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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

74–642 PDF 2013

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 20, 2012 

Serial No. 112–156 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JARED POLIS, Colorado 

RICHARD HERTLING, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JARED POLIS, Colorado 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Chief Counsel 

BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 20, 2012 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security .......................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security .......................................................................... 3 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 4 

WITNESS 

The Honorable Michele M. Leonhart, Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 9 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Questions for the Record: 35 

Submitted by the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ......................... 36 

Submitted by the Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ......................... 37 

Submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ............................................................................................ 38 

Submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Tennessee, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, 

Terrorism, and Homeland Security ............................................................. 43 

Honorable Judy Chu, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 45 

Prepared Statement of the National Community Pharmacists Association ....... 46 

(1) 

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Sensenbrenner, Marino, Adams, Goodlatte, Gohmert, Conyers, Scott, Pierluisi, Polis, Chu, Jackson Lee, 

and Cohen. 

Staff present: (Majority) Caroline Lynch, Subcommittee Chief 

Counsel; Bart Forsyth, Counsel; Tony Angeli, Counsel; Arthur 

Radford Baker, Counsel; (Minority) Bobby Vassar, Subcommittee 

Chief Counsel; Joe Graupensberger, Counsel; and Veronica Eligan, 

Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Subcommittee will come to order. I 

would like to welcome Administrator Leonhart and thank her for 

testifying before the Subcommittee this morning. We all appreciate 

the DEA’s efforts and great strides it has made to combat the increasingly dangerous drug trade. The Administrator’s testimony 

comes at a timely moment as the war on drugs approaches a potential crossroads. On July 1, Mexico will elect a new president. By 

all accounts, Enrique Pena Nieto, of the Institutional Revolutionary 

Party, is leading the field. 

The PRI Government has governed Mexico for 71 years, until 

2000. While in power, the PRI minimized violence by turning a 

blind eye to the cartels. The current president, Felipe Calderon, 

has changed that strategy and aggressively confronted organized 

crime. 

As mentioned in your testimony, the key to the DEA’s success 

along the Southwest border is our relationship with the Government of Mexico. You have characterized that relationship as at an 

all-time high, but are worried that our relationship could be at a 

high-water mark, with the impending change in the office of president. 

Mr. Nieto does not emphasize stopping drug shipments or capturing kingpins. He recently told the ‘‘New York Times’’ that while 

Mexico would continue to work with the United States, it, quote, 

Should not subordinate to the strategies of other countries. He fur-
2 

ther emphasized that his priority would be reduction in violence, 

not a dismantling of criminal organizations. 

By all accounts, this sounds like a reversion to the pre-policies 

of old. We, of course, have no vote in the upcoming Mexican election, and our only hope for the outcome is that it is free and fair, 

but we do have a deep-seated interest in minimizing drug trafficking and organized crime south of the border. I believe that 

these goals are also in Mexico’s long-term interest, and I urge you 

to press this truth with the incoming Mexican president and his 

administration, regardless of who it is. 

I would also like to raise a few troubling incidents within the 

DEA. The DEA has long been a model in the law enforcement community, but today this Subcommittee will need answers about a 

few recent incidents that are both troubling and unacceptable. If 

not addressed swiftly and effectively, I fear these events will become a stain on the DEA’s reputation, and ultimately undermine 

its law enforcement mission. 

The Secret Service has been the focal point of the Cartagena 

prostitution scandal, but I understand that at least three DEA 

agents also hired prostitutes during the preparation for the President’s visit to Columbia. I further understand that this was not an 

isolated event for the DEA. The Secret Service has moved quickly 

to address the scandal and has already removed 8 of the 12 employees who have been implicated in this incident from their jobs. 

Another is in the process of losing his security clearance. To my 

knowledge, the DEA has not taken similar action. 

Similarly, while the ATF was a major factor in Fast and Furious, 

the DEA was also involved. Tony Coulson, the DEA’s agent in 

charge of Southern Arizona during Fast and Furious, said that 

many DEA field agents knew that ATF was walking guns to Mexico, but supervisors told the agents to back off when they objected. 

Mr. Coulson was among the first senior public officials to admit 

knowing about this botched operation. He claims he raised objections to then DEA Chief Elizabeth Kempshall, and was told it was 

taken care of. 

After attending a meeting with the ATF agent in charge, Bill 

Newell, Coulson said he knew Fast and Furious was not some sort 

of benign pie-in-the-sky publicity stunt. Guns were actually getting 

in the hands of criminals, closed quotes. As with the Columbian 

prostitution incidents, I am not aware of any investigation or discipline from within the DEA. 

Most recently, this last April, a DEA office in San Diego literally 

forgot about a 23-year-old in a holding cell. DEA agents arrested 

Daniel Chong during a raid on a party in the San Diego area, 

where there were illegal drugs. After questioning him, the agents 

apparently told Mr. Chong that he would not be charged before 

they placed him back into a holding cell. The agents then forgot he 

was there. Mr. Chong remained locked in the holding cell for 5 

days without access to food, water, or a toilet. He said he heard 

voices and yelled for help, but no one heard him. After 48 hours, 

he started hallucinating and to survive he drank his own urine. At 

some point during this neglect, he broke his glasses and attempted 

to kill himself. 
3 

It goes without saying that this incident is extremely unacceptable, and I look forward to hearing what steps the DEA is taking 

to address each of the incidents discussed, and to ensure that nothing similar happens in the future. I hope that these events are 

anomalies in the DEA’s record and not an indication of things to 

come. 

And I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join you 

in convening this oversight hearing on our Nation’s Drug Enforcement Agency, and I want to thank Director Leonhart for years of 

dedicated service and for appearing before us today. 

I am also mindful that there are thousands of dedicated DEA 

employees who enforce our drug laws and directives every day, 

many of whom are putting their lives on the line to do so. Therefore, I consider it our responsibility in supporting and directing 

their efforts to ensure that their dedication and sacrifices are put 

to the most effective as well as productive use. 

The DEA is involved in drug enforcement activities all over the 

world; however, it is not clear that all of these activities are as effective or important as others in stopping or reducing the scourge 

of drug abuse. In general, there are supply-side strategies and demand-side strategies to reduce drug abuse. Research indicates the 

demand reduction through prevention, education, and treatment is 

much more effective than supply reduction through interdiction 

and law enforcement efforts. 

One study showed that the cost of reducing cocaine consumption 

in the United States by 1 percent, reducing cocaine consumption in 

the United States by 1 percent, the cost is $783 million for source 

country control, $366 million for general interdiction activities, 

about $250 million for domestic law enforcement, or only $34 million for treatment of heavy users. Thus, the least costly supply control, that is domestic law enforcement, costs over 7 times as much 

as treatment to achieve the same consumption reduction. 

Another study showed that drug treatment saved an average of 

$7 in later prison and medical costs for every dollar spent on treatment. But, one of the big problems we have in this country with 

illegal drugs, as well as with illegal prescriptive drugs, is that 

there is a huge demand. The history on the war on drugs shows 

us that when there is a demand for the product suppliers will provide a way to provide it, no matter what the cost. History also 

shows that no matter how many tons of drugs we interdict or capture, it represents only a small fraction of drugs being trafficked. 

Therefore, while the evidence suggests that our efforts to reduce 

drug abuse have intensified in this country, the street price for 

some of the most dangerous drugs has actually gone down, while 

the quality has gone up, and drug use has increased or stayed the 

same during that time. 

Other evidence suggests that the massive drug enforcement effort in this country is the result of legions of users and street-level 

dealers being imprisoned for long periods of time, with huge strains 

in State and local budgets, with no discernible impact on the drug 

trade. Still other evidence suggests that while drug use in all major 

abuse categories among White Americans is as high or higher than 
4 

drug use among Black and Hispanic Americans, a vast majority of 

those imprisoned for drug law violations are Black and Hispanic. 

For example, drug use data indicates that some 60 percent of 

crack cocaine users are White, while 94 percent of those imprisoned 

for crack are Black. Black Americans make up about 12 percent of 

the population, but almost 50 percent of those incarcerated for illegal drugs. Moreover, drug penalties are so draconian that many are 

serving life sentences or the equivalent in years, even for first-time 

offenders, and mandatory minimum sentencing is a major contributing factor to the situation. 

When we consider the unfairness of so much of the burden of 

drug abuse being heaped upon African-Americans, the harshness of 

drug sentences, and the life consequences for drug conviction, such 

as loss of voting rights and subjection to employment discrimination, drastically lower employment prospects, we can see why 

Michelle Alexander considers the war on drugs to have ushered in 

a new era of Jim Crow, as she outlined in her book, ‘‘The New Jim 

Crow Mass Incarceration.’’ And we consider the effectiveness and 

the much higher cost of punitive supply reduction strategies compared to many times more effective and much cheaper demand reduction strategies, such as treatment, it is not hard to wonder 

whether there is a motive beyond drug abuse reduction in our 

strategy choices. 

Recently, I saw a news article of young drug offenders in their 

twenties, in Virginia, two of whom got sentences of 50 and 35 

years, respectively. No one seemed concerned about the average 

cost at $30,000 a year that this represented, $2.5 million, to warehouse the drug abusers. And I was left to wonder whether or not 

that $2.5 million, some of that should have been spent on Boys and 

Girls Clubs, where they were cutting spending in that same area. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the Director’s views 

on public policy implications of our agency’s operations with respect 

to these grave concerns. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you. The Chairman Emeritus, the 

gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for an opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner. My first 

comment is to congratulate Ranking Member Bobby Scott on an excellent opening statement that tracks much of what I have been 

doing in preparing for this. I think the beginning of this discussion 

on the part of the Subcommittee on Crime can be one of the most 

important contributions that the House Judiciary Committee can 

make on the subject of the American criminal justice system. 

But, before I go any further, Chairman Sensenbrenner, I noted 

14 issues that you raised with our distinguished witness, and I 

stopped counting after that. The question that I have, sir, is: Are 

we going to have an additional hearing to give Ms. Leonhart an opportunity to respond to each and every one of those? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CONYERS. With pleasure. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. That depends upon how responsive she is 

to the issues that I have raised. I think we all would like to get 

this wrapped up in one hearing, including Ms. Leonhart. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, thank you, sir. It was my impression that we 

could devote the rest of the next couple hours to a discussion be-
5 

tween you and her about what you raised in your opening statement. So, I don’t understand with a two, four, five, six—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Would the gentleman yield again? 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Chair knows from years and years 

that the current Chair enforces the 5-minute rule on himself as 

well as on everybody else. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, that is what makes it more difficult. I mean 

that is the problem that I am raising. With six Members here, and 

probably more to come, under the 5-minute rule, there is no way 

she can ever get to any kind of a cogent response to the issues that 

were raised, some of which are very serious. So, I leave that for us 

to discuss further, as we go on. 

I am very interested in this subject, because I started off my career on the Subcommittee on Crime when I first was able to get 

on the House Judiciary Committee. And this subject about drugs 

is extremely critical, and I am looking forward to a discussion. I 

have no problem with holding another hearing or as many hearings 

as necessary. We don’t get any brownie points for having one hearing and no more. The question is how deeply, and thoroughly, and 

accurately do we go into these very important social and criminal 

justice questions. 

And so I would say to my colleagues and to our distinguished witness that the cost of the war on drugs is more than $1 trillion 

to date, astronomical, and yet, the same proportion of drug usage, 

illegal drug usage, continues at the same rate. And what I am looking for, in addition to the distinguished witness giving us a review 

of what goes on at DEA and what you are doing about it, is what 

kind of changes or what kind of creative, even imaginative ideas 

can we come up with to really do something about this? It seems 

to me that there are policies that might actually reduce consumption that may not have been tried yet, and I am hopeful that we 

can examine that. 

Another issue that we may or may not get to today—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. CONYERS. Can I finish this sentence? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Certainly. Without objection. 

Mr. CONYERS. It is important to figure out how we can minimize 

this criminalization and punishment concept by replacing it with 

health and treatment services. I mean if this is only lock them up 

and throw away the key, it doesn’t, I don’t think, shed much information, or light, or work in a substantively important way that this 

hearing this morning could bring to this subject. 

And I thank the Chairman for the additional time. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, all Members’ opening 

statements will appear in the record. 

Before introducing Ms. Leonhart, I am going to get into a lock 

them up and throw away the key and decide not to charge them 

situation during the questioning and answer, so maybe that will 

address some of your concerns. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce today’s witness. Michele 

Leonhart was unanimously confirmed as the Administrator of the 

Drug Enforcement Administration in December. She had been Acting Administrator since November of 2007, and served as the 
6 

DEA’s Deputy Administrator since 2004. Prior to becoming DEA 

Administrator and Deputy Administrator, she held several positions within DEA’s Senior Executive Service. She was the special 

agent in charge of the DEA’s Los Angeles field division from 1998 

through 2003. She previously held the position as special agent in 

charge of the DEA San Francisco field division in 1997 and 1998. 

