on that.

While he’s cooking there’s a risk. But we’ve got to look at the clean

up. Clean up and the hard data here, because we don’t have

enough dollars to do this. We’ll never have enough dollars to do

this.

I’d like to hear everwho wants to take a crack at that. Go ahead.

Ms. LOUIE. Thank you. I guess one of the issues that we looked

at when we developed the Arkansas Department of Health guidelines for secondary clean up was just that issue of, you know, you

will never be able to clean a facility up to where it’s pristine and

spotless. However, you can be reasonable, and let’s look and see a

fundamental assessment of what has been the contamination and

where were these things and where were the chemicals stored,

where was the activity going on? And then make that assessment.

It may be that clean up can be very superficial and not all that expensive. It is still the responsibility of the property owner. Or you

make that person take on that responsibility.

If you make those regulations or guidelines reasonable enough so

that there is still protection of public health but it’s not so overwhelming that it’s going to cost that person more than his or her

house is worth in order to facilitate that clean up. I think there

needs to be a reasonableness and a balance without jeopardizing

public health and the environment but still making it so it’s doable

so we’re not having to dump that last million dollars to clean up

that last model.

Mr. SOUDER. Sheriff, if your guys come across a home meth cooker, how long does it take to get clean up?

Mr. HICKMAN. It depends upon if the crime lab’s available at the

time. It can be—I’m in north—the northern part of Arkansas and

Little Rock being in the central, it depends on where they’re at.

Anywhere from 2 hours to 8 to 10 hours.

Mr. SOUDER. And do your guys leave the scene.

Mr. HICKMAN. No, sir. We’re there until it’s gone.

Mr. SOUDER. And the closest is Little Rock.

Mr. HICKMAN. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. So what’s typical? How long? Do you just leave one

person there or do you leave the whole team there?

Mr. HICKMAN. No, my—the sheriff’s office and the Drug Task

Force coordinates that together. It’s anywhere from probably five to

six guys.

88

Mr. SOUDER. So they’re tied up?

Mr. HICKMAN. They’re tied up until it’s gone.

Mr. SOUDER. So it’s typically 4 hours.

Mr. HICKMAN. That would be the earliest.

Mr. SOUDER. So half day, you’ve got five to six people tied up and

sitting there.

Mr. HICKMAN. Yes. Actually, you know, from the investigation

end of it, until we write the search warrant, while they’re writing

the search warrant, I’ve got to have a deputy sit on the lab, you

get the search warrant signed off, and the search starts, a normal

lab, you’re looking at probably a good 10 hours.

Mr. SOUDER. I’ll come back to Mr. Rutledge in just a minute.

Mr. Gibbons, you were talking about the difficulty in prosecuting

somebody and all you’ve got to put together and all that case. Do

you see any ways that we can simplify this process? I mean, this

isn’t realistic. It’s tough if you were doing 20 labs, but when you

get into the hundreds, we’re not even in the zone of realism here

for being able to fund it long term.

Mr. GIBBONS. There’s nothing the Federal Government can do of

which I’m aware of that brings to mind that would enable me to

prosecute a case easier. Because, you know, simply the facts are

there, and that’s what they are. And a jury’s got to learn that

there’s certain things you have to do.

Yes, you’re right, Mr. Chairman, it isn’t realistic, but the fact is,

it’s realty. And these things have to be stopped, and we do have

to go out to these labs. We may not have to clean each one up, but

we have to go to each lab. Because if we don’t, the whole block will

be tampered—the whole area is contaminated.

Mr. SOUDER. Let me give you an example. If we said that on the

surface if you had X amount of pseudoephedrine and it’s not in the

pill bottle to be used as for aspirin or something, that you are de

facto able to be prosecuted for a certain of crime? And then you

would look at a prosecutor and the prosecutor would say, ‘‘Since he

was only producing this amount, I’m going to get him on the

pseudoephedrine charge rather than a meth charge.’’

Mr. GIBBONS. Yeah, I do that. We have a law in Arkansas where

we actually have one in possession of certain quantities

pseudoephedrine is in and of itself a crime. We use that to a degree. Also, I mentioned earlier, the possession of paraphernalia

with the intent to manufacture is a Class B felony. I use that a lot.

And we do that, just what you’re talking about, Mr. Chairman.

When we see something that’s not an active lab that’s putting out

a whole lot of product, if we can stop them there, that’s how we

do that. Nevertheless, we still have a lot of the chemicals, and we

still have that same problemof showing what they intended it for.

So, yeah.

Mr. SOUDER. So is there a way when Sheriff Hickman walks up

to the place, rather than tying up 6 to 10 people, that he can get

a quick read as to whether this is going to be a paraphernalia

pseudoephedrine prosecution as opposed to a large one?

Mr. GIBBONS. Sheriff Hickman will know when he goes in there

that these people have purchased all of these items. He will know

that they have—I’m almost sure he will be positive that they have

producedmethamphetamine in that house before, or else he

89

wouldn’t be there. Some informant’s told him that. Then he has the

duty to go in and see what’s actually going on. Sometimes he’ll get

a lab in progress, sometimes he’ll get the lab after it’s down. Sometimes he’ll get simply pills. So he doesn’t—he doesn’t know that,

but he knows he’s got to go in there and do something because

that’s just the——

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Rutledge.

Mr. RUTLEDGE. There were a couple of things, Mr. Chairman,

that you mentioned that I think might be helpful. One is the definition of a lab. You know, what constitutes a lab? And I have tried

to find that out from various people, and it would make it easier

if we had some definition.

One thing that you might—that I’ve noted in my other statement

was that the drug task forces in Arkansas last year alone confiscated 273 pounds of methamphetamine, and the vast majority of

that was home grown in these mom and pop. That’s a lot of methamphetamine in these little mom and pop operations, that—when

you break it all out.

We are also meeting with the—I think the sheriff mentioned the

CJI a while ago, which is part of the University of Arkansas. It’s

the Criminal Justice Institute. And my office and others have been

meeting with CJI and the State police and DEA and others in an

attempt to try and develop a training for—instead of him taking six

guys, six deputy sheriffs, certified law enforcement officers, to sit

there on that lab while—you know, it may take 8 hours for somebody to come there and clean it up and look at it and all that kind

of stuff, that if there was some cross-training ability with the emergency management people and the volunteer fire fighters who are

trained in certain aspects of chemicalspills and hazardous waste

and those kind of things, where they could be utilized with the

sheriff’s deputies to fill in. Because a lot of these are volunteer

guys, and they would be more than willing to be there to protect

the site while the law enforcement people could be doing other

things and—if they were properly trained in those techniques. And,

conversely, the law enforcement people could be trained to do some

chemical hazardous work as it relates to terrorism and other chemical things that the emergency management people are trained to

do.

And what we’re looking at is trying to figure out a way to cross

train those people into some kind of a system. Because one thing

we’re—the DEA does a good job of training our people, but as Mr.

Bryant said, there were 400 something that they had trained for

the State of Arkansas. Well, all these labs require certified lab officers. You can’t just have John Doe Deputy Sheriff walking in there

doing this stuff. And a lot of those people, you know, we get them

trained, and then they go on, they get promoted to different jobs,

or they move to a different agency. And so it’s a continuing flow

problem. And we’re looking at trying to come up with a proposal

that maybe the government can help us fund to train more people

and not just law enforcement officers. You know, cross training.

That may help alleviate some of these local law enforcement problems.

Mr. SOUDER. I believe Congressman Boozman has some more

questions. Thank you very much.

90

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you-all for your testimony and your statements. Your written material that you turned in really was excellent.

Mr. Gibbons, people tell me that the small labs, that it’s almost

like the Amway, they cook for a little bit, maybe for one or two or

three people to support their own habit. Is that true, or is reality

that they are supporting their own habit, but they’re also—you

know, you mentioned a large amount that was seized over and

above. When we talk about a small lab, what are we really talking

about?

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, I think that we’re talking about, at least in

my district, Congressman Boozman, we’re talking about a lab

which would generate somewhere around an ounce of methamphetamine during just one generation period. One generation period,

using the methods that are used in the 5th District, generally

would be about a 24-hour period from pills sold to finished product.

It’s not—I haven’t seen it—like when you say it’s for their own use,

there’s two or three of them that it never gets outside that circle,

and that’s where it enters the trade. It’s part of it.

I would agree with Mr. Bryant who testified, that’s probably 70/

30. I might put it more like 65/35, but somewheres in there. But

it does enter the stream of commerce, if I can use that phrase. It

does get outside those two to three people. And it has to be

stopped.

You know, the sheriff, whether it’s a pill soak or whatever it is,

it may have ramifications on how we clean it up, but it nevertheless has to be stopped because it’s a problem that just feeds on

itself.

Mr. BOOZMAN. You mentioned that the primary ingredient, no

matter how you make it, is the ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. As

you-all make your busts and do your analysis in Arkansas, where

do the perpetrators get their stuff?

Mr. GIBBONS. They go, Congressman, they go—or in my experience in the 5th District, they go from retail store to retail store,

they go to convenience stores, they go to Wal-Mart, where they’re

limited, but then they go to the other one. There’s Russellville WalMart, Clarksville Wal-Mart, and Ozark Wal-Mart in my district.

And we have good cooperation from retail merchants, but iodine

and things of that nature, they may go to the feed store, red phosphorus, of course, they get from the striker plates in matches. But,

basically, the pseudoephedrine, they’ll purchase from convenience

stores and places like that.

Mr. BOOZMAN. So we are getting more cooperation? You mentioned, Sheriff Hickman——

Mr. HICKMAN. We’re getting a lot more cooperation. Like I said,

the education of businesses and what have you, just like he said,

what we find is a group of people will come in and they’ll split up

and go to these retail stores and Wal-Mart and feed stores, and

then they’ll gang back up and go off and do their lab.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Have we prosecuted any stores, as far as convenience stores, that seem to be breaking the law far as dealing?

Mr. GIBBONS. We——

Mr. BOOZMAN [continuing]. Themselves.

91

Mr. GIBBONS. I didn’t mean to interrupt you, but in my district

we had one store that we came very close to, but it went awry. But

that’s the only one that I’m aware of in my district.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Is that an area we need to concentrate on?

Mr. RUTLEDGE. You know, there is a State law that, you know,

limits the amount these people can—and the enforcement of that

law is real tricky, because just like Mr. Gibbons said, you know,

the guy goes through this line at Wal-Mart and goes through that

line down there, and he goes to the next Wal-Mart or the next convenience store. And these stores are helpful in furnishing data and

about who’s buying and all that kind of stuff.

I do think that most prosecutors in the State will prosecute if the

stores violate, but I don’t think that’s the big problem. I think it’s

the guy—you know, they’re not violating—now, there are a few,

and we’ve had some in north Arkansas where some 7-Eleven type

store might buy cases of this stuff and pedaling it.

I know there was one case in Batesville that they were taking

it to Jonesboro by the case and—this was a number of years ago—

and selling it to the people that were manufacturing, and that kind

of thing. And those people are being prosecuted if we find them,

but I think the biggest problem is just this buying it, you know.