As a career DEA special agent, Ms. Leonhart held several key 

positions as she moved through the ranks of the DEA. In 1995, she 

was promoted to the position of Assistant Special Agent in charge 

of the LA field division. Between 1993 and 1995, she held management positions within DEA headquarters to include Career Board 

Executive Secretary, Office of Professional Responsibility Inspector, 

and Staff Coordinator in the Operation Division. She has been 

more than 30 years in law enforcement, beginning her career as a 

Baltimore City Police Officer, after graduating from college in Minnesota, with a bachelor of science in criminal justice in 1978. 

Without objection, Ms. Leonhart, your witness statement will be 

entered into the record in its entirety. 

I ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. And you 

know all about the green, yellow, and red lights in front of you. 

Ms. Leonhart. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MICHELE M. LEONHART, ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you. Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking 

Member Scott. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Could you please pull the microphone a little bit closer to you. 

Ms. LEONHART. Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member 

Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee, it is my honor to appear 

before you to discuss your oversight of the DEA and our role in reducing crime, protecting the American public from drugs, and increasing our Nation’s security. Before highlighting DEA’s programs 

and recent accomplishments, I want to first thank you for your continued support of our essential law enforcement mission. Your partnership is especially appreciated in light of the ever-changing challenges we face. 

Today, a hallmark of our many drug trafficking organizations is 

the increasingly global nature of their operations. Traffickers are 

using the latest technology to conduct their daily business from sophisticated communication devices and services, to laundering 

money through electronic value transfers, and they use innovative 

transportation methods, moving drugs in everything from planes, 

to tunnels, from wooden canoes, to fully submersible submarines, 

and we cannot let up or we will never catch up. 

DEA and our partners are successfully disrupting, dismantling, 

and destroying major drug trafficking networks. Our enforcement 

actions are reducing the availability of drugs and the harm they 

cause, and our efforts are integral to our Nation’s comprehensive 

drug control strategy. 

One of the highest priorities for DEA today is stopping the diversion of prescription drugs and precursor chemicals from legitimate 

use. Today, more people abuse prescription drugs than those that 
7 

abuse heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine, combined. In response, the DEA has dedicated more agents to investigate criminal 

prosecution of prescription drug diversion than ever before, and our 

regulatory arm is dedicated to ensuring compliance with the law 

for those who manufacture, distribute, prescribe, or sell controlled 

substances. 

We have also helped the public help us reduce the supply of prescription drugs through our national prescription drug take-back 

events, with assistance for more than 3,000 law enforcement partners in all 50 States. Our four take-back days have collected almost 

800 tons of prescription medications that would have languished in 

medicine cabinets, where they could have been diverted. Soon, we 

will be implementing the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal 

Act, which you passed into law. Through this law, DEA will be providing the Nation with a permanent solution to the problem of 

proper prescription disposal. 

DEA is also at the forefront of another emerging trend: Synthetic 

Drugs. And I want to thank you for the Committee’s leadership in 

scheduling 26 substances used in products like K2 and Spice, 

which will help us control and prevent these dangerous drugs from 

doing more damage. Unlike controlled prescription drug diversion, 

which is principally a domestic drug challenge, the majority of the 

organizations responsible for other drug threats operate internationally. The most immediate of these threats comes from Mexico-based criminal organizations and drug cartels. They are responsible for the vast majority of violence there, and increasingly in 

many countries, including Central America. 

In our operations there and elsewhere, DEA relies on our close 

ties with our brave international partners, and these relationships 

extend beyond on-the-ground operations and involve training, and 

intelligence, and resource sharing. DEA has close deep ties with 

Mexico relationships that will have an impact in turning what is 

a threat to their national security and rule of law into a law enforcement challenge. Indeed, our cooperation with the government 

of Mexico is at an all-time high. 

In addition to training, operational, and intelligence bonds, DEA 

and the Department of Justice have a judicial partnership with the 

government of Mexico that has resulted in nearly 250 extraditions 

since 2010. And this includes high-Ranking Members from all the 

Mexico-based cartels, such as Jose Antonio Acosta Hernandez, who 

was sentenced to life in Federal prison in April, after admitting his 

role in 1,500 murders since 2008, including the triple homicide of 

a U.S. Consulate employee and two Consulate workers’ family 

members. 

We share Mexico’s responsibility and commitment to confront, 

fight, and defeat these poly-drug trafficking organizations, and take 

away the drugs, money, power, and freedom of their leaders. DEA 

is also working with the government of Afghanistan to counter the 

drug trafficking threat there. For example, just last week, Haji 

Bagcho, a notorious Afghan drug trafficker, with ties to the 

Taliban, was sentenced to life in prison on narco-terrorism charges 

in the U.S. His heroin was traced to 20 countries in 1 year. It is 

estimated that he supplied about 20 percent of the world’s heroin 
8 

supply. Thanks to the work of extraordinary DEA law enforcement 

personnel, supported by you, he will never be free. 

I have great confidence that DEA, with your support, will continue to meet and overcome these challenges and those that lie 

ahead, and they are not insignificant. From the growing list of designer synthetic drugs, to the reemergence of methamphetamine, 

from the increasing presence of drug traffickers in West Africa, to 

the emerging financial and communication tools being used by 

criminal organizations, and so many more, we have our work cut 

out for us. But, just because the mission is difficult does not mean 

we should give up or surrender. And some argue that legalization 

and regulation, even at the cost of untold human suffering and 

misery, would strip the traffickers of their enormous profits. Both 

common sense and history have taught us that those who are displaced from the drug trade migrate into other areas of criminality, 

and we have a responsibility, in a Nation of laws to enforce the 

law. And I have devoted my life to this duty, and all the people at 

DEA are committed to this goal and to this fight, a fight in which, 

with your support, we shall prevail. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, and I ask 

that my written statement be added to the record—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Ms. LEONHART [continuing]. Before taking your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Leonhart follows:] 
9 

ileparlutent of J'ustire 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD OF 

MICHELE M. LEONHART 

ADMINISTRATOR 

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ENTITLED 

"OVERSIGHT OF THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION" 

JUNE 20, 2012 
10 

Statement for the Record 

Michele M. Leonhart 

Administrator 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

U.S. Department of Jnstice 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 

Committee on the Judiciary 

U.S. House of Representatives 

"Oversight of the Drug Enforcement Administration" 

June 20, 2012 

Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee: Good 

morning, and thank you for inviting me to testify regarding oversight of the Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA). I am honored to be appearing before you once again and I am proud to 

be doing so in my official capacity as DEA's Administrator. As the leader of DE A, an 

organization of almost 10,000 employees dedicated to a vital mission, I would like to express our 

collective appreciation for the support that this Subcommittee has shown us over the years. 

Furthermore, I welcome the opportunity to continue our partnership and to share DEA's recent 

accomplishments with you and the American people. 

The mission of the Drug Enforcement Administration is to enforce the controlled substances 

laws and regulations of the United States and bring to justice those organizations and principal 

members of organizations, involved in the growing, manufacture, or distribution of controlled 

substances appearing in or destined for illicit tratlic in the United States 

DEA has the largest permanent U.S. investigative law enforcement presence overseas, and since 

its formation in 1973, has been assigned a global drug enforcement mission that extends far 

beyond our Nation's borders. Currently, DEA has 85 offices in 65 countries. Today's drug 

traffickers exploit new and evolving technologies to communicate, launder ill-gotten gains, and 

facilitate the smuggling of drugs and weapons. The nexus between drugs and terrorism is well 

established, and illicit drug proceeds are the primary source for funding transnational organized 

crime. 

I am happy to report that DEA continues to have significant success disrupting and dismantling 

the world's major drug trafficking organizations and I am proud of our many recent 

accomplishments. Our investigations range from those that target the world's "Most Wanted" 

drug traffickers and national security threats who manage sophi sticated criminal organizations 

with operations that span the globe, to those that focus on local or regional traffickers who 

significantly impact the surrounding community, frequently bringing with them associated gang 

acti vity and violence. Due to the very nature of the threat, it is clear that the antidrug mission 

this agency carries out is an essential element to the national health and security of the U.S. and 

interests abroad 
11 

DEA has achieved remarkable results on behalf of the American people, and will continue to 

improve on this success by concentrating our efforts on international enforcement, domestic 

enforcement, state and local assistance, and diversion control. 

Domestic Enforcement 

Drug traflicking and abuse exacts a signiticant toll on the American public. Over 39,000 

Americans died in 2009-the latest year for which data are available-as a direct result of drug 

abuse. In 2010, an estimated 22 million Americans were classified with substance dependence 

or abuse. Today, more Americans are dying from drug-induced deaths than from any other form 

of injury death, including traffic crashes and gunshot wounds. Apart from its impact on health 

and safety, our Nation's drug problem also continues to place obstacles in the way of economic 

prosperity. Just last year, the Department of Justice released data that the health, workplace, and 

criminal justice costs of drug abuse to American society totaled $193 billion in 

2007. Contributing to this immense cost are the millions of drug otT enders who are under the 

supervision of the criminal justice system. 

Through effective enforcement efforts and associated support functions, DEA disrupts and 

dismantles the leadership, command and control, and tinancial intrastructure of priority target 

organizations threatening the United States. This strategic focus area contains most of DEA's 

resources, including domestic enforcement groups, state and local law enforcement officer 

training, and other federal, state, and local task forces, intelligence groups, diversion control 

groups, and demand reduction etJorts 

Pre,~cription Drug (lnd Precur,mr Chemical Dil'er,~ion 

As highlighted in the President's 2012 National Drug Control Strategy, the diversion and abuse 

of controlled prescription drugs are among the greatest concerns we face today. The latest 

survey data show that approximately seven million Americans currently abuse prescription 

drugs. In 2010 alone, 2.4 million Americans aged 12 or older used prescription drugs nonmedically for the tirst time, which equates to nearly 6,600 new users per day. To address these 

troubling trends, DEA's Diversion Control Program is tasked with preventing, detecting, and 

investigating the diversion of pharmaceutical controlled substances and listed chemicals from 

legitimate channels, while simultaneously ensuring an adequate and uninterrupted supply of 

these substances is available to meet legitimate medical, commercial, and scientific needs. 

Through its Diversion Control Program, DEA regulates more than 1.4 million registrants, a 

population that grows at a rate of more than two percent per year 

In 2010, DEA launched an innovati ve campaign to address the increased abuse and theft of 

controlled prescription drugs. On September 25, 20 I 0, DEA, together with more than 3,000 

government, community, public health, and law enforcement partners across the country, hosted 

the first ever nationwide prescription drug "Take-Back" initiative. This campaign addressed a 

vital public safety and health issue because medicines that languish in homes are highly 

susceptible to diversion, misuse, and abuse. More than 4,000 sites in all 50 states were 

established to collect potentially dangerous expired, unused, or unwanted prescription drugs for 

destruction; the service was free and anonymous. 

2 
12 

Since the first "Take-Back" initiative, DEA has hosted three more. The most recent, held on 

May 3, 2012, collected a record 276 tons. Through these take-back days, we have cumulatively 

collected and disposed of more than 770 tons of unwanted or expired medications. Most 

importantly, these take-back days have alerted the public to the important issue of prescription 

drug abuse. DEA will be holding the next National Prescription Drug Take-Back Day on Friday, 

September 29,2012. 

I want to thank Congress for its role in recognizing the importance of this effort by passing the 

Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of20l0 This law is intended to provide Americans 

with additional safe, environmentally sound ways to dispose of unused or expired prescription 

drugs. We are working on a rulemaking to implement the Act's regulatory provisions. 

Furthermore, to enhance our diversion control efforts, DEA has expanded the use of Tactical 

Diversion Squads (TDS), which combine Special Agents, Diversion Investigators, and state and 

local task force officers to focus on the law enforcement activities of the Diversion Control 

Program. As of June 1,2012, DEA has 48 TDSs dispersed among the domestic divisions, with a 

total of286 authorized task force officer positions. We are also increasing our focus on 

ret\ulatory oversight, including the modification of chemical and regulatory work plans to 

increase the frequency of scheduled investigations and broaden the pool of registrants that are 

subject to scheduled regulatory investigations. 

Working with our State, Local, and Tribal Lmv Enforcement Counterparts 

DEA supports activities to advise, assist, train, and partner with state, local, and tribal law 

enforcement and local community groups to ensure a consistent national approach to drug law 

enforcement. DEA's assistance to state and local communities includes the Hazardous Waste 

Program (Clandestine Drug Laboratory Cleanup), State and Local Law Enforcement Clandestine 

Laboratory Training, and Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program (DCE/SP). By 

teaching and assisting state and local law enforcement officials in these areas, DEA is able to 

create a cohesive drug enforcement strategy, across the United States. 