But we’re certainly looking at it from the State level.

Mr. BOOZMAN. How about the statistics I read which say that

this is something that many people get into later in their life, and

since late teens or whatever, on up into their 40’s, and lot of

women get into this disproportionally, compared to some other

stuff? I mean, how is that impacting the system?

Mr. RUTLEDGE. I think that is probably the most—we have had

a tremendous explosion in the number of women committing

crimes, and especially this particular crime. In Arkansas, as the

data would show, in the public facilities, admissions for methamphetamine, 40 percent are women, which, that’s pretty high on

any kind of drug problem. And what we’re seeing in Little Rock

and in some of these other areas where we have treatment facilities for women and children, pregnant women, we’re seeing an increase in that particular problem of—you know, young women with

babies, small children, or who are pregnant. And this is just a devastating thing.

You know, when I was circuit judge, I never will forget when

these people come to me and—for commitment, or some kind of domestic abuse order, and 90 percent of it was methamphetamine.

And you had some young lady there who was admitted for treatment that—you know, with her teeth falling out and all this kind

of thing. And it was just devastating. And that’s what I’ve got a

real concern about this. What are we going to do about it.

But, yeah, women are a big problem. Not more so then men, but

the idea that more women are becoming criminals because of this

particular drug than any other, because of the—one other thing,

Congressman, that—it’s not really a teenage drug, but it’s—you

know, we have them as young as 9 or 10, but the vast 75 percent,

I think, of the people who are committed or admitted for treatment

fall within the age range of 20 to 45 years of age. We have some

older.

92

What really concerns me is because of that age group and the

devastation to the family and other things that this stuff is causing, I see a potential for real explosion in the number of people

going into nursing homes at an earlier age and a real devastating

effect on the Medicaid funds that we have, because we don’t—in

Arkansas, we don’t spend any Medicaid funds per se on substance

abuse treatment, but it could become a real source of problems

when those people become dysfunctional and end up in a nursing

home.

Mr. BOOZMAN. One other thing, and I’ll then let Chairman

Souder continue. The Oklahoma law, has it been in effect long

enough to know if being a State that borders, are we seeing more

people—David, you’re in Fort Smith, Mr. Gibbons, are we seeing

more people crossing the line to buy product in Arkansas and then

taking it back to Oklahoma, or do we not know yet?

Mr. GIBBONS. Congressman, there’s always been a real permeable membrane there between Oklahoma and Arkansas. I did

talk with a State police drug agent last night, and I asked him that

very question. He indicated to me that, yes, he seemed to think

that there were more and more people coming over, but he, obviously, didn’t have any hard facts on the affect of that was having,

or something like that. But, again, you know, he—that was his impression.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Something’s happening because the statistics that

you quoted were pretty dramatic.

Mr. GIBBONS. Yes, they are.

Mr. BOOZMAN. David.

Judge HUDSON. I can’t clarify anything on that.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. I guess if they were purchasing in Arkansas and

taking it back, there’s not a tracking—I think if they destroy the

packages, you wouldn’t be able to tell. Is there a way to tell from

packaging where it was purchased.

Mr. GIBBONS. I don’t believe there is, Mr. Chairman. I don’t believe so.

Mr. RUTLEDGE. If they buy it at Wal-Mart, there probably is.

They track almost everything in sight.

Mr. GIBBONS. But you’ve got a Wal-Mart man coming.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Howard, you had a chart in the back——

Mr. HOWARD. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER [continuing]. With clan labs, so this is over a 3-year

period?

Mr. HOWARD. Are you looking at this——

Mr. SOUDER. No, actually, I was looking at the map.

Mr. HOWARD. Oh, yes. Yes, sir, that is. That map of the State

of Arkansas is the number of labs seized in 2000 to 2003.

Mr. SOUDER. In looking at this, what’s unusual about this compared to any other meth map that I’ve seen is the highest number

is in Little Rock county.

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. In Pulaski and around there. Do you have any opinion why that is? Does anybody else have an opinion of why that

is? It’s counter to the national trend.

93

Mr. RUTLEDGE. Well, it’s three times as big as any other, you

know, county in the State, approximately. There’s 300,000 people

live in Pulaski County. And in the surrounding area, there’s probably, you know——

Mr. SOUDER. But, for example——

Mr. RUTLEDGE. Out of the 2.7 million, you know, there’s a pretty

good chunk of people right in there.

Mr. SOUDER. But, as an example, in Missouri, you wouldn’t see

Kansas City and St. Louis have the biggest meth problem. I mean,

they don’t. So why would it be in the urban, is it not as urban?

Is it—I mean, I don’t have a geographic sense.

Mr. RUTLEDGE. Yeah, it’s really not.

Mr. SOUDER. Because some of the surrounding counties around

there, too, are the heaviest counties. You’ve got—it looks like No.

5 and 6 are up here in the northwest, but the top 4 are right in

the Little Rock area.

Mr. HOWARD. I agree with Judge Rutledge there. That’s the population density of Arkansas is that area. Plus, Little Rock, you

don’t have to travel too far out of Little Rock until you’re in rural

areas. And I can’t say that has an affect on it, but it’s possibly one

of the reasons. I think the density population is one reason.

Mr. SOUDER. Yeah. But, for example, in my district, Indiana is

fifth highest in meth labs. In fact, we’re reporting almost the same

as Arkansas, just a little bit behind, and it’s unreported as well,

because our State police numbers are almost twice as high as our

Federal number.

In looking at that, however, my home city of Fort Wayne has had

maybe three of 230,000, Elkhart that has a lot, it’s about a town

of 40,000; another town of 30,000 next to it, but you get out in the

rural areas and exponentially, the number of labs increase. And

I’m trying to figure out is that what we—in Kansas, the biggest

problem in Kansas is outside the metro areas. In Tennessee and

Kentucky, it’s outside the metro areas. I’m trying to figure out why

would it be different in Arkansas.

First off, maybe these areas are quickly rural, and my question

would be, are the meth labs outside the city of Little Rock or is it

just in Little Rock? Is it in the suburban areas or is this pattern

changing? Another explanation would be there’s more law enforcement there, so, therefore, they caught them.

Mr. RUTLEDGE. That last explanation is part of it. And I think,

too, in those places that you’re talking about like—now Kansas is

a little different, but it’s just now getting into south Arkansas and

southeast Arkansas, and those—and in Little Rock. If you go back

10 years, there were hardly any there in the Little Rock area. Now,

you’ve got the 3-years latest, you know.

And I think what you’re seeing is an explosion in and around Little Rock. In most of the—Pulaski County itself is a lot of rural,

even though Little Rock is in the middle of it. And I don’t have an

answer to your question, but that would be my supposition is that

we’ve seen a real explosion in the urban—in the number of labs in

buildings, in homes, in cars, in those kind of things, where it used

to be everybody hid out in the brush, so to speak, like the old—

when my daddy made moonshine, you know, he wasn’t making it

in the house because somebody might take his house. Well, so what

94

we’re seeing is it moving into the urban areas. And I think you will

experience that probably in Indiana as this thing explodes up

there.

Mr. SOUDER. Yes, I want to state for the record that I’m referring

to a chart without putting it into the record, and people here, this

chart shows 709 in Pulaski, 256 in the county next to it, so nearly

1,000 in those two counties. And then next is—Benton with 174,

Sebastian with 143, and Washington with 131. But then you come

in here with White at 158, another one just east of Pulaski at 116,

one north at 114, then a couple with 72, 83, and 85, and the whole

rest of the State is under 30. So you have—it looks like almost 65.

Mr. RUTLEDGE. Now, is that a total for 3 years?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes. It’s a total for 3 years. And that’s a tremendous concentration around this population area. Now, do you feel

that—I mean, maybe what we’re looking at is in Arkansas being

more mature in meth where it’s been evolving toward that. Can

you tell whether that trend has increased toward the latter part of

2003 as opposed to the first part?

Mr. HOWARD. Yeah, I think the records reflect that. If you went

back to, say, 1995 and compared the number of meth labs in just,

say, Pulaski County, it’s going to be an increasing number. And

probably increasing at an increasing rate. That would be my guess,

if you went back and looked at the figure for each year leading up

to 2003.

Mr. SOUDER. In other words, it might start in rural areas, but

then it will move into Fort Smith and Sebastian and Benton are

populous counties, it will start to move to them, and then when it

hits Little Rock, it just goes exponentially.

Mr. HOWARD. Yes. And——

Mr. SOUDER. I mean, 708 is just a huge number compared to the

other counties around.

Mr. HOWARD. And just a few years ago, down in the southwest

corner, Miller County, shows 74——

Mr. SOUDER. Uh-huh.

Mr. HOWARD. Not that many years ago, there were one or two

labs. And now it’s moving in the south.

Mr. SOUDER. And when you see a trend toward more labs, do you

also then start to see a bigger lab where you would see—instead

of an ounce, do law enforcement start to see guys banding together

where you have more lookouts as opposed to an individual? I mean,

is there a logical progression as the market builds, large organizations start to move into the market, and then trafficking organizations will move in? Or do you see the reverse, as the traffic organizations are in selling the stuff and then they decide to cook it

themselves? I’m just wondering if there’s a pattern to those in reality.

Mr. RUTLEDGE. I don’t know.

Mr. HOWARD. I have an opinion on that. You have isolated incidents where folks have large mom and pop labs, but I’m not sure

if—David, is there a pattern at work.

Mr. GIBBONS. I haven’t seen one. When I first started—when I

first recognized this problem, I tried to make it that way. I tried

to make it an either/or, you know, either it’s distribution or it’s

manufacture, and I didn’t see that. We had a big distribution orgaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:14 Feb 03, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\97398.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
95

nization from the State of California, Tulare County, California,

into Pope County, and it didn’t seem to have much effect on the

lab, you know, either people who make it, you know, or distributed

it. And the connection between Tulare County, California, and Pope

County, Arkansas, was relatives. You know, just happened to be

someone who had relatives back in Russellville and was coming

here to meet with relatives. And it was a tremendous amount.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Howard, do you have any suggestions for how

you deal with 1,000? How are you going to deal with this? Your

backlog is 1,000?

Mr. HOWARD. It is. And one thing that we’re looking at is our analysts are conducting some training with crews at the Criminal

Justice Institute to educate the first responders on dealing with

meth labs and also in sampling and packaging. And we’re hoping

that through that, we’re going to decrease the number of times our

guys have to respond to the field. That would increase the time

that was spent in the laboratory actually analyzing cases.

We’ve discussed a little bit involving the Criminal Justice Institute in further training of meth certified personnel. Right now in

Arkansas, in order for a person to be trained to be meth—clan lab

certified, you either have to attend training in DEA headquarters

in Quantico, which is a long waiting period, waiting list, and/or

wait on the Arkansas State Police to put on a training program for

certification or recertification. And those are the only two sources

for having folks certified to enter these labs. So if—and this has

just been a talking stage.