We work many of our biggest cases hand-in-hand with our state and local counterparts, and we 

share a portion of this revenue with these partners. In FY 2011 alone, the Department of Justice 

Equitable Sharing Program shared $387.5 million in seized assets with state, local, and tribal law 

enforcement for their participation in joint investigations with DEA. 

International Enforcement 

A 20 II report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) affinns that the 

global illicit drug trade is as lucrative as it is poisonous. This global illicit drug trade generates 

an estimated $200-$400 billion a year in revenue, far more than the estimated profits from 

international human tratlicking, anns tratlicking, and diamond smuggling combined. To make a 

significant impact on the drug trade in the United States and internationally, DEA is tracking and 

targeting illicit drug proceeds back to the sources of supply before they can be used to finance 

the next production cycle of illegal drugs. DEA's financial investigations are driven by 
13 

strategies designed to inflict permanent damage against Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTOs). 

By denying DTOs the revenue from the distribution of illegal drugs, the drug traffickers' 

capability to acquire or produce additional drugs and support their organizations is hampered. 

DEA's perspective on the money laundering threat is two-fold: first, DEA is focused on proceeds 

generated by the illegal drug industry; second, DEA is addressing the threat that drug proceeds 

represent as a means of financing international terrorist organizations. 

Some argue that legalization and regulation would strip the traffickers of these enormous profits. 

Both common sense and history have taught that those who are displaced from the drug trade 

migrate into other areas of criminality. We face an ongoing effort to mitigate the damage done 

by criminals who put personal protit above all else. In order to calculate the true cost of this 

threat, we must go further and examine the impact that drug crime plays in corrupting 

government institutions, undermining public confidence in the rule oflaw, fostering violence, 

and fueling instability. To this end, DEA continues to strengthen partnerships with our foreign 

law enforcement counterparts to maximize the impact of our worldwide operations. 

Afghanistan 

There is a clear and direct link between the illicit drug trade and insurgent groups in Afghanistan. 

The Taliban and other anti-government elements exploit the illicit drug trade to facilitate their 

financial, logistical, and political objectives and thereby jeopardize the prospect oflong-term 

security and stability, reconstruction, and effective governance. Drug trafficking in Afghanistan 

has provided over 90 percent of the world's opium, has helped to fuel an insurgency 

characterized by death and destruction, corrupted public officials, undermined political stability, 

and diminished respect for the rule of law. Due to the significant role that the trafficking of 

opium, morphine, heroin, and hashish play in destabilizing Afghanistan, the DEA is in a unique 

position to assist the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA), the United 

States mission in Afghanistan, the entire region, and the international community. 

DEA supports the U. S. policy goals in Afghanistan and helps carry out the U. S. Counternarcotics 

Strategy through close partnerships with the Departments of State and Defense. DEA's presence 

in Afghanistan helps to reduce the amount of illicit drugs that are trafficked from the country, 

primarily to Europe, and helps develop and increase the capacity of the Afghans to effectively 

conduct counterdrug operations. DEA continues to work bilaterally with our Mghan law 

enforcement counterparts to identify, investigate, and bring to justice the most signiticant drug 

traffickers in Afghanistan and the region. 

Me.'(ico 

Key to DEA's success and efforts along the Southwest border is our close relationship with the 

Government of Mexico. Without reservation, I would characterize the cooperation between 

United States and Mexico at an all-time high. In particular, we are grateful for the extradition 

partnership the United States has developed with Mexico. Extraditions are an important tool that 

can be used to ensure criminals are brought to justice in this country. In 20 I 0 and 20 I I, 

Mexican authorities extradited 94 and 93 individuals, respectively, to the United States, 

4 
14 

including several high ranking cartel members. As of June I, 2012, 43 individuals have been 

extradited 

The United States and Mexico are committed to cooperative action to reduce the drug threat 

from which both nations suffer. Drugs are produced and consumed in Mexico and are also 

transited through Mexico as a result of its strategic location between South America and the 

United States. The Government of Mexico is confronting the entrenched, cross-border 

smuggling operations and the diversified, poly-drug, profit-minded DTOs within that country. 

The single objective of those who ply the drug trade is profit. For these reasons, the U.S. and 

Mexican governments share the responsibility to defeat the threat of drug trafficking 

Central America 

Central America is a key transit route for cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine precursors 

heading to Mexico and the United States, and powerful Mexican cartels battle with one another 

and local drug traffickers for control over the valuable smuggling corridors along the isthmus 

According to 201 0 UNODC infonnation, Honduras, Guatemala, Belize, and EI Salvador 

currently rank in the top ten countries with the highest homicide rates in the world. In both 

Guatemala and El Salvador, the rate of killing is now higher than during their civil wars, and 

Guatemala's government estimates that at least two-fifths of murders are linked to drug 

trafficking. The presence of Mexican cartels and DTO facilitators in the region has also 

undermined much of the political and judicial stability that emerged following the resolution of 

the region's civil wars, and is known to have increased corruption levels in already shaky 

criminal justice systems. Additionally, insecurity caused by gangs and cartels also has a negative 

economic influence. According to an April 2011 report by the World Bank, dealing with crime 

and violence costs Central America around eight percent of its gross domestic product 

Through DEA's Central America Regional Countemarcotics Attack Strategy we are working 

with each of the Central American governments to synchronize efforts with the interagency and 

focus counternarcotics efforts from a regional perspective. This Strategy was created with the 

Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARS I) and the Central American Integration 

System (SICA) Initiative in mind, and it puts an emphasis on fiscal responsibility through 

maximizing each participant's resources. These efforts have laid the groundwork for increased 

interagency coordination in Central America 

Andean Region 

The world's three largest cocaine producing countries are Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia, all 

located in the Andean region, which produces the global supply of cocaine. Colombia is also a 

major regional producer of opium and marijuana. DTOs imported opium poppies to the region 

in the late 1990s, and have made the region a significant supplier of heroin to the United States 

The area's temperate climate, strategic location, abundance oflightly governed territory, and 

close proximity to major drug consumption countries have contributed to the rise of a major 

illicit economy centered on the global drug trade. 
15 

Although Colombia remains the world's largest cultivator of coca, for the first time in over a 

decade, the U.S. government estimates that Peru has surpassed Colombia in potential pure 

cocaine production. Colombia has made great progress in combating the drug trade and 

improving security and stability throughout the country and the region. Due to aggressive, 

intelligence-driven investigations of international drug trafficking and money laundering and our 

extradition relationship with Colombia, never before has U.S. drug law enforcement been better 

positioned to rapidly and etIectively identify, disrupt, and dismantle major DTOs around the 

globe. 

Caribbean 

DEA has a unique and challenging problem set in the Caribbean with both foreign and domestic 

offices covering thousands of square miles with hundreds of islands that speak multiple 

languages. Given their geographic locations, the Caribbean Islands are extremely vulnerable to 

drug trafticking. Historically, signiticant quantities of cocaine destined for the United States 

transited the Caribbean. Counterdrug successes in the region, coupled with a changing dynamic 

between Colombian and Mexican DTOs, led traffickers to shift transit routes increasingly toward 

Mexico and Central America. While the vast maj ority of drugs destined for the United States 

still transit Mexico/Central America, enforcement action and rising violence in Mexico have 

begun to lure some traffickers back to the Caribbean. The illegal drug trade remains a menace to 

the public welfare and represents a serious threat to the rule oflaw in many Caribbean island 

nations. 

Africa 

DEA investigative efforts and those of other law enforcement agencies have chronicled the 

signiticant increase in the use of Africa as a trans-shipment, storage, cultivation, and 

manufacturing point for narcotics destined for Europe, and, to a lesser extent, other consumer 

markets, including the U.S. The versatility of transnational criminal organizations is wellknown, as is their penchant for finding and exploiting vulnerable regions of the world to further 

their illicit activities. Unfortunately, Africa is such a place, with its strategic geographic 

location, and, in many instances, weak governments, endemic corruption, and ill-equipped law 

enforcement agenci es 

The cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, precursor chemical, money laundering, and 

narcoterrorism threats in Africa have an impact on the United States, particularly since some of 

the DTOs that smuggle illicit drugs in the United States are the same as those using Africa as a 

base of operations for smuggling drugs into Europe and the Middle East. By expanding DEA's 

operational capabilities into Africa, DTOs will find it increasingly ditlicult to operate in Africa 

with continued relative impunity. While DEA is increasing its presence in Africa, a critical part 

of DE A's overall Africa strategy calls for broad interagency support from U.S. government 

partners as well as international organizations such as the European Union and the United 

Nations for assistance in capacity building and mentoring programs with African law 

enforcement counterparts. In collaboration with the interagency, DEA also is engaging foreign 

law enforcement agencies and governments in an effort to coordinate counternarcotics strategies 

6 
16 

in Africa. DEA will continue to work cooperatively to leverage the resources and expertise of 

our interagency and international partners 

Information Sharing 

Intelligence sharing and cooperation between relevant agencies is the key to combating 

transnational organized crime. DEA leads and participates in such sharing through a variety of 

mechanisms. For example, DEA leads the multi-agency El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC), a 

national law enforcement intelligence center, currently houses employees from 28 federal, state, 

local, and foreign agencies, directly supporting the efforts of the Departments of Justice and 

Homeland Security and the Joint Interagency Task Force-South. EPIC also has information 

sharing agreements with police agencies in 49 states that give state and local police access to 

real-time intelligence from 14 databases. Through its 24-hour Watch function, EPIC provides 

immediate access to participating agencies' databases to law enforcement agents, investigators, 

and analysts. This function is critical in the dissemination of relevant information in support of 

tactical and investigative activities, de-confliction and officer safety. As its customer base has 

grown over the years, EPIC has experienced significant increases in intelligence contributions, 

database queries, system users, and on-board staffing commitments from partner agencies. 

Another example of DEA's commitment to information sharing is the role played by its Special 

Operations Division (SOD): a multi-agency operational coordination center with the mission to 

establish seamless law enforcement strategies and operations aimed at dismantling national and 

international trafficking organizations by attacking their command and control communications 

SOD facilitates coordination, deconfliction, and communication among DEA divisions and over 

20 participating agencies identifying overlapping investigations and helping to ensure 

intelligence is shared between DEA and SOD's participating agencies. SOD has coordinated 

several of law enforcement's largest strikes against the cartels in recent years, bringing together 

federal law enforcement agencies, state and local law enforcement, and our foreign law 

enforcement counterparts to effect massive, coordinated enforcement action against the cartels to 

deliver maximum impact. 

SOD's Counter-Narcoterrorism Operations Center (CNTOC) is the central hub for addressing 

the increase in narcoterrorism related issues and investigations. The CNTOC also supports 

SOD's two field enforcement groups on all terrorist-related investigations. The groups have 

demonstrated unparalleled success in targeting and prosecuting the highest level narcoterrorism 

targets in the world. These successes have led to the disruption and dismantling of major 

international narcoterrorism organizations and national security targets 

Furthennore, DEA participates in the OCDETF Fusion Center (OFC), an operational intelligence 

center that provides federal law enforcement agencies with a complete intelligence picture of 

targeted DTOs and their financial infrastructure. This intelligence picture includes any links 

between the targets DTOs and other transnational organized crime groups, including those 

criminal organizations that are not primarily focused upon drug trafficking. The OFC 

accomplishes this through enhanced technical capabilities and analysis, working in support of the 

OCDETF Program and the Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime. 

7 
17 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Ms. Leonhart, for a 

very comprehensive statement. Let me use my 5 minutes to try to 

pack in as much as I can. 

First, let’s get the issue of Daniel Chong, who was the 23 year 

old who apparently was forgotten in a holding cell in San Diego 

after a decision was made not to charge him. Has anybody been 

disciplined as a result of this? 
18 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, thank you for asking about that incident, 

Mr. Chairman. I am deeply troubled by the incident. DEA is deeply 

troubled by the incident. The incident was a mistake. It wasn’t malicious, and it wasn’t intentional. And during our 39-year history 

as an agency, we are not aware that anything like that has ever 

happened. And like you, the entire agency was shocked by what 

happened. And no one’s more shocked than the agents and 

taskforce officers that were involved in the incident. 

Immediately upon learning about the incident, I ordered a review 

of our detention policies. We are currently fully cooperating with 

the Office of the Inspector General for Department of Justice, and 

they are conducting the investigation. But, in the interim, I ordered 

the assessment. I felt compelled to send a management team from 

a neighboring field division, Los Angeles, down to review what had 

happened, and I have personally spoken with all 21 of our Field Division SACs. We have entered into a discussion about how to make 

sure this doesn’t happen any place else. We have put many different procedures in place already, and all 21 SACs have reviewed 

their policies and their procedures. They have initiated changes to 

ensure that this never happens again. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, that is nice to know. 

Now, let’s talk about Cartagena. The Secret Service has been 

very public in disciplining, and, in fact, dismissing many of the 

agents who were involved in the prostitution scandal there. Have 

any of the DEA agents who were involved there been disciplined? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, let me say that I am extremely disappointed by the conduct allegations in Columbia. These allegations are not representative of the 10,000 men and women that 

work for the DEA. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, I will stipulate that. And, you know, 

nor were the Secret Service Agents who were involved in their end 

of the scandal indicative of the people who work for the Secret 

Service. Most of them are dedicated. But, the Secret Service moved 

quickly. I have not noticed that the DEA has moved quickly at all 

to deal with this. 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, I can assure you, we moved immediately, 

very quickly. As soon as information was given to me by the director of the Secret Service, I brought the agents in question out of 

country and made them available to the OIG. Now, it is not being 

investigated by DEA, because the OIG has taken on the investigation. We are cooperating with them and making everybody available, all witnesses, and are assisting them wherever possible. 

The action that I could take, however, was I curtailed their tours 

in Columbia. They are presently on limited duty while the investigation is taking place. OIG is still completing interviews. So, it 

is not really appropriate for me to prejudge the results. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. 

Ms. LEONHART. But, I guarantee you that if there was misconduct they will face our disciplinary process. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. Now, have you investigated Mr. 

Colson’s allegations relating to Fast and Furious, and if so, what 

has been the result there? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, I could tell you that that, too, is still under 

review by the OIG. We’re all interested in resolution there, so we 
19 

can find out who knew what, when, and where. As far as Mr. 

Colson, you should know that we understand that he retracted his 

statement, and so we are waiting for the OIG review. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Now, was the part of the statement that 

Mr. Colson said, quote, Guns were actually getting in the hands of 

criminals, unquote, part of what he retracted? 

Ms. LEONHART. I believe he retracted all his statement. He said 

he was misquoted and retracted it. Beyond that, I am not aware. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, I think we know that guns have been 

getting in the hands of criminals. Well, you know, let me say, Ms. 

Leonhart, I think your answers have been inadequate in all three. 

There has been no discipline. The OIG works at its own pace. The 

Secret Service did take very, very quick action when the scandal 

came to light. And I will accept the suggestion that the Ranking 

Member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers, has made to have another hearing. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Leonhart, Pew Research Center has estimated that any incarceration rate over 350 per 100,000 starts creating diminishing 

returns, and over 500 per 100,000 becomes actually counterproductive. You are adding to the crime rather than detracting 

from it. That is at 500 per 100,000. Our incarceration rate in the 

United States is over 700-and-some per 100,000. In minority communities in some States, it is as high as 4,000 per 100,000. 

What role does DEA policy play in over-incarceration in the ratio 

disparity, and what is DEA doing about it? 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you, Ranking Member. I can tell you that 

the Drug Enforcement Administration, our mission is really to go 

after the world’s biggest and baddest drug traffickers. We spend 

our resources, our work hours going after the largest drug traffickers, the sources of supply, the heads of organizations, and the 

heads of drug cartels, the heads of trafficking organizations, transportation organizations, those that most impact the drug supply on 

the United States. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, has any DEA policy contributed to over-incarceration and the racial disparity? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, there are Federal drug laws that DEA enforces. You, as Congress, set the laws. We enforce the Federal laws. 

We go where our intelligence takes us. We go where the evidence 

takes us. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, what is the policy of the DEA on mandatory 

minimums? They have been studied and found to be discriminatory 

and ineffective in reducing crime. What is the DEA policy on mandatory minimums? 

Ms. LEONHART. There is no policy for DEA on minimum 

mandatories. We go where the evidence is. If someone is trafficking 

drugs, we investigate that. We investigate their organization. 

Mr. SCOTT. You don’t have a position supporting mandatory 

minimums as a crime-fighting tool, since they have been found to 

be discriminatory, and a waste of money, and ineffective in reducing crime? You don’t have a position on mandatory minimums? 
20 

Ms. LEONHART. We do our investigations, we conduct our operations without regard to the sentencing. But, the Department was 

very—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, in terms of sentencing, when you are dealing 

with local, State, and Federal taskforces, there are allegations that 

some of the taskforce results have been referred to Federal court 

and some have been referred to State court. Federal court, where 

you have the draconian mandatory minimums, have been shown to 

have a discriminatory impact, because all the crack cases get sent 

to Federal court, where you can get 5 years mandatory minimum. 

And meth cases tend to be tried in State court, where they are not 

subject to those kinds of mandatory minimums. Is that DEA policy? 

Ms. LEONHART. That is not DEA policy. Again, we bring our most 

significant cases to Federal court. We bring the sources of supply 

and those responsible for the drug supply on the streets of the 

United States and much of the violence. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are you aware of that allegation? 

Ms. LEONHART. I am aware, and the Department of Justice has 

taken a position on the fair sentencing and the recent change with 

crack versus powder. The Department has been very supportive of 

that. Our role as investigators, though, is to investigate, follow the 

evidence, go after the most extreme traffickers, and that is what 

we do. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are you aware of the study that showed that you can reduce drug abuse by 1 percent with $35 million in treatment, and 

250 and up for law enforcement side? Are you familiar with that 

study, and, if so, how does that affect the strategy of the DEA? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, I don’t know if it is the same study. I am 

familiar with studies that show the savings, you know, every dollar 

put into demand reduction, every dollar put into treatment. And 

that is why we are very supportive of the very balanced drug strategy that we currently have in the United States. 

The President’s drug strategy is very clear, that you need demand reduction and prevention. 

Mr. SCOTT. And you are putting the same amount of resources 

in both? 

Ms. LEONHART. I am sorry, sir? 

Mr. SCOTT. You are putting similar resources in both? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, actually, this past year there was more 

money spent on prevention and treatment than there was on domestic law enforcement. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time is expired. The gentlewoman from Florida, Mrs. Adams. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to go back over a couple of things earlier on. The issue 

with the San Diego holding cell, where this person was held, as you 

know, no need in rehashing it all, but, I just have a question. I listened to your answer. 

What was your current policy at the time this happened? 

Ms. LEONHART. The policies are different in the different field divisions. Some don’t even have a holding cell. But, in San Diego, the 

standard policy is that anybody that is detained, and they are only 

detained in our field division for interviewing and processing, that 

the agents and taskforce officers in the group that brought that de-
21 

fendant in is responsible for him while he is there being processed, 

and is responsible until he is either brought to jail or released. 

Since this incident, that San Diego field division moved very 

quickly to put in a divisional order and policies and procedures 

that actually spell out what everyone’s duty is. And we shared that 

with the 20 other field divisions, who have also put these in place. 

Mrs. ADAMS. So, in other words, there was no one assigned to 

make sure that that holding cell, or whatever you want to call it, 

was empty at the end of the day, so that no one was left behind. 

Ms. LEONHART. It is unwritten that it is always the responsibility 

of the group supervisors of the group responsible for the—— 

Mrs. ADAMS. That is a no then. It is not written down, so, therefore, they didn’t follow that type of procedure, because it is very apparent by what happened, which is, you know, as a former law enforcement officer, I am just so astounded and baffled by how this 

could happen. 

I know you have 226 domestic offices and 21 field divisions 

throughout the U.S., and 85 foreign offices in 65 countries, and 

they are all led by special agents in charge called SACs. 7 out of 

21 DEA field divisions are leaderless and have been for several 

months, and some for well over 1 year. These divisions include Boston, New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis, San Diego, Los Angeles, 

and the Caribbean. The New York post reported in April that the 

New York SAC vacancy is having a significant impact on agent morale. Although, there are acting SACs in these divisions, they may 

or may not feel empowered to make the decisions needed or policy 

changes needed, due to their acting status. 

And again, I am a former deputy sheriff, and knowing how important a stable chain of command is, knowing that your rank and 

file need to have the leadership, knowing that they need to have 

the direction, knowing that there should be policies and procedures 

in place, why are so many SAC positions vacant, and are you doing 

anything to fill these? And when will they be filled? 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you for asking the question. In filling SAC 

vacancies, some are open for extended periods of time, but when a 

SAC leaves, retires, or is transferred, there is someone put in 

charge. It has only recently been that we have had a confirmed administrator, myself, who rose up through the ranks, and a confirmed deputy that causes this domino effect. And so, as we move 

our chief of operations into the deputy position, now we are moving 

the pieces, we are putting people in place. All of the field divisions 

that have been vacant have had very, very strong and good leadership. 

Mrs. ADAMS. So, you are working to fill them. because I have a 

lot more questions, and I want to get my time in. 

I have a question: Was the impact of there being an acting SAC 

in San Diego an issue with what happened? 

Ms. LEONHART. Not at all. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Okay. I know you said you have different policies 

for different areas. Wouldn’t it be easier to set up a major streamlined policy for every one of your divisions to follow, and then those 

that have other things, like if you have a holding cell, you will 

make sure that before you close that office every day that you go 

through that holding cell. One, you sweep for people. Two, you 
22 

sweep for any contraband. I would say that every time you put 

someone in, before you put them in, you make sure there is no contraband in, and every time you take them out, you do the exact 

same thing. But, when you leave every day, there should not be 

anybody in there to be left behind. 

One other question I have before I run out of time is: Is it still 

the policy of not allowing any of our agents that are working with 

Mexico, let’s say, to be armed when across the border, and if so, 

why? Because as we know, we have lost one of our agents that did 

not and was not armed, and was murdered. I just want to know 

if it is still the policy. Are you still promoting that policy? Or are 

you trying to change that policy, so our men and women can protect themselves while on detail? 

Ms. LEONHART. Having been a former law enforcement officer, 

you know that the safety of our agents is more important than anything. And I would say because of their safety, I would be glad to 

talk to you not in this forum, to discuss those safety issues. And 

I am hoping that you respect that, and I would be glad to come and 

see you myself. 

Mrs. ADAMS. I look forward to discussing that. I yield back. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman’s time is expired. The 

gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner. I appreciate 

your announcing that there will be continued hearings about DEA 

and its role. You will note Madam Director that I originally pointed 

out in my remarks that we spend huge amounts of resources, and 

the rate of illegal drug activity continues at about the same pace. 

Have you been able to reflect on that in terms of how this keeps 

going on, and what we might be able to do about it? 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you for the question, sir. I think there is 

a lot of misinformation and misperceptions about actually the drug 

situation, and especially when it comes to teens. So, I do want to 

tell you that 650,000 fewer teenagers are using drugs today than 

a decade earlier. And that is a 15 percent decline. The balanced 

drug strategy that we have has played a role. Marijuana used by 

teens has dropped 7 percent. Methamphetamine has plummeted 67 

percent. Ecstasy use has been slashed 42 percent. And cocaine use 

is down 40 percent since 2006. Meth has dropped even more, and 

that is 50 percent since 2006. 

So, we do see these drops in teen drug use. We also see the same 

corresponding drops in adult drug use. So, we are doing something 

correct with our drug strategy. And we believe that it is the three: 

The prevention, the treatment, the enforcement. You need all 

three. And that is one of the causes that we are seeing changes in 

drug use. 

Obviously, we are concerned with the uptick in prescription 

drugs, legal drugs, but we have been able to change the drug use. 

We have also been able to change availability of drugs on the 

streets, especially cocaine. And since 2006, since partnering with 

the Calderon Administration in Mexico, we actually have had sustained increases in the price of cocaine, and we have seen the purity plummet. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, this goes contrary, your statement, which is, 

I am happy to hear it, and, of course, you know, you are coming 
23 

back before us, so I will have a chance to check what you are telling me against information that I have not validated yet. But, the 

statement that bothered me here was that the drug addiction rates, 

currently 1.3 percent in this country, are the same ratio as in 1971, 

and that we have spent over $1 trillion in appropriations fighting 

this war, and it is pretty stagnated. 

Are we just citing different pieces of information to support our 

positions, or is there some correctness in the citation that I just 

gave you? 

Ms. LEONHART. The figures that I am using are from the Monitoring the Future study, which has been used to look at and to 

track trends in teen drug use. It also comes from the statistics from 

Quest, on workplace drug testing. And if you are using the year 

1971, and comparing it with this year, you have to remember that 

the highest rates of drug use, those years were 1974, 1975, and 

1976. They spiked significantly after 1971. It is undisputed that we 

actually are having the lowest rate of cocaine use in this country 

in 30 years. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Puerto Rico. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, can I just point out that I want to 

continue this discussion outside of the hearing room between now 

and the next time we have the distinguished witness in. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. The statement will be in the record. 

The gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Pierluisi. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Good morning, Administrator. Thank you again 

for meeting with me in February to go over the public safety crisis 

we are facing in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. You, as 

much as any other Federal official, have an intimate understanding 

of how serious this problem is. The number of drug-related homicides in Puerto Rico in recent years would be considered a national 

emergency if it were occurring in any State. That is not just my 

opinion. That is what Senator Rubio also stated during a hearing 

in December. 