If we could get the Criminal Justice Institute involved in training

and certifying these folks, it would increase the number of people

available to respond to these labs. And from the laboratory standpoint, that would increase time our guys can spend—and our girls,

can spend in the lab.

Mr. SOUDER. Are you the biggest problem with congestion in the

judicial system? I don’t mean you personally.

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, I know what you mean.

Mr. SOUDER. Because your testimony is that some people will be

on bond, and they’ll be arrested for additional crimes before they

come to the charge, and the question is that the sheriff’s got his

people tied up sitting out there where they’re not able to arrest

other things when they’re sitting out there a long time. But then

once he gets all the information in, I mean, in some places, because

we don’t have enough judges, we don’t have enough U.S. Marshalls

to move the people around, we don’t have enough prisons to put the

people in, we don’t have enough prosecutors to prosecute. We have

all those different things, but are you so backlogged that you’re

now the problem in the system.

Mr. HOWARD. That’s part of it. There’s a bottleneck there, but

there’s also a bottleneck in the judicial system with enough cases

that are on—you know, waiting to be tried there. And in some

cases, and I can’t give you specific, but it’s not uncommon for a person to be arrested for manufacture of methamphetamine and bond

out and, literally, 10 days later, they’re arrested again. There’s no

way that—I mean, they couldn’t be tried in that length of time,

so—you know, so it’s a—yes, the crime lab is part of the problem

because of the backlog, but, I mean—and the backlog not only in

96

the illicit lab section but every other section of the State Crime

Lab. And it’s a problem with crime labs nationwide. It’s not just

limited to Arkansas.

But, yes, we are a problem, but part of it is these folks are out

there, as soon they can hit the door, they’re at it again.

Mr. SOUDER. Does the bond go up?

Mr. HOWARD. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. They increase the bond limits each time?

Mr. RUTLEDGE. This is a real problem, and I found this when I

was a prosecutor and judge, I think most prosecutors have across

the State. Before that person that manufactures ever goes to the

pen or gets convicted or pleads or whatever, I’m going to guess that

they will be arrested three times for manufacture and bond out

until the bond gets so high that they can’t do it, and then they go

on and plead guilty or something.

But so often, and you’ll find this, and I think David will back me

up on this, is that the fourth offense is the—you committed that

before you ever plead or get to trial because of the backlog.

And one of the suggestions that I had put in my proposal that

may or may not have anything to do with your committee’s responsibility is the idea of requiring as a condition of bail that the people

with the drug problems, and especially the meth problems, be restricted and be required under the threat of being incarcerated

quickly, to go into treatment or to some other method where they

can be monitored for drug use and—while they’re out on bail.

Mr. SOUDER. Uh-huh.

Mr. RUTLEDGE. Could be a way to get them back to jail if they’re

getting out of the pen.

Mr. SOUDER. Yeah. One of problems that we have, and I’ll conclude with this, or Congress Boozman can, one or the other. One

of the problems we had that’s unlike other drugs, this drug is costing taxpayers far more money because if we’re having to do the

drug lab, you’re having to do multiple research with it, taking more

days to prosecute, tying up six policemen at the scene, and the people who are doing it probably don’t have a lot of money that we’re

going to be able to recapture for funding it, so we’ve got to figure

that out, and the bonding or a drug test.

And the way the Federal Government could do it is if the State

gets any additional money from methamphetamine for their drug

labs, whatever they have to show that they have a State law that

will, in fact, not force the American taxpayers to do three cases on

one guy, when they should have had him the first time. That either

through a higher bond or a higher risk or a drug testing followup

or a drug treatment program with drug testing, that, basically,

says that, ‘‘Yes, we’re going to let you out, and you are a high reasonable suspect.’’ I mean, he likes fleeing.

If you’re going to do it, it would be a similar thing of on bonding

whether this person is going to flee the scene because the taxpayers have to go back in there three times to clean it up. This

isn’t free, and he isn’t going to pay for it, because he doesn’t have

the assets to pay for it.

We’ve got to figure out some creative ways to bring some more

pressure on them because we can’t sustain the dollars to do the

clean up, and policing and stuff if this thing continues to increase

97

at a double and triple rate, how would we even begin to do it? Congressman Boozman.

Mr. BOOZMAN. I just had one last thing. This is such a horrible

drug mentally and physically. When you look at people that have

been on the drug for extended periods of time, it doesn’t take a

rocket scientist to know, you know, that normal persons become

very dysfunctional as you mentioned. You know, sometimes for

those individuals we’re going to have to pay a significant cost

through nursing care or whatever. We’ve had other drugs that have

been very popular.

I was in college in the late 1960’s, early 1970’s, LSD, some of

those things were very popular, and because of their side effects,

they ran their course.

I guess the only question I would have is, you-all are out there

fighting the battle; where do you see this thing? Are we this way

(indicating) and maybe leveling down a little bit? Statistics don’t

indicate that, but your gut feeling out in the field, are we still

going straight up or—I’m just going to start with you, Mr. Gibbons.

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, Congressman, yeah, it does seem as if we are

going straight up, and someone touched on it, you know, it’s an unusual drug in the sense that it appears to be some sort of sexual

component on the females. The women of our society are really

drawn to it. When I first started practicing criminal law as defense

counsel, you never saw a women in criminal court. And now, gosh,

it’s normal and that doesn’t even account for hot checks or forgery

that they—you know. So maybe through education, you know.

Some of the children now, I’m sure, are seeing their mothers

without keeping their—it’s a terrible price they pay for this. But

it’s going to take an effort. I don’t see it leveling out of its own accord. No, sir, I don’t. Not in my district.

Mr. RUTLEDGE. I see a potential for leveling statewide, but the

problem with meth is the—unlike the LSDs and all those other

things that you had to buy from somewhere else, you know, even—

you know, back again to our problem which is you can produce this

in your bathtub or in your back yard or in your—you know, with

the stuff you can buy over the counter. And you can’t do that with

most drugs, you know. And now we’re seeing a lot of other club

drugs and things like that are equally bad, but they don’t have the

environmental devastation or the paranoid destruction that comes

with this one.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you-all.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much. The committee will stand a

few minute’s recess for the stenographer to rest her fingers, and we

can break and recess for 5 minutes, please.

[Recess.]

Mr. SOUDER. The subcommittee will come to order. Will the third

panel please come forward. The Honorable Mary Ann Gunn, circuit

judge, Fourth Judicial District; Mr. Larry Counts, director of Decision Point drug treatment facility; Mr. Bob Dufour, director of professional and governmental relations from Wal-Mart; Mr. Greg

Hoggat, director, Drug Free, Rogers-Lowell, Mr. Layne Kidd, president of the Arkansas Trucking Association; Dr. Merlin Leach, executive director of the Center for Children and Public Policy, and Mr.

Michael Pyle.

98

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SOUDER. Let the record show that all witnesses responded in

the affirmative. We thank you for your patience. As we can tell,

we’ve had a very interesting hearing. We’re looking forward to your

testimony. Your full testimony will be in the record. If you want

to summarize what you have as your written testimony and add

any comments on what you’ve heard thus far or stick to your

script, either way will be fine. We’ll start with Judge Gunn.

STATEMENT OF MARY ANN GUNN, CIRCUIT JUDGE, FOURTH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION

Judge GUNN. Thank you. For the record, my name is Mary Ann

Gunn, and I’m a circuit judge in the 4th Judicial District in Washington and Madison County, and I’m based in Fayetteville, Arkansas.

First, let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, and, Congressman, how

much I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. It’s truly an

honor and a privilege. And your staff members have been wonderful.

I am the drug court judge for Washington and Madison Counties.

Now, I will tell you it’s on a voluntarily basis only. We started with

volunteers in 1999. I did not, when approached and asked to be

drug courtjudge, I was not interested. I felt very strongly that if

you commit the crime, you need to do the time. And I was not sympathetic to drug abusers. But I’m still there, as you can tell.

But our program is a prejudication diversion program. And if a

person is charged with a felony and has a drug problem at all, it

is entirely up to the prosecuting attorney to determine solely if that

person is eligible for drug court.

Now, if there’s any violence in his or her background, or if he or

she is a trafficker, drug court is shut to that person. They’re not

allowed into drug court. After an extensive assessment, psychological assessment through our treatment team, and a defendant is

approved for drug court, then they’re transferred over to the program.

Now, it is a 9-month long program, and it demands a lifestyle

change. It is a community-based program, and it’s a privilege for

the candidate to be in the program because if they successfully

complete it and graduate, the charges are dismissed. If they’re terminated, I send them to the pen.

Inside that 9 months, they must complete 136 hours of group

therapy sessions, 148 hours of outside AA or NA meetings, they

must submit to at least 78 drug—random drug screens, they must

maintain full-time employment or be a full-time student. They have

to complete 10 hours of community service. If they don’t have their

GED, they better secure it, or I’m not going to graduate them. And

if they don’t have a valid driver’s license, they must have their

driver’s license reinstated. They must also complete 36 hours of individual counseling, and whatever that counselor recommends,

anger management or family counseling, they must complete it.

They also have to do 36 hours of moral reconation classes. And

after all that is said and done, the lifestyle change dramatically, it

must be in place, and then I will graduate them from the program.

99

We currently have a capacity of 108, and we have 120 in the program, and 35 waiting assessment. Our retention rate in the program is 85 percent, and our recidivism rate is 12 percent. These

folks, at least the ones that we’ve graduated, have not been subject

to recidivism, are paying for their own housing and their own food,

and their own utilities, as opposed to being housed in the penitentiary.

But I would like to also address with you after what I’ve heard

today my opinion on prevention. About 2 years ago, I went to a

high school, and I was talking to the children about drug court.

And they were yawning. So I asked them, and this the high school,

full high school, 630 students, and I asked the students how many

of them began—either smoked marijuana or had been with someone that smoked marijuana. And almost every hand went up. And

I asked them the same question regarding alcohol use, and the

same hands went up. When I asked the children about methamphetamine, if they had used it or been with someone who used

it, about a third, a little less than a third of the hands went up.

So I went back recently and determined that the median age for

drug—for meth use in people that have gone through drug court,

and we’ve treated a little over 500 people, is 19 years old. Their

drug usage began anywhere from the ages of 5 to 13 or 14. So we

started going to the schools, and we have held drug court in 13

schools on 22 different occasions. I asked every school the same

questions that I asked the first school, and I get the same answers

from the students.

And I will tell you that the last school we went to in this school

year, a little boy came to me after it was over, and he said, ‘‘My

best friend wants me to use methamphetamine. What should I do?’’

and I said, ‘‘Well, now you understand what peer pressure means.’’

He had big old tears in his eyes, and he said, ‘‘Yes, but he’s my

best friend.’’ And I said, ‘‘Well, son, he’s not your best friend. Not

anymore. He’s a drug addict.’’ And a light went on with this child.

And he was—it was like—he said, ‘‘You’re right.’’ He said, ‘‘Thank

you.’’ I knew that he wouldn’t try methamphetamine, because it became crystal clear to him that it wasn’t cool to use meth, that if

we can reach these children in the schools and teach them that

drug usage at any age is not cool, and you will find yourself sick

and diseased, then I think we’ve reached our goals. And I’m out of

time. Thank you very much.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Judge Gunn follows:]

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Counts.

STATEMENT OF LARRY COUNTS, DIRECTOR, DECISION POINT

DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY

Mr. COUNTS. Thank you. For the record, my name is Larry

Counts. I work as the executive director at Decision Point. We’re

an alcohol and drug treatment center located in Springdale and

have a catchment area of residents of about 353,000 people. I’ve

been with the agency since 1998, and this past year we’ve treated

more folks in our agency than we had by history and just a little

over a 1,100. And since 1998, over 5,000 addicts have come through

our facility for treatment.

I would like to first make a comment in regard to Congressman

Boozman’s question before. After listening to the two panels previously, I do believe that the effort and the work put into this problem of methamphetamine, which it certainly is an epidemic, we will

stem the tide a bit. I think by history, looking at something as simple as the Harrison Act in 1914 and trends from 1953 to today,

drug trends have come and gone, but it always seem like another

drug will come and take its place.

And I think that is part of what I would like to bring to the public today is a message, and that is one of the message just looking

and focusing more on the disease of addiction rather than a specific

drug. And I’m saying that to—I know that in our drug courts and

our treatment facilities, I see time and time again people coming

in looking at methamphetamine as the problem, but they—they

don’t choose to stop smoking pot, or they don’t choose to stop drinking alcohol, or they don’t choose to stop using other substances. So,

again, we’re seeing more poly substance than we are anyone coming in just simply using methamphetamine and having to work

with that.

Right now, I guess, too, like everyone else, we need more funds,

and we look at the distribution of the drug control policy, we’re

only getting about 32—a little over 32 percent to divide up between

treatment, prevention, and research in this effort. And it’s really

not adequate enough for the numbers that are coming in and demanding treatment where even our own governmental studies are

reporting that up to 48 percent of the people that need treatment

aren’t getting it.

We’re looking—today I was looking, and certainly the statistics

have already been spoken, and I know certainly there are crimes

in relation to drugs in terms of the manufacturing, the selling, the

adolescence and certainly the harm put to that. And I do know that

also in this—in our efforts, there were I found 1,498—1,498,000

children of drug addicts locked up or incarcerated in the United

States in one form or fashion. I would say that the majority of

these are certainly treatable. I hear that. And certainly 80 percent

of those locked up in our facilities have the problem either directly

or indirectly related to drugs. And having years of working in this

field, I do know that it is treatable.

I hear a great deal about intervention, and I would like to ask

again in regard to policy, studies have repeatedly shown through

NADA, through Samsul, through Seaside, that a person who is—

has a family history, which is a great predictor of any illness to inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:14 Feb 03, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\97398.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
169

clude alcoholism and drug addiction, that we—we are not allowed

by prevention to focus on that. We do a great deal of broad based

prevention, but we know that there is a high risk of kids out there

that have the potential to become addicted, but we’re not able to

target that, much like say that they do in HIV, AIDS, and STD

prevention. And I think that to the job, your drug courts, treatment, what really, everybody is doing is remarkable, given the conditions and the funding. But one of the things today, too, is that

certainly with treatment, we’re really charged, as Judge Gunn certainly pointed out, that to treat a chronic illness with an acute

intervention, we need to be able to get at the families to work in

those areas of social skills such as education, jobs and finance.

We’re not seeing adults who come in that made adult decision to

use; we’re seeing children or adults coming in who have 5, 10, 15

and 20 years of drug use without really any period of abstinence

and not even recognizing it as a disease.

Again, I appreciate your time in allowing me to speak. I, too,

think it’s been an honor and a privilege. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Counts follows:]

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

Mr. SOUDER. Now we go to Mr. Dufour.

STATEMENT OF BOB DUFOUR, DIRECTOR OF PROFESSIONAL

AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, WAL-MART STORES, INC.

Mr. DUFOUR. Thank, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of Wal-Mart, I

would like to thank you and both Congressman Boozman for inviting me to appear before you today to speak about the methamphetamine crisis in our country.

Currently, Wal-Mart, which, as you know, is based in

Bentonville, Arkansas, we operate stores in all 50 States, Puerto

Rico and nine foreign countries. We currently employ 1.2 million

people in the United States and 330,000 people in other countries.

Unlike many of the drugs that are abused, methamphetamine, as

you heard today, can be made using common, low-cost products and

supplies that are widely available. For this reason, Wal-Mart has

taken a keen interest in the methamphetamine issue. Our challenge is to meet the needs of legitimate customers while preventing

the proliferation of abuse of these products.

In 1998, Wal-Mart entered into a partnership with local law enforcement and the Drug Enforcement Administration to help fight

against this threat of methamphetamine production. At that time,

Wal-Mart voluntarily placed a register limit of three packages of

product to be purchased if it contained the active ingredient

pseudoephedrine. Pseudoephedrine, as you know, is used to treat

nasal congestion, and it is found in many cough and cold products

that are widely available. Millions of Americans each year at one

time or another have legitimately used these products to get relief.

Unfortunately, pseudoephedrine is also the primary precursor used

to make methamphetamine. Today, these Federal limits are in

place. There’s also a growing number of States and also local communities that have even higher restrictions on these products. WalMart has taken an active role in working with lawmakers and

agency officials across the county to insure these restrictions are

appropriate and effective in our stores.

Methamphetamine, though, continues to grow in areas of our

country. Wal-Mart has responded in these areas of growth by further restricting access to pseudoephedrine. Currently, in over 500

Wal-Mart stores across the country where we have noticed high

theft or unusual sales trends, we’ve taken single entity

pseudoephedrine and put it behind the prescription counter. Customers must ask for these products from a member of our pharmacy staff, and these products are only available when the pharmacy is open. Wal-Mart recognizes the inconvenience this is to our

legitimate customers, but this action underscores our commitment

to work with the DEA and other agencies on this issue.

We also found in 2003 that larger pack sizes were a primary target for many people wanting to produce methamphetamine. At that

time, Wal-Mart responded with our Wal-Mart stores voluntarily

discontinuing to sell the 96-count pseudoephedrine. When we did

this, we also kept the three package limit in place, and our largest

packet size was 48 count. This, in effect, reduced by half the

amount of pseudoephedrine you could purchase at a Wal-Mart

store. Our Sam’s Club took a similar action. While they kept the

179

96 count, they limited the quantity to two, and this late March has

reduced the quantity to one.

Not all of our actions at Wal-Mart have been focused on restricting sales of pseudoephedrine. We’ve also made significant efforts to

educate both our associates and our customers regarding methamphetamine. Wal-Mart cashiers as part of their training are

shown computer simulation of a transaction that attempts an

above-threshold purchase of pseudoephedrine. The cashiers were

then asked how to respond to the situation. Our customers who try

to purchase more than three products or less in restricted areas

may not understand why they can’t purchase more than those

three packages. In order to address this issue, this February, we

teamed up with the Partnership for a Drug Free America to provide information for them. Currently, each time a register limit regarding pseudoephedrine is triggered, a small informational slip is

printed at the register. This slip can be handed to the customer by

the cashier. It informs the customer of the pseudoephedrine limit

and directs them to the Partnership’s Web site where they can

learn more about pseudoephedrine and methamphetamine.

We are committed to finding ways of limiting access to these

products and the illegal use of methamphetamine production, but

also finding ways to keep these products available for the legitimate customers.

We appreciate the opportunity to participate today, and we look

forward to working with the subcommittee as we work on this

issue. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dufour follows:]

180

181

182

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Hoggatt. I believe it was your testimony I referred to earlier of the people in the trees.

STATEMENT OF GREG HOGGATT, DIRECTOR, DRUG FREE

ROGERS-LOWELL

Mr. HOGGATT. Yes, sir, it was. And I wanted to thank you, Chairman Souder, and, Congressman Boozman, and this subcommittee

for allowing me this opportunity to speak to you today. On behalf

of the RogersLowell area Chamber of Commerce, I’d like to welcome you to our community. You may have noticed Benton County

and all of northwest Arkansas are enjoying tremendous growth and

prosperity. We’ve been recognized as one of the fastest growing

areas in the Nation. We have three of the global leaders in their

industries in our midst: Wal-Mart, Tyson Foods and J. B. Hunt.

On the surface, we are a booming metropolitan area. Underneath

the surface, we are quietly experiencing the economic and the

human impact of a very dangerous and defiant monster, that being

methamphetamine. In less than 10 years, methamphetamine lab

seizures in Arkansas have skyrocketed from 54 meth lab seizures

to over 1,200 meth lab seizures, according to our State Crime Lab.

Each year that passes brings an increased number in these labs.

Our jails are filled with felons charged with crimes related to methamphetamine. Our social services are ill-equipped to handle the effect methamphetamine has had on our families. Gentlemen, if it

can happen here, it can happen anywhere.

By now, you have heard from the law enforcement perspective of

the impact of methamphetamine, and I would like the opportunity

to describe the effect it has had on our community. And to do so,

I would like to share two examples with you.

As a family, you have lived in your home for years. You have

raised your family, your kids have gone to school, and you attend

church every Sunday in this peaceful little town. But now you find

yourself uprooting your family and hastily moving miles away, not

because of greater job opportunities, but, rather, out of fear. Fear

for your life and fear for the lives of your family. Within the past

week, a meth lab was discovered on your neighboring property. Not

a mom and pop operation, but a large, well-equipped compound

where night vision and security cameras are utilized or armed

guards put in trees and where a veritable arsenal of semi-automatic weapons and explosives are used to protect the operation.

The alleged operators of this meth lab are now out on bail, and all

your neighbors are living in fear that they may be considered informants. The entire neighborhood is forced to leave their homes

and the lives that they have become accustomed to because of fear

of retaliation by a small militia of methamphetamine producers. No

one in this country should have to live in such fear.

My final example is focused on the greatest of all victims of

methamphetamine, the endangered children who are exposed to

methamphetamine use and manufacturing. Our resources have

been taxed to the limits, and innocent victims of this supposed

victimless crime, children who do not go to school; children who are

not fed and taken care of; children who learn and participate in the

process of manufacturing because that’s what their parents do;

children who are exposed not only to toxic chemicals and potential

183

explosions but are also exposed to sexual and domestic abuse and

live in the filthiest environments you could possibly ever imagine.

One local child was discovered in a meth lab with their nose crusted shut by repeated nose bleeds due to the inhalation of toxic

chemicals. Another local child was given methamphetamine in a

nursing bottle in hopes that it would stop him from crying.

Children born in our community are testing positive for methamphetamine, and children are dying because of it. Our communities need help. We need your help. Our communities must be mobilized to combat the demand for illegal use. We must teach our

leaders, or businesses, our schools, our churches, and our families

how to stop methamphetamine before it starts. We must arm our

communities with the tools that they need to fight when methamphetamine ravages their infrastructure. The cost of human lives

and families is much too high. Meth will not go away on its own.