Since our meeting, there have been several important developments. First, the House approved a CJS appropriations bill that 

notes that Federal efforts along the Southwest border have affected 

trafficking routes and crime rates in the Caribbean, and directed 

the attorney general to address these trends by allocating the necessary resources to U.S. jurisdictions in the Caribbean, and reporting back to Congress on the specific steps that have been taken. 

Second, about 2 weeks ago, Attorney General Holder was sitting 

where you are now. I asked him why it would not be appropriate 

for DOJ to increase the resources it devotes to Puerto Rico, even 

if it is only a temporary surge, just as the Federal Government did 

when there was a spike in violence on the U.S. side of the Southwest border. I acknowledged current budget constraints, but said 

that this is a matter of prioritizing limited resources, and making 

sure they are being allocated to the U.S. jurisdictions where the 

need is the greatest. 

The AG responded that DOJ is starting to embrace this surge 

concept, injecting agents and resources into what he called hot 

spots. That is areas that have seen a rise in violent crime. The at-
24 

torney general said that Puerto Rico would certainly be a candidate 

for such a surge, because of the island’s violent crime rate. I just 

hope that action follows those words. 

Third, the Appropriations just approved a bill today basically 

saying that we should have a counter-narcotic strategy for the Caribbean border, just along the same lines as the ones we have for 

the southwest and the northern border areas. That is great. I have 

been fighting for that, and it is about to happen. ONDCP will be 

told to do this, and to do it within 180 days from the time this appropriations bill becomes law. 

Now, your men and women in Puerto Rico are doing terrific 

work, Administrator. You know several weeks ago your agency led 

an operation that resulted in the arrest of dozens of airline workers 

in Puerto Rico who were smuggling drugs on flights to the mainland U.S. However, despite the recent staffing increases that you 

briefed me on when we met, I remain absolutely convinced that the 

DEA does not have enough agents in Puerto Rico. 

According to data provided to my office, there are nearly three 

times as many agents assigned to the Miami field office as there 

are to Puerto Rico, even though the island’s population is 7.5 times 

greater than metropolitan Miami’s, and our drug-related violence is 

off the charts. I want to be clear. I am not saying Miami doesn’t 

have significant problems that you need to deal with. I am just providing this comparison, because you realize how under-resourced 

Puerto Rico is when you see this stat. So, I would like to hear your 

view, in terms of what you can do or not in staffing our office in 

Puerto Rico and the VI. 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you, sir. We have met, and you know that 

the whole Caribbean region is of concern to the DEA. When we 

moved resources in 2002 from our other field divisions down to the 

Southwest border, we left the Caribbean alone, because we knew 

if we were successful on the Southwest border that we would start 

seeing impact in the Caribbean. So, San Juan, that field division 

has been very important to us, and I actually have increased the 

resources there. So, let me talk about those increases. 

In 2009, there were 83 agents assigned to San Juan and Ponce. 

I increased it to 95. In fact, I have done what we can to make sure 

that agents graduating from the academy and senior agents rotating in from foreign offices are assigned there. We will continue to 

try to give as many resources to Puerto Rico as possible. 

On the surge, know before your discussion with the attorney general about surges that DEA actually was surging in Puerto Rico a 

couple years back when you needed help with housing projects on 

the drug trafficking, and the murder rate, and the violence there. 

We responded by sending agents from MET Teams around the 

country into Puerto Rico for periods of time to help with that. And 

we will continue, even though we no longer have the MET program. We will look for ways to assist our agents and our fellow law 

enforcement officers in Puerto Rico with additional resources. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time is expired. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Leonhart, welcome. 
25 

I wanted to ask you about reports that DEA field agents in 

Southern Arizona were aware of the gun walking being done by 

ATF. Tony Coulson, the DEA’s agent in charge of Southern Arizona 

during Fast and Furious, said that many DEA field agents knew 

that the ATF was walking guns to Mexico, but their supervisors 

told them to back off when they objected. 

Have you investigated who within the DEA knew what about 

Fast and Furious and why they did so little to stop gun walking 

to Mexico? 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you, sir. As I mentioned earlier, those 

statements, as I understand it from Mr. Coulson, were actually recanted. He said he was misquoted and he has recanted that. We 

are very excited and we are waiting on these results from the OIG, 

because prior to Mr. Coulson’s statements, we were not aware that 

DEA agents in Arizona were aware of the tactics that ATF was 

using. 

So, the investigation is being done by OIG. That should answer. 

We have made all our people available. That should answer the 

question about who knew what from my agency. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Did Mr. Coulson explain why he made the statements in the first place, if he later recanted them? 

Ms. LEONHART. I have not had any discussions with Mr. Coulson. 

I just know that right after there was a reporting of what he had 

said, he called our headquarters to say he did not say those things, 

and that he recanted his statements. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. So he denied saying them. He didn’t say them 

and then take them back, is what you are telling us? 

Ms. LEONHART. I heard both. But, hopefully, the OIG is going to 

interview him. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. So you are relying on the Office of the Inspector 

General to investigate his statements and whether or not it is true 

that agents working under him were aware of the fact that gun 

running was taking place. Because, in fact, we know it was taking 

place, so it is not all that surprising that some DEA agents might 

know what was going on with regard to ATF activities in the same 

region. But, at the same time, our greater concern is why supervisors might have told the agents to, quote, back off, when they 

raised concerns about the wisdom of sending guns to drug dealers 

and others in Mexico that ultimately resulted in the death of a border patrol agent. 

So, you will report back to this Committee once you hear from 

the OIG, and let us know what actions have been taken to make 

sure that when people find out that wrongdoing is taking place 

that they are freely able to report it to their superiors and then 

have some interagency discussions between ATF and DEA to say, 

‘‘Hey, guys. What are you doing here, giving guns to people that 

we are trying to stop from smuggling drugs in the United States. 

It is not a good idea.’’ 

Ms. LEONHART. The OIG report will answer the questions about 

what our folks knew. The OIG was given the unilateral authority 

to investigate. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, we will welcome that. In my last minute 

here, I want to get in another area of interest. 
26 

What assistance does the DEA give to State and local law enforcement to combat synthetic drugs? 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you for that question. Since synthetic 

drugs is a new emerging, very troubling problem, I personally have 

been working with the chiefs and sheriffs, both of the National 

Sheriffs Association, but also of the IACP. They are the ones that 

first brought it to my attention that synthetics was a problem. and 

so we have given them considerable assistance, both in training 

classes. We have also offered our chemists. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. What additional tools do you need that would 

make the DEA better able to combat synthetic drug abuse? 

Ms. LEONHART. Actually, this Committee just helped, and that 

was the scheduling of so many of those chemicals. That was number one. 

Number two, you have given us, you know, the support, our 

funding, our agent workforce that has allowed us to teach our 

agent workforce about this new and emerging trend. It has also allowed us to teach our State and local counterparts about the 

emerging trend. And we have been able to expand our investigations now internationally to go after the sources of supply that are 

actually supplying the chemicals showing up in our neighborhoods 

and then eventually being sold as Spice and K2. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time is expired. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms., is it Lean-hart? 

Ms. LEONHART. It is Lin-hart. 

Mr. COHEN. Lin-hart. 

Ms. LEONHART. Think of the ‘‘O’’ being silent. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Leonhart. What is your 

budget? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, currently—— 

Mr. COHEN. Approximately. 

Ms. LEONHART. $2 million. 

Mr. COHEN. $2 million? 

Ms. LEONHART. I am sorry. $2 billion—— 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. So about $2 billion. 

Ms. LEONHART [continuing]. Is salary and expenses. And then we 

have additional, with a fee account for our diversion program. So, 

total budget is—— 

Mr. COHEN. It is over $2 billion. 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes. 

Mr. COHEN. Do you get any confiscation money? Do you get any 

monies from confiscations? 

Ms. LEONHART. I am sorry? 

Mr. COHEN. Do you get any money from confiscations of properties? 

Ms. LEONHART. You are talking about asset forfeiture. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Ms. LEONHART. There is money that the Department of Justice 

gives us from the asset forfeiture fund. 

Mr. COHEN. How much do you get from that? 
27 

Ms. LEONHART. I would have to—— 

Mr. COHEN. Do you have any idea at all? 

Ms. LEONHART. If you would give me a moment, I could—— 

Mr. COHEN. I would rather not take the time for you to research 

your files. You don’t know. Maybe one of your staff members can 

give it to you. 

Let me ask you this. What is your number one drug you are 

fighting? What is your priority? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, our priority right now is pharmaceutical 

drugs. 

Mr. COHEN. All right. And what is your second priority? 

Ms. LEONHART. We don’t prioritize specific drugs, because the organizations that we are going after are poly-drug. 

Mr. COHEN. So, you are not going after the drugs for the harm 

they do. You are going after the drugs, because of the effect it has 

on these organizations, and you are going after the organizations. 

Is that right? 

Ms. LEONHART. We are going after the organizations that are 

having the most impact on our communities, supplying the most 

drugs, and the most violence. 

Mr. COHEN. Right. So, it is the fact that meth, or crack, or heroin 

is causing the most damage to individuals. If that is not the number one choice of the crime syndicate, it is not your number one 

choice. Your number one choice is the crime syndicate, not the fact 

that heroin, and meth, and crack are destroying people’s lives. 

Ms. LEONHART. No. Not correct. The organizations now have 

their poly-drug. So, for instance, the Columbian cartels, which are 

a priority—— 

Mr. COHEN. Right. They have all these drugs, right? 

Ms. LEONHART [continuing]. Are the primary source for methamphetamine, cocaine, and a good amount of the heroin on the 

streets. 

Mr. COHEN. Right. 

Ms. LEONHART. They are a priority. 

Mr. COHEN. So, that is your number one priority, is going after 

that cartel. 

Ms. LEONHART. Our number one priority is going after those that 

most impact the United States. 

Mr. COHEN. Do most of those cartels, what are the drugs they 

emphasize in their arsenal? 

Ms. LEONHART. The Mexican cartels, poly-drug. It is cocaine, 

meth, heroin, marijuana. 

Mr. COHEN. Right. Marijuana is fourth. Would you agree that 

marijuana causes less harm to individuals than meth, crack, cocaine, and heroin? 

Ms. LEONHART. As a former police officer, as a 32-year DEA 

agent, I can tell you that I think marijuana is an insidious drug. 

Mr. COHEN. That is not the question I asked you, ma’am. Does 

it cause less damage to the American society and to individuals 

than meth, crack, cocaine, and heroin? Does it make people have 

to kill to get their fix? 

Ms. LEONHART. I can tell you that more teens enter treatment 

for marijuana. 
28 

Mr. COHEN. Can you answer my question? Answer my question, 

please. 

Ms. LEONHART. I am trying to. It causes harm, because it is 

young people that are using it, if you are talking about the violence. 

Mr. COHEN. It is not just young people. But, you are trying to 

answer the question like I am Jeff Sessions. I am not Senator Sessions. I am asking you a question. Does meth, does crack, heroin 

cause more damage to society? Does meth and heroin cause more 

deaths than marijuana? 

Ms. LEONHART. All drug trafficking causes deaths. I don’t have 

a breakdown of how many. 

Mr. COHEN. Does aspirin cause deaths? 

Ms. LEONHART. I am talking about the illegal drugs. I don’t have 

a breakdown for you of how many deaths are caused by cocaine, 

and how many are caused by meth. 

Mr. COHEN. Let me ask you this. Have you ever seen a person 

who had cancer and used marijuana to help them eat or to relive 

their condition of suffering from terminal cancer? 

Ms. LEONHART. No, I have not. 

Mr. COHEN. And if you had, and I have, and seen that it helps 

them with their appetite, and makes them smile, would you agree 

that it has some benefit to society for somebody who is dying, 

maybe a Navy Seal, who spent his life working and defending this 

country, and is emaciated to 120 pounds, and that marijuana is the 

only thing that makes him eat, and makes him smile, according to 

his 80-year-old mother. Is there not an efficacious situation there? 

Ms. LEONHART. I think that is between him and his doctor. 

Mr. COHEN. Well, if it is between him and his doctor, why does 

the DEA take a position that medical marijuana is wrong, which 

you have taken. You have taken the position it is not between him 

and his doctor. You have a publication, which on page 6 of your 

publication, in 2011, has the most insane and banal paragraph. 

The legalization movement is not simply a harmless academic exercise. The moral danger of thinking marijuana is—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

gentlewoman from California, Ms. Chu. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Leonhart, I represent a district in Los Angeles County, where 3 years ago a young rising star, 

an elected official in my district, Bobby Salcedo, was murdered by 

the Mexican drug cartel, when he was simply visiting relatives 

there. This tragedy is why my colleague, Mr. Poe, and I worked on 

legislation that would allow U.S. law enforcement to more easily 

freeze the illicit proceeds of international criminal organizations in 

U.S. financial institutions, in hopes of preserving those assets for 

future seizure. 