The only way that we can successfully defend our communities

against meth is to arm them with the proper resources.

I ask the subcommittee to reexamine the current drug policy and

its initiatives. Please allocate more desperately needed resources to

local communities to fight their wars against methamphetamine. It

is the local communities that will put up the strongest fight in the

war on meth because they have the biggest incentives to win.

I strongly urge you to recognize and respond to the destruction

that methamphetamine brings to lives and families of our small

and middle sized communities across the country. I challenge you

to actively be involved in finding solutions to this problem before

it continues to grow and further damage the quality of life that we

have come to expect in northwest Arkansas and similar communities all across the country. I commend you for taking the time to

come here and consider this issue, because that is the first step toward finding the desperately needed solutions. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoggatt follows:]

184

185

186

Mr. SOUDER. Dr. Leach.

STATEMENT OF MERLIN D. LEACH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

CENTER FOR CHILDREN & PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr. LEACH. Thank you, Chairman Souder, and, Congressman

Boozman. I sure appreciate being here today and the opportunity

to speak with you. Being this late on the list, I think most of my

testimony has been covered. I would like to point to my written

document that the polls in there, and the reason I put those polls

in there was to demonstrate that the people of America, particularly this State, and the people of these cities and communities

around here are pretty supportive of your efforts. And it’s very

nearly unanimous that people are concerned about the future of

America and the children are a great component of our future.

As a policy center and as a center devoted to children, we see

three distinct victims. The first class of victims are the adolescents

and teens who use the drug. I’d like to address a little later why

we think that’s occurring. The children who are exposed to the precursor chemicals and finished products in the clandestine labs, and

then what we think is the most tremendous damaging thing is a

baby born addicted to meth loving mothers. And that’s very prevalent in Arkansas.

I would like to just sort of dispense with most of my document

because it is testimony, and address a couple of issues that Congressman Boozman and yourself brought up earlier. As with other

drugs, I think we need to look at the larger picture. We live down

in kind of the bowels of the rural poverty in our policy center. Our

people are poor, our children are poor, our families are poor. This

place up here is beautiful. I haven’t been up I–540 beyond the airport in several months, probably 9 months. Seeing all these new

buildings, this is wonderful. But 40 miles east of here, and you will

see Appalachia level poverty.

We have a breast care program that gives free mammograms to

women without health insurance. The average family income of our

clients is $11,000 a year. A good job is to get to go to work for WalMart; a great job is to go to work for Tyson. I should have reversed

that for this panel. At some place with some health insurance, anything.

So the driver from our perspective, living in rural Arkansas and

living in rural poverty, which I’ve seen rural poverty all through

the southeastern States, is to make it, these meth labs is a proper

motive. It turns all crazy because it’s not that simple because you

start becoming your own best customer. And eventually you get

caught, and you go to prison. Or you die because of the chemicals.

But the initial process is a frustrated, poor people with no way out

in their minds. There’s very poor educational services. I think Arkansas ranks 46th, 47th in the Nation. I just heard this morning

from the Governor’s Office that we have the lowest rate of college

graduates in the entire United States. I didn’t know that.

So when we take this poverty, we take this lack of hope, and I

can turn $2,000 in the next 24 hours without taxes, there’s a lot

of motivation. I can’t make that working this month at Wal-Mart,

and I can’t make that much working for Tyson’s. So there’s a profit

motive that because the drug is so insidious and so tricky, it sucks

187

them into this thing, and that’s where it all starts going haywire.

I think that the profit motive includes the Mexican distribution

and the active war lord and all the other problems.

So the underlying motive is profit, and the other thing that we

see in the high schools is this extreme need to be thin for girls. One

of the side effects of this drug is that until it totally crashes your

life you lose a heck of a lot of weight, and you feel great. Talking

to kids that use this stuff, they love it. This is not something

they’re forcing on themselves; this is not something that is just

peer pressure and that.

But as far as drugs go—I don’t use this stuff, never have, but as

far as drugs go, it’s been reported to me that this is one of best

drugs ever built. And the kids like it. It does all sorts of things for

them. They’re smarter, quicker, better, run faster, at least from the

inside that’s the way they perceive it.

This is a huge, huge societal problem. And when you touch on

funding it, I think Congress needs to look at all 13 appropriation

bills and say, ‘‘What is the future of America worth?’’ you know, obviously, homeland security and the big issues are always there for

us, but I think we need to look at what’s going to destroy this country in the future. And if we keep having low graduation rates, if

we keep having babies born here in Arkansas going into intensive

care, I mean going right into Medicaid and all the way into Medicare if they live that long, we are creating a far greater tax burden

on the next generation than any of us want to put there.

So I would ask that you continue not only what you’re doing,

which is great, I’m absolutely elated that you’re here, I’m absolutely elated your committee is so committed to this, but we also

have to look at the problems underlying this impressive level of

perspective. We have to look at our resources, we have to look at

hope, we have to look at education, and the whole rehabilitation

process. You’re not going to stop this drug by even taking this stuff

off the shelves of Wal-Mart entirely. I promise you that’s not the

way to cure it. I don’t know what the correct way is, but we can’t

fragment this thing. We have to look at it from a whole new perspective. My time is up.

I thank you, sir, for allowing me to be here, and I’m sorry if we

had to poke a little too hard here.

Mr. SOUDER. No. Appreciate that.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Leach follows:]

188

189

190

191

192

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Pyle, you’re our clean-up person.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PYLE

Mr. PYLE. Thank you, Congressman Boozman, Chairman Souder,

for this opportunity to share with you my battle with drug addiction and my road to recovery.

Thanksgiving weekend 1998 was the first time I used methamphetamine intervenously. Like many tragic stories of addition,

my life quickly spun out of control. I lost a well-paying job, a marriage of 7 years, and my mortgage was foreclosed. I traded my personal possessions to feed my $100 a day habit. I eventually lost my

freedom. For the next few years, whenever I was incarcerated, I

swore I would never go back to the drugs. Every attempt to get

clean on my own failed, and I got deeper into a criminal lifestyle.

On March 18, 2002, I was arrested once again and was introduced to the drug court program in Sebastian County. Upon release from jail, I was required to report every morning at 8 a.m.

to the State parole and probation office. I began my drug court program by attending three group counseling sessions, three narcotics

anonymous meetings, and three random drug screens per week. In

addition to this normal drug court schedule, I also had one-on-one

counseling sessions. I was also required to obtain and maintain employment. In addition to all these requirements, I was subjected to

random at home visits by representatives of the drug court whom

were allowed to search my living space at their discretion. I was

forbidden to communicate with any criminals or people I used to

associate with. Violations of any of the above requirements subjected me to drug court sanctions or dismissal from the program.

This strict supervision did not allow me the opportunity to fail

or slip up. The program allowed me to recognize the situations and

people that threatened my recovery. In previous attempts to get

clean on my own, I had been introduced to Narcotics Anonymous

and was unable to use the program for more than a few months

without falling back into my old patterns. By requiring me to attend three Narcotics Anonymous meetings a week, drug court

forced me to be disciplined enough to develop the foundation of NA

principles that I live by to this very day. I’m grateful to NA for

showing me the way to live without drugs and alcohol, and I am

also grateful to drug court for requiring me to attend these meetings until the program became a cornerstone of my life.

During my drug court journey, I saw many people fail to live up

to the requirements. Many were punished with county jail time

and community service, while others were removed from the program and sent off to prison. The Sebastian County drug court’s

graduation rate is similar to the national average where very few

make it through this strict regimen. However, for the few that go

on to graduation, it means that a new chance at life that did not

exist a few years ago.

In drug court, we’re given tools and education that allow us to

end the cycle of addiction. It’s like being a cancer survivor who is

in remission. My addiction is still a part of me, and I require treatment through my NA program, but I am able to live a healthy and

productive life.

193

I have been clean of both drugs and alcohol since March 18,

2002. I went back to school and recently graduated from the University of Arkansas Fort Smith with a bachelor’s degree in business

administration. I am currently looking into attending graduate

school. I have maintained steady employment since my release

from county jail, and I am proud to say that I’m paying my taxes.

I maintained a 3.8 GPA and was active in many school organizations. On graduation day, I was honored to receive the College of

Business Student Service Award for my dedicated service to the

college. This award is especially important to me because service

to my community is one of the core principles I try to live my new

life by. It is one of the primary reasons why I’m here today.

I would like for the public and the lawmakers to know that the

old adage, ‘‘Once an addict, always an addict,’’ does not have to be

true. Alternative sentencing programs like drug court do work. The

lock-them-up mentality and throw away the key is not the answer.

Had I gone to prison or just gotten a suspended sentence, I don’t

believe that I would be before you today. To put a drug criminal

through drug court costs a few thousand dollars a year, while housing them in a penitentiary with violent hardened criminals costs

tens of thousands of dollars a year. From a purely economic standpoint, it makes sense to try to save these addicted souls. I do, however, support sending drug criminals like myself to prison as a last

resort. I believe that the threat of going to prison helped me to recover.

For years our Nation’s policy of fighting the war on drugs has involved increasing the sentences of drug criminals, and we have continued to build more and more prisons at great expense without

much success at winning this war. Drug courts and other alternative sentencing programs attempt to win the hearts and minds

of the addict. We spend billions of dollars a year as a Nation burning fields in South America trying to stop the supply of narcotics,

but spend very few dollars on the demand side of business.

If my story can help an addict find recovery I believe that I am

helping as much or more than any covert operation can do with

winning the war of drugs. I know that I personally decreased the

demand for methamphetamine in western Arkansas by over $100

a day. For many drug criminals, there is a pattern of bouncing in

and out of prison. The only solution that makes sense is drug court.

A study commissioned by the State of Oregon found that for every

dollar spent on these programs, a savings to society is 10 times

that amount. Another California study found that for a $14 million

investment in drug courts, there was a total cost avoidance by the

State of $43 million.

I recently read an article by the Institute for Applied Research

that I’d like to quote. ‘‘What you learn in drug courts, which involve treatment for all the individuals and real support, along with

sanctions when they fail, are a more effective method of dealing

with the drug problem than either parole or probation.’’

Thank you, and God bless you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pyle follows:]

194

195

196

197

Mr. SOUDER. Judge Gunn, are people who go through your drug

court program, are they voluntary? In other words, do they have

to agree or are they assigned?

Judge GUNN. Oh, no, they have to agree. It’s a voluntarily program. You mean for the candidate coming into drug court.

Mr. SOUDER. Yes.

Judge GUNN. Yes, sir. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes they have

the choice of probation, OK, on a first offense, small amount of

marijuana, or something like that, or they have the choice of going

to the penitentiary, but it’s strictly a volunteer program.

Mr. SOUDER. That varies from courts, certainly.

Judge GUNN. Yes, sir, they—yes, Mr. Chairman, they do vary.

Mr. SOUDER. In your graduation, what percentage of people who

start the program finish the program?

Judge GUNN. Eighty-five percent.

Mr. SOUDER. So eighty——

Judge GUNN. So far. That start the program and finish it.