It corrected the situation, where the U.S. could only freeze assets 

of those engaged in criminal activity, once a final decision was 

made, and our legislation, which was signed into law, allowed U.S. 

courts to freeze assets once there was evidence of criminal activity. 

So, what role has this law, the Preserving Foreign Criminal Assets for Forfeiture Act, played in assisting DEA’s financial investigations in interdicting the foreign criminals’ money or laundering 

operations? 
29 

*The Subcommittee had not received this information by the time this hearing record was 

submitted for printing on February 19, 2013. 

Ms. LEONHART. First, let me thank you for bringing us that legislation. It has helped already. I am aware that more than $50 million has been frozen, because of that. So, we want to thank you for 

it, and know that with DEA, especially our international investigations that regularly are conducted, it is essential to our efforts that 

we have a way to freeze those assets in the middle of an investigation and during an investigation. We must be able to freeze the 

money for these foreign countries, and this has allowed us to do it. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you for that. I wanted to follow-up on your 

statement that cooperation between the United States and Mexico 

is at an all time high, and that, in particular, the DEA is grateful 

for the extradition relationship that you have with Mexico, because 

it is important, too, that criminals are brought to justice in this 

country. 

I wanted to know what you mean by the relationship is at an alltime high, and also, you talked about the extradition of 94 and 93 

individuals from Mexico in 2010 and 2011, respectively. I wanted 

to know, also, what the status is of those who have been extradited. 

Ms. LEONHART. Okay. The relationship with Mexico is at an alltime high, and I say that, because we now are working investigations jointly. We are able to develop partners in Mexico that we can 

share intelligence with, and they can actually take action on that, 

and vice-versa. They develop intelligence and are sharing it with 

us. 

We have representatives from the Mexican Federal Police, the 

SSP, and from the PGR, that are even sitting in our El Paso intelligence center. So that is a true partnership. Especially working 

the violators the cartel heads that are most important to Mexico, 

working with them, we have doubled the number of high-value targets that they have been able to arrest in Mexico by sharing this 

intelligence. 

On the extraditions, a number of these extraditions, the folks 

have already been prosecuted, and are serving sentences in the 

United States, many significant sentences. 

The other thing that Mexico has done by extraditing them to us 

is those that cooperate after being incarcerated are really giving us 

a clear picture as to how the Mexican cartels are operating, and 

that has helped us and Mexico, because we share that information, 

determine the best way to go after those cartels and those traffickers. 

Ms. CHU. How many have been convicted and sentenced? 

Ms. LEONHART. I can get you those numbers. I don’t know. Many 

have pled guilty. So a good number of them have pled guilty and 

many have been convicted.* 

Ms. CHU. And how has it impacted the drug trafficking and violence along the border? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, especially of the high-value targets, who 

are the heads or lieutenants of the cartels that we have been able 

to incarcerate. It has helped Mexico, because they have been able 

to take the people that have been able to have the power to corrupt 
30 

Mexican officials. They now are in jail cells in the United States, 

no longer able to run their operations. So, it has affected the drug 

supply as well. 

Together, we have done such damage to the cartels that that is 

why you see these drops in availability of cocaine on the streets of 

the United States, and the price up and the purity down. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. The 

gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Polis. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to begin by following-up on my colleague Mr. Cohen’s questions, and I want to try 

to get a clear answer, to make sure the Drug Enforcement Administration is aware of some of the evidence. 

Is crack worse for a person than marijuana? 

Ms. LEONHART. I believe all illegal drugs are bad. 

Mr. POLIS. Is methamphetamine worse for somebody’s health 

than marijuana? 

Ms. LEONHART. I don’t think any illegal drug is good. 

Mr. POLIS. Is heroin worse for someone’s health than marijuana? 

Ms. LEONHART. Again, all drugs—— 

Mr. POLIS. I mean either yes, no, or I don’t know. I mean if you 

don’t know, you can look this up. You should know this as the chief 

administrator for the Drug Enforcement Agency. I am asking you 

a very straightforward question. 

Is heroin worse for someone’s health than marijuana? 

Ms. LEONHART. All illegal drugs are bad. 

Mr. POLIS. Does this mean you don’t know? 

Ms. LEONHART. Heroin causes an addiction. 

Mr. POLIS. Okay. 

Ms. LEONHART. It causes many problems, so it is very hard to 

kick. 

Mr. POLIS. So, does that mean that the health impact of heroin 

is worse than marijuana? Is that what you are telling me? 

Ms. LEONHART. I think you are asking a subjective question. 

Mr. POLIS. No. It is objective. Just looking at the science. This 

is your expertise. I am a lay person, but I have read some of the 

studies and aware of it. I am just asking you as an expert in the 

subject area, is heroin worse for someone’s health than marijuana? 

Ms. LEONHART. I am answering as a police officer and as a DEA 

agent that these drugs are illegal, because they are dangerous, because they are addictive, because they do hurt a person’s health. 

Mr. POLIS. So, heroin is more addictive than marijuana. Is heroin 

more addictive than marijuana, in your experience? 

Ms. LEONHART. Generally, the properties of heroin, yes, it is 

more addictive. 

Mr. POLIS. Is methamphetamine more addictive than marijuana? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, both are addictive. 

Mr. POLIS. Well, is methamphetamine more highly addictive 

than marijuana? 

Ms. LEONHART. I think some people become addicted to marijuana and some people become addicted to methamphetamine. 

Mr. POLIS. You mentioned that your top priority, I believe you 

indicated to us, is abuse of prescription drugs. Is one of the main 

classifications of prescription drugs painkillers that you are concerned about? 
31 

Ms. LEONHART. That is correct. 

Mr. POLIS. And are those painkillers addictive? 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes, they are very addictive. 

Mr. POLIS. Are those painkillers more addictive than marijuana? 

Ms. LEONHART. All illegal drugs in schedule one are addictive. 

Mr. POLIS. Well, again, this is a health-based question, and I 

know you obviously have a law enforcement background, but I am 

sure you are also familiar, given your position with the science of 

the matter, and I am asking, you know, again, clearly, your agency 

has established abuse of prescription drugs as the top priority. Is 

that, therefore, an indication that prescription drugs are more addictive than marijuana? 

Ms. LEONHART. All illegal drugs are addictive. 

Mr. POLIS. Okay. Your agency has established abusive prescription drugs as its top priority. You have indicated as much to us. 

Does that mean that abuse of prescription drugs is a greater threat 

to the public health than marijuana? 

Ms. LEONHART. Because it is an emerging threat, because people 

are turning to prescription drugs faster than any other drug, that 

is why we prioritized it. 

Mr. POLIS. Well, in many States, including my home State of Colorado, we have a legalized and regulated regime of medical marijuana, and we have found some great degree of success in combating the abuse of prescription drugs by making sure the patients 

have access to medical marijuana, which the science indicates, and 

I would certainly encourage you to look at the science is less addictive and less harmful to human health than some of the narcotic 

prescription drugs that are abused, and also, when they are used 

on label, they can be very harmful to health as well. 

Would your agency consider supporting medical marijuana provisions when that can be used in pursuit of your top priority, which 

is reduce the abuse of prescription drugs. If it can be documented 

that the use of medical marijuana helps reduce the abuse of prescription drugs, is that something you are willing to pursue? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, Congress has determined that marijuana is 

a controlled substance, and DEA’s tasked with enforcing Federal 

law. 

Mr. POLIS. You mentioned priorities, though, and you said top 

priority, reducing abuse of prescription drugs. One tactic to do that 

would be use of medical marijuana, and I wanted to make sure 

again, top priority, in pursuit of your top priority, are you willing 

to look at the use of medical marijuana as a way of reducing abuse 

of prescription drugs? 

Ms. LEONHART. We will look at any options for reducing drug addiction. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member. 

Administrator Leonhart, thank you for your appearance here 

today. And having been in Phoenix a couple of weeks ago, let me 

express my appreciation for the service of the Drug Enforcement 

Agency officers, their professionalism, and as well, the work that 
32 

*The Subcommittee had not received this information by the time this hearing record was 

submitted for printing on February 19, 2013. 

is done in Houston, Texas, where we are the center point, if you 

will, for a number of issues dealing with gun trafficking, and, as 

well, the confluence, if you will, of money, drugs, and guns. And so, 

we are well aware of the importance of collaboration. 

I am going to ask a series of quick questions, and appreciate 

helping me get as much on the record as I possibly can. What is 

the importance of collaboration between the major Federal law enforcement? I use as an example, FBI, DEA, ATF, and others, along 

with those that I represent on Homeland Security. What is the importance of that? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, ma’am, let me start by saying that State 

and local participation has been DEA’s bread and butter for the 39 

years we have been an agency. And you combine that partnership 

with the partnerships that we have developed with other Federal 

agencies, I don’t think there is anything stronger, anything more 

effective at attacking violent crime, attacking drug trafficking than 

having taskforces. 

So, to answer that, especially in the Houston—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. My question is: Is the collaboration strong, 

positive, continuing, and do the administrators of the respective 

agencies encourage that collaboration? 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. 

Ms. LEONHART. We are probably collaborating now more than before. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Great. Let me move to Fast and Furious for 

a very brief question. Has there been a thorough investigation of 

DEA’s contact or involvement by the OIG? 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes. We made all of our employees in the 

Phoenixville division and—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So, any questions regarding supervisor directions to don’t say anything, all of that has been investigated. Is 

that correct? 

Ms. LEONHART. It is being investigated. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Being investigated, and all documents will be 

able to be accessed, or the final report will be able to be accessed 

on that issue. 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes. We are all awaiting the OIG finalizing the 

investigation, and the report. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And would you be able to submit that to this 

Committee once it is finalized? 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes. I would have to defer to the inspector general, but usually the OIG reports are made public.* 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me move forward and as I said, quick 

questions. What is the extent of drug trafficking on tribal land? 

Can I just get brief answers, because I have a series here? 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes. There is a serious substance abuse problem 

on tribal land, especially in the last 5 years, with prescription 

drugs. Their big problem used to be alcohol and methamphetamine, 

but more recently—— 
33 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And so, what are we doing? The DEA has a 

focus on that? I want to know that we have a problem, and I believe it is, and do we have focus in some of your—— 

Ms. LEONHART. Absolutely. We have established very good relationships with the other law enforcement agencies, both the FBI 

and Bureau of Indian Affairs, and other tribal law enforcement, 

and have done joint investigations. We depend on them to tell us, 

you know, who are the traffickers, who are those most impacting 

the supply on Indian lands, and then jointly work with them, sharing intelligence, and we have had many successes on those lands. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Right. Let me ask you, there have been many 

requests by members, how is the Ryan Republican budget, the 

budget that would cut resources, how devastating would that be? 

And let me follow-up, so you can answer these questions. I am very 

concerned about bath salts. I know we talked about synthetic, but 

focused on bath salts, and particularly the impact that it just had 

in Houston, Texas. A story I refer you to, KHOU, Channel 11, specifically talked about a heinous incident with bath salts, and an individual, David Peterson, who died on a Galveston street. He was 

found disoriented, and in extreme physical deterioration. And then 

I would appreciate your comment about DEA officers and physician 

officers, and pain pills, and whether or not the response is excessive, whether you think we are being fair to doctors on those investigations. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Do you have all points of that multifaceted 

question? 

Ms. LEONHART. The last question I had a hard time hearing. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The efforts with 

DEA officers dealing with physicians and pain pills, there has been 

sort of a surge of closing physician offices, arresting them. I am 

wondering, are we being excessive, are we being careful, because 

you are literally shutting down professionals, who may be legitimately issuing—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. The witness will answer. 

Ms. LEONHART. Okay. I will start with the, you asked about the 

budget. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. 

Ms. LEONHART. You know, these are austere budget times, and 

we will work within what money is given to us, and we will 

prioritize accordingly. As to the synthetic drugs, and I am glad you 

bring that up, an emerging problem that concerns us, this Committee has just helped give us the biggest tool we can, and that is 

controlling some of those chemicals, those substances. 

In your area, for instance, our agents have opened a number of 

investigations, both on bath salts and on K2 and Spice. And they 

have been pretty successful in assisting State and local officers on 

those types of investigations as well. 

Your third question about, you know, physicians, and pill mills, 

and pain clinics, Houston is very troubling, because they have a 

pill mill problem. And it is not like in Florida, with OxyContin. It 

is Hydrocodone that is the problem there. And we have many investigations, successful investigations, and we have arrested and 

prosecuted some very egregious doctors. And let me say that the 

doctors that are affiliated and operating these pill mills, and work-
34 

ing within these pill mills, they are not practicing medicine. They 

are not giving examinations to patients. These pill mills are just 

open for pill distribution, and those are the physicians, those are 

the clinics that we have targeted, using our intelligence or using 

undercover investigations, and we have been very successful in the 

Houston area. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for your 

courtesies. Could I put a question on the record to be answered in 

writing, please? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Yes, you can. And that will be taken care 

of with the UCs that I am about ready to propound. Thank you, 

Ms. Leonhart, for coming. We look forward to seeing you come back 

here. You might look forward to seeing us again, might not do that, 

but thank you for your testimony today. I think it has been helpful 

to all of the Members. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit to the Chair additional questions for the witnesses, which 

we will forward and ask the witness to respond as promptly as 

they can, so that their answers may be made a part of the record. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional materials for inclusion into the record. 

And with that, again, I thank Ms. Leonhart. And without objection, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(35) 

*The Subcommittee had not received a response to its questions by the time this hearing 

record was submitted for printing on February 19, 2013. 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Questions for the Record* 
36 

Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. 

Chairman, Crime Subcommittee 

Oversight Hearing on the DEA 

Questions for the Record 

1. Do you believe that shrinking the supply of prescription painkillers is the 

best method of combating abuse? Doesn't shrinking the supply do as much 

to prevent legitimate use as it does abuse? 

2. Does the DEA offer clear guidance to industry as to what constitutes 

suspicious behavior that should be reported? "Suspicious Orders" are not 

defined in the DEA regulations. The regulations give three examples of 

circumstances that constitute "suspicious orders." Specifically, 21 C.F.R 

§ 30.74(b) states: 

The registrant shall design and operate a system to disclose to the 

registrant suspicious orders of controlled substances. The registrant 

shall infonn the Field Division Office of the Administration in his 

area of suspicious orders when discovered by the registrant. 

Suspicious orders include orders ofw1Usual size, orders deviating 

substantially from a normal pattern, and orders of unusual frequency. 

Do you believe this guidance is sufficient? 

3. Have members of industry asked for additional guidance on how to 

detennine when a particular order is suspicious? If so, how have you 

responded? 

4. Can you provide additional guidance beyond what is currently available? 
37 

Congressman Robert C. "Bobby" Scott 

Oversigbt Hearing on the DEA 

Questions for the Record 

l. In your testimony, you described the elaborate, and no doubt expensive, efforts by 

DEA to combat drug cartels all over the world. Please tell me how these efforts 

impact domestic use of illegal drugs? 

2. If you were to significantly reduce the amount of money DEA now spends on 

combating drug cartels such as those operating in Colombia and Mexico and instead 

reallocate those funds to proven drug treatment programs in the United States, would 

you or would you not cause a greater reduction in domestic drug use? 

3. In my opening statement, I detailed how evidence suggests that, while drug use in all 

the major abuse categories among White Americans is as high as or higher than drug 

use among Black and Hispanic Americans, the vast majority of those imprisoned for 

drug law violations are Black and Hispanic. For example, drug use data indicates that 

some 60% of crack cocaine users are White while 94% of those imprisoned for crack 

cocaine violations are Black - 89% or Hispanic - 5%. 

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k4nsduhl2k4tabs/SectlpeTabs43t047.pdf. 

Overall, Black Americans make up 12% of the U.S population, but almost 50% of 

those incarcerated for illegal drug violations. Please tell me ifDEA's policies and 

practices contribute to these racial disparities. Is DEA making any effort to address 

this disparate treatment of minorities? I note that, during our discussion in the 

question period, you did not acknowledge the problem nor indicate that DEA is doing 

anything to address it. 

4. In response to one of my questions, you said that, in this past year, there was more 

money spent on prevention and treatment than there was on domestic law 

enforcement. Please explain what expenditures you are counting for "prevention and 

treatment" and for "domestic law enforcement." 
38 

Drug Scheduling 

Congressman John Conyers, Jr. 

Questions for the Record 

DEA Oversight Hearing 

June 20, 2012 

• The Controlled Substances Act provides that the DEA has the authority to 

emergency schedule any drug. The emergence of synthetic drugs (i.e. "bath salts" 

and "spice") has led to legislation in both the House and Senate that would place a 

number of chemical compounds found in synthetic drugs under Schedule I. The 

House and Senate bills contain a total of 42 unique chemical compounds that would 

be placed under Schedule I, but only 9 of these have been emergency scheduled by 

the DEA. The DEA requested Congress schedule compounds through the legislative 

process, even some that are not known to be present in the United States. Many of 

these compounds are new and very little is known about them. In fact, when this 

legislation was pending before the House Judiciary Committee last year, a number 

of researchers and scientists contacted this panel urging that these compounds not 

be placed under Schedule I because this designation would create significant red 

tape for researchers who want to study potential medical, scientific and even 

industrial applications for these compounds. We don't know what potential uses they 

may have. The emergency scheduling process involves some scientific review and 

consideration, which would be appropriate given that there is a significant amount of 

anecdotal evidence about the effects of these synthetic drugs but very little scientific 

data. The DEA has the authority to take administrative action to temporarily 

schedule drugs while legislation is pending in Congress. Yet, the DEA has failed to 

emergency schedule more than 30 compounds. Why has the DEA advocated that 

compounds be placed under Schedule I through legislation, which takes time, and 

not move to emergency schedule all of these compounds? Was the DEA's decision 

to not emergency schedule influenced by evidence that emergency scheduling has 

failed to stop access to drugs like bath salts? 

• The DEA has emergency scheduled compounds found in "bath salts," and yet 

reports of these substances being seized continue to come in around the nation. 

Why are bath salts still available around the US even though they have been 

emergency scheduled by the DEA since October 21, 2011? 

Prescription Pain Medications 

• There has been much attention paid to certain store front pain clinics, known as "pill 

mills," that allegedly are visited by patients from other states and are allegedly 

inappropriately prescribing opioid pain medications to patients, prescribing to 

patients who travel as far as one or more states away, and prescribe opioid 
39 

medications in high volumes. How does the DEA determine what is an appropriate 

volume of prescriptions for a clinic and a physician? 

In recent years, we have seen an alarming increase in fatal overdoses from use and 

misuse of opioid pain medications such as oxycodone. The focus in Congress has 

been to crack down on doctor shoppers and irresponsible physicians who are clearly 

prescribing opioid medications without regard for patient safety or federal law. Most 

doctors who prescribe scheduled opioid medications are law-abiding. However, 

there is concern about the extent to which legitimate and law-abiding doctors who 

regularly prescribe scheduled medications are facing undue and inappropriate 

scrutiny from the DEA. Prominently featured on the DEA website are "Cases against 

doctors," and there is concern that the level of scrutiny and fear of prosecution for 

what the DEA determines is an inappropriate volume of prescribing, or "overprescribing" is having a chilling effect on the prescription of medications for the relief 

of pain. What is the DEA doing to police the prescribing practices of physicians and 

should a general practitioner whose practice sees a large number of elderly or 

chronically ill patients be afraid? 

Marijuana 

• The Bush Administration estimated that the Mexican drug cartels receive up to 60% 

of their revenue from illegal marijuana sales in the United States. The Rand 

Corporation has given a more conservative estimate, estimating that Mexican drug 

cartels receive 20% of their income from marijuana sales in the United States. How 

much money are drug cartels making off of marijuana? How much of that is from 

smuggling marijuana into the U.S? How much is from growing marijuana inside the 

U.S? 

Of the 1.6 million arrests for drug law violations in 2010, approximately 854,000 were 

for marijuana (about about half), and of the 854,000 marijuana arrests in 2010, about 

750,000 were for simple possession of small amounts for personal use. Put another 

way, 88% of all marijuana arrests were for simple possession - not sales, not 

trafficking. And that is just one year. Since President Nixon declared a war on drugs 

in 1971, tens of millions of Americans have been arrested for marijuana. Even if 

someone is incarcerated for just one day, that can be enough for them to lose their 

job. And in today's economy losing a job can lead to months of unemployment, 

undermining families and costing taxpayer money. A marijuana conviction can follow 

you for life, making it harder for you to get a job and leading to reduce earnings 

potential. Depending on the state and the nature of the offense, a marijuana arrest 

can make someone ineligible for TANF benefits and other public assistance for life. 

This doesn't just hurt the person arrested; it hurts their partners and children. A 

marijuana arrest, even for a minor offense, is enough to get a person kicked out of 
40 

public housing and onto the streets. In fact, entire families can be kicked out of 

public housing for the violation of one member, even if the marijuana offense 

occurred on the other side of the city. And depending on the state and the nature of 

the offense, a marijuana conviction can even make someone ineligible to vote, in 

some cases for life. Shouldn't we at least debate and consider reforms to our 

marijuana laws and enforcement policies? 

• We regularly discuss racial profiling in our criminal justice system, and there are 

particular policies, similar to the crack disparity, which should be eliminated given 

the racially biased nature in which they are enforced, such as marijuana prohibition. 

SAMHSA research has shown that whites consistently outpace African Americans 

and Latinos in marijuana use in their lifetime, in the past year, and in the past month. 

Yet despite this fact, for instance, in the seven largest counties in Georgia from 

2003-2007, black residents were anywhere from 1.6 to nearly 10.4 times more likely 

to be arrested for marijuana possession that white residents. This is not unique to 

Georgia: in states allover the country, African Americans and Latinos are 

significantly more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites. Does 

the enforcement of marijuana prohibition fuel racial profiling? 

Medical Marijuana 

In 2009, the Department of Justice issued a memorandum to U.S Attorneys urging 

them not to waste taxpayer dollars and law enforcement resources arresting and 

prosecuting people following their state's medical marijuana law. In the last year, 

however, it appears the Department has reversed course. Notably, a number of 

medical marijuana providers that have been targeted by the DEA are state-licensed 

and regulated. DEA has conducted high profile raids of dispensaries that are not 

only state-licensed, and in compliance with state law, but have enjoyed a working 

relationship with state and local officials. The public continues to support - by an 

overwhelming margin and across socioeconomic, regional, and political divides - the 

provision of medical marijuana to people who benefit from its many therapeutic 

applications. Why has there been an escalation in the enforcement of federal law 

against medical marijuana providers? 

For decades, the federal government has been the only legal producer of marijuana 

for medical research. In fact, NIDA has controlled the quality and distribution of 

marijuana for scientific research since 1968. Interestingly, NIDA does not have a 

monopoly on the production or cultivation of any other Schedule I drug, such as 

MDMA, LSD, or psilocybin. Many researchers contend that the government 
41 

marijuana is low in quality and potency and that the monopoly has paralyzed 

medical marijuana research. I have been advised that, Lyle E. Craker, Professor in 

the Department of Plant, Soil, and Insect Sciences at the University of 

Massachusetts Amherst, has been trying to obtain a permit from the DEA to grow 

marijuana for research since 2001. In August and December of 2005, DEA 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mary Ellen Bittner conducted a hearing for Prof. 

Craker's request and on February 12, 2007, ALJ Bittner recommended the DEA 

grant a license to Prof. Craker. But, on January 14, 2009, Director Leonhart rejected 

the recommendation of ALJ Bittner and denied Prof Craker's application. Please 

explain the grounds for this rejection. 

Racial Profiling 

• A study conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2006 found that officers 

searched more than ten percent of African Americans and eleven percent of Latinos, 

but less than four percent of white drivers were searched following a traffic stop. The 

report found that three percent of African American searches, 13% of Hispanic 

searches, and nearly 14% of white searches yielded prosecutable results. In the 

cases of the vehicles belonging to white drivers it is more likely that the search was 

precipitated by suspicious behavior, which thus led to a higher success rate. In 

1998 the U.S. Customs service eliminated the use of race, ethnicity, and gender in 

deciding which individuals to search and focused only on suspect behavior. 

According to a study conducted by Lamberth Consulting, this shift in policy led to an 

almost 300% increase in searches that discovered illegal contraband or activity. 

Given these statistics what is the justification to continue a policy that many 

conclude is based on racial profiling? 

• There have been a number of civil rights scandals involving racial profiling and drug 

task forces in recent years, including the case in Tulia, Texas, in which roughly 

fifteen percent of the town's African American population was arrested based on 

uncorroborated evidence presented by a member of a Drug Task Force who was 

later indicted on three counts of felony perjury. All of those convicted in the Tulia 

incident were later pardoned and the case gained national attention as a gross 

abuse of civil rights. A similar case occurred in Hearne, Texas, and resulted in the 

arrest of 15 percent of the town's African American men between the ages of 18 and 

34, again based on the uncorroborated word of an informant. The District Attorney 

ultimately dismissed the charges following the filing of an ACLU lawsuit against the 

Drug Task force and the District Attorney. Yet another scandal occurred in Dallas in 

2002, when police officers and a confidential informant targeted a number of mainly 
42 

Mexican immigrants in drug busts over three years. As these cases were 

investigated it was revealed that the officers had planted pounds of sheetrock mix on 

defendants who could not speak English, or afford effective legal counsel. Is the 

DEA troubled that federal dollars are going to fund drug task forces that have such a 

documented history of civil rights abuses, and is there concern that the federal 

grants from the Department of Justice may actually encourage racial profiling by 

allocating money based on arrest numbers and not requiring proper oversight? Are 

there reforms or safeguards that the DEA can suggest to these programs to remove 

these incentives? 