Mr. SOUDER. Finish it.

Judge GUNN. Is my retention rate.

Mr. SOUDER. Graduate.

Judge GUNN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. From the program.

Judge GUNN. That’s correct. Eighty-five percent.

Mr. SOUDER. And when you say you have a 12 percent recidivism, is that over—how long do you track?

Judge GUNN. We track every 6 months on every person that’s

ever been in drug court.

Mr. SOUDER. And how long have you had the drug court?

Judge GUNN. Full-time for 3 years; part time in 1999. So about

5 years.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Pyle, when you went through the program, you

alluded at the tail end that had you not had the threat of going

to prison, you’re not sure it would have worked as much. Had you

gone through any drug treatment programs before? You said you

had tried on your own to stop in Narcotics Anonymous, and

stopped going. Had you been through a drug treatment program,

multiple-treatment programs?

Mr. PYLE. I did an outpatient treatment before for marijuana

use, before I ever tried methamphetamine previously. Unfortunately, the way my disease progressed, it always ended the same

way, with a multiple months stay in the county jail. My cycle of

addiction always ended that way, and it always ended with me

swearing that I going to kick this thing and go to meetings. And

without that constant supervision, I can lie to you, I can lie to my

family, I can’t lie to a urine—you know, dip stick in the urine test.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you know other meth users?

Mr. PYLE. I try not to associate with them anymore.

Mr. SOUDER. No, no. But when you were doing drugs, you got to

know other meth users?

Mr. PYLE. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you know any who didn’t start with marijuana?

Mr. PYLE. Marijuana, you know, I’ve heard that argument it’s a

gateway drug, and I truly believe it leads to other things, if the adVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:14 Feb 03, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00201 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\97398.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
198

dict is inclined. You know, me personally, I was always looking for

something new.

Mr. SOUDER. There are some drugs where you can skip marijuana. I just haven’t heard that meth is one that you can skip

marijuana. Some people go to OxyContin without having——

Mr. PYLE. Well, I’m not an expert on the nature of addiction,

and, you know, every individual’s case is——

Mr. SOUDER. But as far as you know, everybody you knew who

did meth also had done marijuana and were looking for a better

fix?

Mr. PYLE. The come down off of methamphetamine is very difficult, and one of the ways that’s used to come down is to smoke

marijuana.

Mr. SOUDER. Would alcohol do that to you?

Mr. PYLE. Yeah. Yes. I was never a drinker.

Mr. SOUDER. How did you get introduced to meth? You didn’t

cook it.

Mr. PYLE. I eventually progressed into running with some of the

people he was describing in his—I forgot the name of your piece

about, you know, the little organization that thought it was, you

know, organized crime, but, really, it was just a bunch of addicts

that were having some dreams of easy money. But I spent a great

deal of time in my early addiction to methamphetamine, just simply selling off the possessions that I’d accumulated through my life.

And then I eventually reverted to crime because it was the only

way to feed my habit.

Mr. SOUDER. And then once you reverted to crime, did you eventually start cooking because you couldn’t afford it or because you

needed to sell to raise money?

Mr. PYLE. In my written testimony or—I mean, I talk about the

fact that I saw it as the—as manufacturing as the only way for me

to sustain my usage and pay for this lifetime of addiction that was

a full-time job.

You know, there were many days when I was a gopher that I visited every Wal-Mart, sometimes multiple times, you know, and it’s

a little step that limiting the pills to two or three packages, but,

you know, a paranoid drug addict doesn’t like to break out his driver’s license at the pharmacy counter. So we started looking for

other ways to get the quantities of ephedrine. And you alluded earlier to—I took a couple of trips, overnight trips, to Chicago, IL, because I could walk into a Walgreens in suburban Chicago and buy

ephedrine by the case. Buy $800 and $900 worth of generic

pseudoephedrine pills in Chicago because they don’t have a methamphetamine problem. So—and, you know.

Mr. SOUDER. Who tipped you off to that?

Mr. PYLE. That was actually a career criminal from your State,

sir, who was—who had heard some time down, and he actually encouraged many of us to try to move to Indiana where the grass was

greener, he said. So—I think he’s doing Federal time right now.

Mr. SOUDER. You said you were looking for a constant, better

high. When you got to the meth, did you still want to seek a better

high or was this plenty high?

Mr. PYLE. That was all I needed. That was—after putting meth

intravenously with the help of another junkie, I leaned back on the

199

couch and then looked at my wife—my then wife, and said, ‘‘Darlin,

you’ve got to keep me away from this. This will kill me.’’ It was

like a foreshadowing of what was to come.

The next few years, you know, I lost 100 pounds, I lost everything that meant anything to me and betrayed my family. And I—

my wife—my life was saved through the drug court program.

Mr. SOUDER. I will ask you one other question. You said you

were told about Illinois by somebody from Indiana. Was that person down here in Arkansas? Is it somebody you knew from where—

how did that information network get connected?

Mr. PYLE. Criminals hanging with criminals. These—the gentleman who was—I won’t call him a gentleman. The criminal that

I was working for, basically, had done time with a guy we called

Indy because he was from Indiana, and they associated together.

We had night vision, we were on a hilltop mountain in eastern

Oklahoma. And they made us all carry guns. And when we

weren’t—when they weren’t cooking, while we were watching, they

set us up to do gopher runs. Go to Chicago, go to as many WalMart stores as possible, go to as many Dollar Generals.

I think the pill issue, it’s a nice effort to try to change, but addicts will go to any lengths to get the ingredients. And there’s also

a way that it’s in feed. Ephedrine is in feed, cattle feed and such.

It’s not as high quality ephedrine that—the pharmaceutical, of

course, is preferred, but it’s a low grade ephedrine that’s found in

many cattle feeds. And you can—it’s just in so many things that

restrictions on it, I don’t see, as the answer. You’ve got to end the

cycle of addiction.

Mr. SOUDER. Let me ask you another question. If we called them

up, other guys who were in your gang, and put them into Judge

Gunn’s drug court, do you think they would have the same reaction

as you? In other words, how much of this is that you were ready?

I mean, I’m a big supporter of drug courts. Actually, in my home

area, Fort Wayne, Indiana, was one, I think, of the first three. In

1996 maybe. And I go to the graduations, and I’ve seen—look, people say 12 percent recidivism. Hey, if you can get down to 70 percent, you’re doing pretty good. If you can get it down to 30, you’re

doing pretty good. If you can get it down to 12, you’re doing really

good.

I’m a big supporter of drug court, but I’m wondering how much

of this is you had a family that you felt you had betrayed, you had

a job, you’re employable, you clearly now were able to go to school.

You scored 3.8 at school, which not everybody who is a meth addict

is going to be able to do. You had a support network similarly

around you. I think I met your father earlier. What do you believe—what’s our realistic range here?

Mr. PYLE. I think even if you’re saving 10 percent, all you’re

doing is delaying the inevitable which is just sending them to an

already overcrowded prison. You know, the gentlemen—or the people in question, I’m trying to refer to them nicely, they were career

criminals. Most of them had been in an institution. I was different

in that respect. I did not get involved with criminal activity until

getting involved with methamphetamine.

Mr. SOUDER. You’re saying the sooner we catch them, the more

likely we are to turn them around?

200

Mr. PYLE. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. More support network, more likely we’re able to

turn them around.

Mr. PYLE. I think if they’ve already gone to prison, they’re getting to the point where they’re set in their ways, unfortunately.

There are exceptions. You know, one of the people that I graduated

from drug court with had been down to prison four different times.

And to my knowledge, I saw him a couple of months ago, and he’s

been clean as long as I have.

Mr. SOUDER. Doctor, I notice you work with lots of kids and families. What’s your reaction to his testimony and how would you expand on that to a higher risk, low income, little hope.

Mr. LEACH. Well, No. 1, I would testify that he’s telling you the

truth, because I hear it a lot. Unfortunately, I’m not hearing it

enough as far as a success story, but as far as victims of crime or

the activity, it’s very exact. You get into this malaise and then you

find a way out. One of the things that I think we need to look at,

and it’s probably congressional, what you’re doing is absolutely

needed. You know, looking at it from a drug perspective, and the

DEA perspective and the prosecution’s perspective, and a rehab

perspective, but I think we also have to look at is what are we

doing with the youth of America? What are we telling them? Where

are they going, you know? And I think this may sound way out

there to you, but when you look at the Enrons and I’ve had kids

tell me, ‘‘Well, if I make enough money to hire the best lawyer

there is, I’m unconvictible.’’

The kids are really smart today. They’re doing some real dumb

things. But there’s a smart generation coming up here, and I think

we’re going to have some spectacular future Congressmen and Congresswomen. But the ones without opportunity are just as smart in

most cases, and they’re going to make it. And if by hook or by

crook, then in my generation you just didn’t even make it. That

was not a choice. You played by the rules.

Now the people who—and looking at television and looking at the

news and that, most of the people who really made it have some

little piece of shade on the side. And so it’s a society issue, and I’m

just going to say if you feel like you’re frustrated in that you’re

fighting a huge battle not just the drug battle. We’re fighting for

the morals and the ethics of this country. And how the children are

looking today at public servants, more and more public servants

are in the Federal penitentiary and more and more public servants

are getting off with kind of their gold wings.

And these big corporations, it’s a huge, it’s a giant problem. And

I think doing the restricted packaging, all this stuff helps, but I

think we really need to look at what are we doing for the youth

now? Because what we’re handing them is best efforts, and it’s just

not good enough.

Mr. SOUDER. Congressman Boozman.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Judge Gunn, tell me about the drug court, you

really do honorable things. Michael was actually a product of the

Fort Smith court that also does a tremendous job.

Judge GUNN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOOZMAN. You work with people like Michael and help bring

them around. Tell me about your going to the schools and actually

201

taking court to the students in a sense with a preventive aspect

now.

Judge GUNN. All right. Thank you. Well, for drug court to be successful, you have to be—it takes incredible structure, as this gentleman has suggested to you. If someone is non-compliant, I mean

99 percent compliant, they’re before me in 3 days. I don’t accept

anything but 100 percent compliance. So when we go to the

schools, if you—I’ve got 120 people in my program right now, 10

percent are going to have some level of noncompliance. And what

I’ll do is I’ll revoke their bond, I’ll throw them in jail, if they’re

positive for alcohol, marijuana, let alone, heaven forbid, meth, or

I put them in residential treatment.

So when we go into the schools, we have a written protocol because the security’s at issue. And we may have 6th grade—I try not

to take more than 250 children. And in the school gymnasium or

auditorium, it takes incredible security because you have to separate the children from the felons. Because you’ve got people in jail

that are shackled coming up before the children, and then I’ve got

people that may test positive or be noncompliant that I’m going to

throw in jail. OK? Or put in residential treatment. And it’s a reality check for children. It’s just a reality check to them.

And of every person in drug court, I tell them, ‘‘It’s part of the

program, OK, if you come in, we’re going to go to the schools.’’ And

they have told me routinely that—perhaps maybe not 100 percent

of them, but a great many of them have said, ‘‘If I had seen this

when I was 10 years old, I probably wouldn’t have taken that first

joint.’’ It’s the marijuana and the alcohol that are the gateway

drugs that I see the most of. So, hopefully, it’s effective in the

schools.

Mr. BOOZMAN. You’re shaking your head, Mr. Counts. You want

to join in? She was talking about marijuana and the other being

the gateway drugs.

Mr. COUNTS. Again, I——

Mr. BOOZMAN. Alcohol.

Mr. COUNTS. As far as the gateway drugs, I don’t see many. I

think that’s an exception rather than the rule that somebody would

start with cocaine, methamphetamine, or heroin. I mean, it’s progressive. And I think a great deal of that has to do with just simple

availability. The more you hang around in that environment, somebody is going to have something that you’re going to be able to try.

But, I mean, this—in our facility, I think everyone, I mean, alcohol is by far the most abused drug in this Nation. And, in reality,

I mean we’re talking about crime again. It’s up there above anything else. So I think the message to not only prevention but that

intervention and teaching what addiction really is. We’ve hidden

that for years; although we’ve known that since 1954. Even the

American Medical Association with the message has been Just Say

No, but—as an example, but there was never a contingency when

we know that there were going to be children or adolescents who

were going to be using. And we never offered an alternative that

just if you made a bad decision, if you made a mistake, you know,

we understand that, so here’s what we can do now. But we just

kind of left this hanging out there to dry.

202

Mr. BOOZMAN. I appreciate your testimony, Dr. Leach. I’ve seen

the work that you do and see how hard that you work in the centers and things that you participate with and the good work that

you’re doing. It does seem like the effort that Miss Gunn is doing,

as you mentioned, how society kind of glosses these things over.

That it’s kind of cool to maybe be out smoking a joint or doing

whatever. It does seem like this type of real hard, this is what it’s

really about with seeing the guy shackled. That does seem like

that’s a reality check.

The other thing I would like to ask you about is the effect this

is having on our women’s shelters. I’ve had the opportunity to view

those with you. Tell me what’s going on there, Mr. Leach.

Mr. LEACH. Well, one of things this drug does in addition to the

paranoia and all the medical ramifications, it’s a deinhibitor. And

by deinhibiting, it also breaks down any kind of fear of law enforcement, fear of laws, and so forth, and so you add a little paranoia

to these shelters and stuff, and when you’re really upset, and you

come home, and your wife’s giving you a bad time, and you’re on

this stuff, one is the paranoia; she’s not on your side anymore.

Two, there’s just the sheer devaluing of the judgment process

where smacking around doesn’t mean anything. And, three, you

have no idea of the intensity. When these people get violent on this

drug, it’s a no joke violence. I’m an old man, and I can’t imagine

what I can do, but I know that if I were on that drug, I can do

at least twice as much. Whether it’s a law enforcement officer or

my spouse or my child.

So what you see is greater damage, more irreparable damage and

greater fear on the part of the victim. In this case, you know,

there’s obviously the female victims in domestic violence. We experience mostly female victims. When you have that kind of paranoia

that’s been addressed here today, where these people are hanging

out with guns and going nuts about, ‘‘You squealed on me,’’ and

they’re going to kill you. And you know their judgment is flawed,

and they point a gun, and they can kill you. This isn’t about morals

and ethics or whether or not I kill people or not. There are good

friends that kill people. This is like, ‘‘If I don’t kill you, I’m going

to die.’’ And so many women are more inclined to go back out of

fear.

Fear is a big factor to go back. Lack of money is another factor

to go back. There’s a lot of other factors that’s going on as well. But

this intensifies that problem. It intensifies the child abuse problem

with it. In the Children’s Advocacy Center it is appearing also. So

all of these things, it’s just a complete terrorizing of the family, the

family structure.

This is the most destructive drug I have seen in my life. I’ve been

around probably as long or longer than anybody in the panel. This

stuff is horrendous. It is unbelievably bad with what it’s doing. It’s

not like anything else. This drug is set at 25 percent of the drug

use in America as opposed to all the others. This thing is going to

get us. Cocaine is tough, but cocaine is also for the most part expensive. Heroine is tough, but people have figured out heroine for

the most part, but it is coming back. LSD, that’s just some crazy

stuff. It’s floating in and out of the high schools again today, but

it’s not going to go anyplace. But this stuff is real.

203

What you’re doing today, what you’re doing around the country,

it has to be done. Something has to come of this, because this is

the most destructive thing of human life that we’ve ever had in this

country. Did I answer your question, or is that just too brief?

Mr. BOOZMAN. No, that’s very good.

Mr. Dufour, I really do appreciate the example that Wal-Mart

set. Not only this, I know that you-all are very active in the Red

Ribbon Enterprises and things like that. You mentioned that in

high crime areas and shoplifting and stuff that you actually put it

behind the counter. So you’re in a situation where you have stores

behind, you’ve got stores without stuff, and for all this testimony

about the tremendous problems with this stuff, is it an unnecessary

burden? Is it a tremendous burden to the storekeepers, the retailers, if we do put it behind the counter?

Mr. DUFOUR. It’s more of an issue for the consumers, having it

available for them, because pseudoephedrine is a very effective

medication for folks’ treatment, coughs and colds and nasal congestion. So our pharmacists have been educated on this issue; they understand it. If our pharmacists in a local area believe it is a problem, it’s being stolen, or it’s being abused, they have the opportunity to move it behind the counter themselves. So we do it on a

store-by-store basis with our local folks. But the balance is—it’s not

readily available to the consumer to use.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. I wanted to, if I can, just followup on that a minute.

You mentioned that you had some stores and some high risk areas.

Do you know how many that is?

Mr. DUFOUR. It was just a little over 500 the last time we surveyed.

Mr. SOUDER. 500 that put it behind.

Mr. DUFOUR. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. OK. I see. So you said over 500 stores noticed high

theft or unusual uses. Is that usually law enforcement that come

to you, or do you notice it internally?

Mr. DUFOUR. No, we do an awareness program with our pharmacists. They understand. Most of them get it. I mean, understand

what the issue is. If the pharmacist, if their opinion is that the

medication needs to be behind the counter, they’ll make that decision themselves to pull it back. We get a survey of our stores to

find out how many have done that. From the last survey, it was

just over 500.

Mr. SOUDER. If law enforcement came to you in a given area,

would you—are the pharmacists contracted out in most cases?

Mr. DUFOUR. No, they’re company owned.

Mr. SOUDER. So if they came to you, you would work with local

law enforcement as well?

Mr. DUFOUR. We have worked with local law enforcement, and

it’s a judgment call on the pharmacists. I mean, if the law enforcement agency came in and said, ‘‘Will you put it behind the counter

in all the stores in the State?’’ we would have to take a look at that

and say, ‘‘Is that reasonable?’’

Mr. SOUDER. Yeah, they’d have to give you some kind of—I was

thinking more of county or, I guess, the targeted areas.

204

Obviously, we could go on for a long time, and, Mr. Hoggatt,

were groups like yours—before I do that, I want to make a comment on Wal-Mart, because one of the things that often is lost

when we have a single hearing is the context of how many things

and challenges you have on these type of things, particularly as the

largest retailer in the world. But we held a hearing down in Houston on baby formula being stolen, and Wal-Mart sent a representative down to testify. Because in Texas, this is a huge issue. It’s

spreading into Oklahoma, as we heard in Texas, spreading in Arkansas and other areas. And it’s incredible the millions and millions of dollars in baby formula that’s stolen in this market, and

particularly we have some very difficult Al Qaeda network who are

funding some of their Al Qaeda efforts from stolen baby formula.

So the next thing is, we’re asking Wal-Mart to put baby formula

in controlled areas where people can’t get to it, and then the ephedrine, the pseudoephedrine, and it is a huge challenge as a retailer

how to keep market share when this isn’t demanded elsewhere and

when everybody else isn’t doing it and when most usage of it is

above board.

We appreciate your working with us and we understand that

puts extra pressures on your corporation. But literally, in Florida,

it still astounded me that there are more deaths from the

Oxycodones and hydrocodones. Legal medications. There are more

deaths from overdose in those two drugs than there are from all

illegal drugs combined in that’s why the President was talking not

only about steroid use but legal drug abuse, that we’re talking

methamphetamine is up to 8 percent. Hasn’t been—maybe it was

6, maybe in some areas it’s pushing higher, but it hasn’t really

changed nationally as much because we have other new things that

are coming on, that’s abuse of the illegal drugs, not to mention the

story of alcohol problems, that just are overwhelming.

And this is a much more difficult challenge in the society when

most of your deaths are coming from legal drugs. And the amount

of black market money, so to speak, are coming from ephedrine,

pseudoephedrine, baby formula money, and other things, and what

kind of pressure that puts on our system to sort through. Not to

mention the whole Canadian question of Internet pharmacies and

the competition that isn’t restrained elsewhere.

Do you have a followup to that, Mr. Dufour? You looked like you

wanted to say something.

Mr. DUFOUR. Well, I think you said a lot, and it is a challenge

for retailers to keep up, not only with Federal laws but with State

and local ordinances. We work very hard at that. The one thing

that I do appreciate is the cooperation that we’ve had and the partnership we’ve had with DEA in every case, whether it was the

agent out of Little Rock or Washington, DC, or some other area.

We’ve had very good success working with them as well as a lot

of the local sheriffs’ departments. We want to appreciate that cooperation.

Mr. SOUDER. Well, we’ve had a long hearing. I wanted to share

a couple of things with you and make sure the record reflects there

have been some statements that haven’t been, I believe, completely

accurate about what the Federal Government is doing, and I want

205

to put in context of what we’re trying to do from our end and how

this hearing fits into that.

First off, it isn’t inaccurate to say, as somebody was saying Columbia a lot, Columbia and South America represent about 10 percent of the Federal dollars. Drug treatment represents about 60 to

70 percent of Federal dollars in what we do in law enforcement.

And State and local law enforcement is another chunk of that,

counting DEA. But there is a common street notion in and around

the country that we spend most of ours on international, which

isn’t true, or that we spend most on law enforcement, which isn’t

true.

Furthermore, most of our funding of drug treatment doesn’t come

through direct Federal funding, it comes through indirectly through

other programs. Whether it’s insurance, tax write offs that people

have, through mental health assistance, through Medicaid assistance. And so in addition to what I said was direct Federal, we

spend far more in treatment than we do in law enforcement intervention.

Now, depending on whether you want to count State and local,

which is a whole different thing, including, by the way, sentencing

laws because we’ve had this debate, if you wind up in jail for usage

in the Federal system, you’re rare. In spite of 60 Minutes, because

we’ve had fencing with 60 Minutes, and they edited me out of the

show because they didn’t like the Federal numbers. The fact is,

there are only about 600 people who are in Federal prisons or in

for usage. And most of those are negotiated sentences. They

couldn’t go to nail them for distribution, so they went for usage.

When you hear the sentencing problem for usage, you’re mostly

talking State and local where there’s been a proliferation. Quite

frankly, the Federal Government doesn’t have prison room, judges,

marshals, to lock up the people who are dealers. As you heard me

say earlier, 400 pounds in El Paso. OK? We were having a hearing

on a Lakota—on an Indian reservation on the Arizona border, they

had 1,500 pounds the previous year, and I think this was in 2002.

So it was 2002, they had 1,500 pounds. In January through March

they had 1,500 pounds that they had seized. This is marijuana in

addition to cocaine that was moving through there.

During our hearing, because these idiots kept running this stuff

while we had all these Federal officials there, they caught 500

pounds, 400 pounds, 300 pounds, 200 pounds, got a 700 pound later

that day. They had nearly 2,000 pounds running through that zone

in this particular area. And, literally, they don’t even mess with arresting a lot of them because our borders are, basically, for the

most part not very tightly controlled.

Now, the reason I say that is here’s the basic from the Federal

Government approach that we’re trying to do. To the degree that

we can eradicate the drugs—now I’m speaking mostly cocaine, heroin, and some degree marijuana, at their source, we get it with the

least amount of people being damaged. To the degree it moves out

of the country and into the Caribbean up through Mexico, it’s

spreading out and harder to get. The degree it gets in the United

States, it’s harder and harder to get. To the degree it gets into

northwest Arkansas, then it’s proliferated so much that we’re dealing with a totally different nature of the problem.

206

Similar with ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. To the degree we

can get more controls over in Amsterdam and Rotterdam and Belgium, we won’t have to worry about every single Wal-Mart and

whether they’re going to 18 Wal-Mart stores, because the stuff is

mostly coming from one area of the world and from one place. And

to the degree that we can control our harbors, to the degree we can

control the entrance levels, once it gets into the pharmacy level, it

is very difficult, particularly—you just are fairly overwhelmed. So

we have a percentage trying to do that.

Now, so eradication, interdiction, and then the law enforcement

question. We are attempting to initiate several drug treatment type

initiatives. The President has proposed an increase in that, and we

increased it in the last session. We’re trying to do it again. We’re

trying to look for accountability programs.

For example, I’m a big believer, as you said, you know, you can’t

lie in a urine test. And certainly not in the hair follicle test, which

make it a little more difficult if on top there’s not any hair. As we

do drug testing and have real accountability, it isn’t to play ‘‘Got

ya,’’ and throw somebody in the prison, the goal is that you’re not

helping somebody if you don’t really know whether they’re progressing. And you’ve got to put accountability in the systems and

drug treatment. But we’re wrestling, because, clearly, the length of

time, comprehensiveness, whether there are support groups, and

how we deal with a more holistic picture in the drug treatment is

one of our challenges.

Our prevention programs, quite frankly, are not particularly effective. And we’re trying to make them more effective. We put a

whole bunch of new variations into drug free schools. I’m still not

convinced as a person who wrote almost all of the last drug free

school laws that it’s particularly effective or targeted.

The Community Anti-Drug Coalitions that Congressman

Portman developed and went through our committee on an attempt

to do more what you’re trying to do at the local level. In other

words, if you can get activists in the community often who either

are parents who struggled with it, people in the neighborhood who

are concerned about it, those people can work to help identify and

try to reach other kids. I can’t tell you what a great idea of having

the drug court at the schools is as part of this effort to communicate the consequences.

Almost every prevention program, even though they understand

that the threat only will reach part of the people, the fact is, even

the most effective—we’re going to take them to the movies, we’re

going to play basketball, and we’re going to do this, and so on, and

if you don’t, you might go to jail, it’s always a part of that in having that be part of that.

And I want to make one other comment on the Just Say No program. That, in fact, in the United States from our perspective, and

I’m just going to say this overtly. As a committed Christian, I believe that ever getting rid of the drug problem’s chance is zero because there’s always going to be sin in the world. We’re never going

to eliminate child abuse, we’re never going to eliminate spouse

abuse. The goal isn’t zero. And if you say you’re going to get rid

of it, you have a false thing. Every day somebody new is exposed,

207

there are different problems, and you’re never going to eliminate

sin.

And with that context, the goal that we have, is we try to limit

it as much as possible, make it as hard as possible, make it as infrequent as possible. And it’s true that over the course of history,

we haven’t eliminated drugs, but the fact is, we’ve had some huge

up and downs. And, interestingly, the Just Say No program from

1981 to 1992, we had 11 straight years of decline. From 1992 to

1994, for a variety of cultural reasons, including a cutback in interdiction dollars of 75 percent, including a ‘‘I didn’t inhale’’ type of

an attitude, we would have to reduce drug abuse in the United

States 50 percent to get back to 1992 from right now. We had such

a soaring increase in 2 years.

So this thing is going up and down when you look at it in its totality. Furthermore, I often hear from kids, and I know all you

hear this, ‘‘Well, why is marijuana illegal? Alcohol isn’t illegal.’’

Well, I doubt if we’d have made it legal, if we were starting right

now. Second, that we have constricted alcohol almost every year

tighter. Accountability on bars, accountability on drivers, accountability in selling to minors. Just like we’re choking the tobacco industry.

Now, you can argue whether marijuana and alcohol have the

same impact, or whether we’ll ever completely eliminate it, or, for

that matter, whether we’re even going to enforce the marijuana

laws, but the fact is, is that in the structure, we have to deal particularly with minors and increasingly in our society in usage. Part

of the prevention effort needs to be targeted toward the clusters

and the exposure to drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. Marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol as gateway type of things. And to refuse or to

not acknowledge that those things are there when you’re dealing

with the meth question—today we’re focused on meth, but, obviously, those are the biggest. They also go in waves. And often when

you have one wave going up, you switch it, and enough alcohol will

pop up when you reduce marijuana use.

But right now we’re looking—we’re at four straight years of total

reducing of drug use in the United States. So even when you say—

actually, it’s more than four. It’s about 6 years now—that when you

look at something and say, ‘‘We failed,’’ the fact is, we’re making

incremental progress. We have this huge national ad campaign

which is one of our major national efforts, that has, in fact, gradually, not dramatically, reduced marijuana use in the United States

and other drug use. Now, under that you’ll have bursts of

OxyContin, but the total amount of people who are abusing drugs

right now is down in the United States. It’s way too high, but if

we constantly say, ‘‘Oh, it’s hopeless,’’ then why spend money on

it; it’s hopeless. If we’re spending all this money and not getting

progress, then we have a problem. I wanted to give you that holistic view.

In addition, on Thursday, Congressman Portman of Ohio, Davis

of Illinois, myself, and Congresswoman Tubbs of Cleveland, introduced the Criminal Justice Package. The President in the State of

the Union said, ‘‘We have to look at the prison population.’’ Here’s

what’s happening with locking up. Crime is down in the United

States because we took criminals off the street. It’s pretty simple.

208

Put all the criminals in prison, and crime is going to be down, so

murder rates are down, violent crime is down, and you have it. But

long term, that’s no solution. Short term, it gets the crime rate

down, but what do we do long term? In that long term, these reentry programs right now that we’re trying to tackle is now that

people are coming out, particularly those three and 5 years from

the tough sentencing that we had a few years ago, we took them

off the streets. So as they come back out, what are we doing as a

society?

And so this comprehensive package that, hopefully we can pass

yet this year, tries to address housing questions, education questions, job targeting questions. Things beyond just ‘‘OK. You’re coming out of prison. Good luck.’’ ‘‘Yeah, but what if people won’t hire

me? What if you can’t get a place to live? What if you can’t get in

a job training program?’’ Now, we’re not talking about violent

criminals here, we’re not talking about if you go out and you abuse

it again. You’re right. But we have to have a process of reentry if

we’re going to end that, which should start while they’re in prison

with job training, with preparing for reentry, or we as a society

aren’t going to be able to deal with it, and the individual isn’t.

What I wanted to give you is an idea because while we’re focusing on meth, in realty, we’re focusing on a whole range of things

from treatment and prevention and how we make those prevention

programs more effective, whether it’s community anti-drug coalitions, whether it’s a National ad campaign, whether it’s efforts in

the schools and in the communities. And it’s treatment programs,

in the prison reentry programs, whether it’s interdiction and so on.

Now, with meth, the danger here is, and here’s the plain truth—

I also sit on the Homeland Security Committee. If we do get our

borders better protected and we enable the process of protecting

our borders better, choke off some of the cocaine and heroin and

other things that are coming in, then we’ll just see an explosion of

meth. Because unless we’ve eliminated the demand for drugs,

which, you know, even if we’ve reduced it, we can produce this

drug domestically. And trying to figure out what impact that has,

because we’re going to get better at sealing our borders. We’re not

going to get perfect, but we’re going to get better at that, which

means, in my opinion, meth problems are likely to increase because

it’s something we can produce in this country. And we’ve got to figure out, how we balance these laws on the PACs and people moving through. How do we get the pseudoephedrine? How do we control that? Are there really treatment methods that we treat meth

differently?

And so part of our education process right now is, yes, the biggest threats in Arkansas are still marijuana, alcohol. My bet is if

we looked at it, you’d probably have cocaine here pretty heavily,

too. But meth is a way, when it’s newly exposed, of all the media

coverage that’s occurring, all the focusing on it, we have a chance

to shape the community attitude on meth yet, unlike on marijuana

where we’re battling a community attitude on it. And meth, if we

can convince people, like LSD, like OxyContin, and some of these,

that this is evil, that this is an extra great threat, to get ahold of

this before it explodes even farther on us nationally. And clearly

209

in Arkansas, certainly in pockets of Arkansas, you’re at epidemic

proportion, and that’s what we heard today with this.

But I wanted to make sure the record reflected and that you understood that this is just in the context of a much broader fight

that we’re fighting, and why we’re particularly looking at meth,

and why we’re particularly in this area looking at meth, because,

in effect, you potentially are not only modelling to some degree Arkansas and the region, but what could happen all over the Nation.

Instead of 8 percent, we could be looking at 40 percent, and if we

start seeing that at a National level, how would we even have EPA

function, how could we have DEA function with the types of the

things that you’re talking about in a State the size of Arkansas?

What about in Chicago? I mean, my lands, this stuff is bigger in

one city. Or take Los Angeles where it’s three times the size of the

whole State of Arkansas. We wouldn’t even begin to tackle it because your resources are just overwhelmingly strained here.

Do you have any final comments?

Mr. BOOZMAN. Well, I would just like to thank you for coming

and bringing the committee and would like to thank the panel. I

know all of you—I know what a tremendous job you do, and that

you truly are experts in your field. And I’d also like to really thank

Michael. I think that especially to be willing to get up and share

what you’ve been through, what he’s gone through, and, yet, I

think it’s a great testimony that there is life after.

So, again, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. I thank all of you. And thank you not only for coming today, but for your work that has to be frustrating on a dayto-day basis, include working in all the drug treatment programs

for so long with so many people. It’s very important work. And I

thank you.

Thank you very much. With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:43 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

Æ