Global Commission on Drug Policy 

• While the recent news about drug policy reform in Latin America has focused on the 

entrance of sitting presidents into the debate, this conversation builds on a 

foundation set by other drug reform advocates, including a number of former 

presidents. For example, former preSidents Zedillo (Mexico), Cardoso (Brazil) and 

Gaviria (Colombia), served on the Latin American Commission on Drugs and 

Democracy, which recommended that reform be seriously considered. This led to 

the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which increased the list of leaders 

advocating reform with figures like former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, former 

US Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volkcer, and former Republican Secretary of 

Treasury and State George Shultz. The Global Commission on Drug Policy 

recommended that policymakers "[e]nd the criminalization, marginalization and 

stigmatization of people who use drugs but do no harm to others," and "[e]ncourage 

the experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs to 

undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of 

their citizens." 'This recommendation," they say, "applies especially to cannabis," 

more commonly known as marijuana What is your reaction to the Commission's 

recommendations? 

Honduras 

Honduras is a country with serious problems with regard to human rights, rule of law, 

and democratic legitimacy in the wake of the coup against the elected president in 

June of 2009. The most recent State Department human rights report on Honduras 

noted that "Impunity persisted for human rights violations by the military and police, 

including those committed during the 2009 coup d'etat. Human rights defenders 

continued to be subjected to intimidation" The Executive Summary for the 
43 

Congressman Steve Cohen 

Questions for the Record for 

Drug Enforcement Agency Administrator Michele Leonhart 

June 28, 2012 

Medical Marijuana 

Administrator Leonhart, T have been very concerned about the high-protlle raids your Agency 

has conducted against medical marijuana dispensaries that are operating legally under state law. 

Attorney General Holder recently appeared before the Judiciary Committee and he stated that the 

Justice Department limits its "enforcement efforts to those individuals [or 1 organizations that are 

acting out of confonnity with State laws, or, in the case of instances in Colorado, where 

distribution centers were placed within close proximity to schools." 

1. Can you confinn that the DEA has not taken action against any individuals or businesses 

that are acting in full compliance with their state laws? 

2. I understand there was a raid recently of the El Camino Wellness Center in Sacramento. 

According to press reports, this was one of the most prominent dispensaries with a 

reputation for transparency and operating in full compliance with state guidelines. What 

state laws were they violating? 

3. How is the detennination made to target a particular dispensary? Who conducts an 

analysis into whether they are complying with state laws? What other criteria do you 

use? Can we get a copy of those reports? 

4. Your Agency issued a document called The DEA Position on Marijuana. On page 6, this 

document tries to illustrate "the fallacy of marijuana for medicinal use" with a story about 

a teenager who had a bad reaction to the drug Ecstasy and whose friends attempted to 

cure her with marijuana because they had heard it could be used to treat cancer. Isn't this 

just the story of a few dumb teenagers? I'm sure they heard that Lipitor treats heart 

patients. If they had convinced their friend to take a few pills of Lipitor, would you be 

arb'Uing for its prohibition? Why should thousands of patients who could benefit from 

smoking marijuana be denied just because a few dumb teenagers are misinfonned? 

5. This same document goes to great length to argue that while there may be some medical 

benefits in mc, smoked marijuana is particularly dangerous and should continue to be 

prohibited. Is this because of its effects on the lungs? If so, isn't it less hannful than 

smoking tobacco because it does not contain the harmful additives that cigarettes 

contain? If we are concerned about the harmful effects of smoking, why don't we 
44 

prohibit tobacco, which is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people 

every year? 

6. Please provide a list of any people you know of who have died in the last five years 

directly as a result of smoking marijuana. I am not referring to people who died and were 

found to have had marijuana in their system. I am asking about people whose deaths 

were directly caused by having smoked marijuana. 

Prescription Drug Disposal 

I understand that in order to prevent diversion of pharmaceutical controlled substances in the 

health care setting, the DEA requires that unused or partially administered controlled substances 

be "wasted" in front of a witness so that they are rendered "unusable and unrecoverable". You 

also require documentation of this process to insure tracking and compliance. In practice, and as 

a matter of convenience, I understand that this leads to healthcare practitioners flushing these 

substances down the toilet or other drains. These substances wind up in the wastewater systems 

of the local municipalities, who may not have etTective treatment technologies. 

Due to recent studies showing that wasted pharmaceuticals are appearing in our waterways, 

many state and local agencies and local wastewater municipalities have prohibited the flushing 

of these materials. Because of this conflict between the mandates of local governments and the 

DEA, 1 understand that many health care facilities have resorted to wasting these unused drugs 

into other containers such as red sharps bins (which are supposed to be used for medical waste 

other than controlled substances) or even trash bins, neither of which are appropriate for the 

disposal of controlled substances and are not secure disposal methods. 

The contlict between Federal and local laws and a lack of clarity about what to do has, as I 

understand it, resulted in creating a situation which lends itself to greater risk for drug diversion. 

I am confident that the DEA wants to prevent such situations, given that you have testified that 

your top priority is preventing the diversion of controlled substances. 

1. Has this issue come to your attention? 

2. If so, what is the DEA doing to address it and to provide guidance and clarity to health 

care facilities? 

,). Are there new technologies available which can provide for the proper disposal of 

controlled substances without flushing them down the drain and into the municipal 

wastewater system? 

4. Would officials at the DEA be willing to meet with my constituents and other affected 

parties who have taken the time to outline this problem to me? 
45 

f 

Congresswoman Judy Chu 

Oversight Hearing on the DEA 

Questions for the Record 

1. Question: What factors does the DEA take into account when detemlining 

which pharmacies are receiving excessive orders of controlled substances? 

2. Question: Does the DEA have guidelines for wholesalers and/or 

phannacies regarding what constitutes excessive orders? Does the DEA use 

metrics such as dosage units per month? 

3. Question: When determining which pharmacies to target, does the DEA 

take into account mail order phannacies? Mail order pharmacies dispense 

large quantities of controlled substances to patients they do not have a 

personal relationship with nor do they have a relationship with the 

prescribers whose prescriptions they fill. 

4. Question: There are examples of independent community phannacies being 

targeted by wholesalers/DEA for no transparent or stated reason, oftentimes 

resulting in all controlled substance orders being completely halted. This is 

causing hardships for independents who are primarily located in and serve 

more rural populations. Is the DEA targeting independent cOlmnunity 

phannacies to a higher det,'fee than chain pharmacies? There is a perception 

that independents are being targeted for reasons beyond their control such as 

a lack of ability to self ware house, perceived less stringent internal controls, 

and/or decreased legal capabilities, among others. 
46 

...... ........ , 0 • • 

Stwlr m.111 ror d,. R...,ord Submiuro by Ih~ N~ li ol1a l COlllmullil y Pllumad,,," A"lICi~lion 

Til Ih" S" ixo""niUtl: on Crime. Terroris nl, and lI onl el.lld ~c"ril y 

Co",nliUH Oil Ih. Juditiary 

U.S, Houn or l"r~. nt3Ii' S 

flo.'. lI e~rin g on 

"O-rrsighl or th e Orllg .; nrOrftment d",ini nl li on ~ 

.Iuo. 10, lO [l 

Chinnan Sffl~(11br.nl1 .. r, Rankins Membf,r Sc!Ill, and Mern~ of tile Subconllniu",,- the National 

Community Pham.acisli Anociatioo (NCPA) appreciates the opponulli,y to pro\'id~ the communilY 

pharmacy pcr,pe<:tiv.s ",sanlinSO'A."Hi!!ht of the DNS fnfo«:cment Admioillralion (DI3Aj. 

KCPA would like to specifically rommcot_ O<l iw.es "'latinS 10 rhe dlUl~ers of prescription drug 

diveni(lll and disprua l of controlled slIbsta'lCes NCPA rt)1~."ts America's oomn,"nily phannaci.ts, 

including Ihe o"'ne<~ of n,OTe than 23,000 community phamll,,[e., phanuaty fraJ1chiscs and chains. 

Together, they emplo)' over JOO,(lQ(l individuals i~cludinl! 62,4{)U phannaciSIS. ~nd dispocnso:: nearly half 

of the nation '. retail preiCrlptlOll medicatiPl1s 

Community phaml8eis,," reoogni>.(' the Iml1011ance or ~ddres';"11 the seriou~ problem of prescription 

drug diversioo and abuse, Acoordiog 10 the Drug Et.forcemcm Adminislr.ltion (DE A). more than 6 

mil lioo Amencam; are curTCntly abusing prescrip!ioo dOl!!';' "hich is moo e Ih." the mmlber of 

Ammcans abu~ing cocaine, her<lin , halluciMjlCnS and inhalants combined 

NCPA encourages community pharmacistl 10 cornmil thffilseh-es 10 sup[lOl1ing national and local 

e["lbm to prevenl Ih~ Muse of boIh prescriptioo and nOll'prescnpliOll dOl!lJ. al th,; same linte 

T«owoizin!! that aCtdS 10 effective ""in IIt81me01S foo-~I e ... ho need Ih~m 5hould nO! be dimini~hed, 

According 10 slatistics from the Centera lOr Disease Control .nd P,<'VentiOll. pain i~ a serious and c\)Slly 

I'Ilblic h~ ... lth iosue, intp~cting 76.5 million Ame<ican. Community ph"rm.ciSl~ play an imegru role in 

assuring tha, Ihde patients have timely access to comrolled subStances and in the process pnWide vital 

counseling to ens",~ tha, ,he$e medications are nor misused, abu&ed oo-divened 

The fact that n~"r!y 70 1"-'''<:1'11 of prescripti ... , drug ~bU5"rs obtain ''''u_~ed prescription drugs front the 

family mMlcine cabinet or rriend~ should serve as 8 ~ital remi"der thot efTQrlS to curb .1Ibu:;e and 

div~f!i[}fll11Ull Ix! rocuSl:d illpa" lin proper di.splI_'IlI1 ofthe.-e products 

+OIl Il"4<'r..w III..J 

·,In .. _ \·.\lml-.!8eI 

i1'lU'.~:HlU, ~O~, 

r;+HI~\Jll. '4' 
47 

NCPA eagerly awaits regulations from the DEA that will pave the pathway for increased opportunities 

for patients to dispose ofunused controlled substances. Many of our phannacies serve as drop off points 

for patients for unused or unwanted medications - however, we cannot by law take back controlled 

substances. 

Role of the Community Pharmacist and Prescribers in Efforts to Prevent Drug Diversion 

Community pharmacists hold in high regard their corresponding responsibility, per the Controlled 

Substances Act, to exercise sound professional judgment when making a determination about the 

legitimacy of a controlled substance prescription. We are proud of the fact that most independent 

community phannacies have strong, long-lasting, face-to-face, personal relationships with their patients 

This in fact serves as a deterrent to abuse because we know our patients, making it easier for us to detect 

a doctor shopper just looking for more controlled substances. 

Accordingly, we support efforts to educate phannacists regarding how to e!Iectively fultill their role in 

decreasing prescription drug misuse, abuse and diversion. At the same time, we support a more systemsbased approach to controlling abuse and diversion. Everyone needs to be involved: patient, pharmacist, 

pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), wholesaler, manufacturer, and prescriber. 

For example, there are proposals that would require prescribers to obtain additional education or 

certification on understanding addiction to and abuse of controlled substances and their appropriate and 

safe use by tying such education to the prescribers DEA registration number. NCPA supports such 

proposals. In addition, we think that fewer large quantities of pain medications should be prescribed and 

dispensed in the first place. Patients should be encouraged to take advantage of periodic programs that 

allow them to return controlled substances to law enforcement. 

We support etlorts to decrease prescription drug misuse, abuse and diversion including appropriately 

structured FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS), prescription drug monitoring 

programs (PDMPs), and electronic prescribing, which can help to alleviate some of the problems with 

drug diversion once systems are in compliance with DEA requirements. 

Proper PBM Edits Needed to Assist with Prevention of Diversion and Abnse 

In addition to efforts to better educate prescribers, phannacy benetit managers (PBMs) should be more 

accountable for monitoring patient use of controlled substances and preventing drug diversion. Even 

though many prescriptions that may be associated with efforts to divert are paid for in cash, there are 

many that go through the third party insurance adjudication process. From the time the prescriber 

chooses a medication to the time that it is dispensed, PBMs should provide more information to health 

care professionals that can help us make better decisions, such as providing the complete patient 

medication profile, and when or where other prescriptions for these products have been tilled. There 

might even be a way to connect PBM systems into PDMP systems to allow such information to be 

available to the prescriber and the phannacist in real time. 

PBMs should also be held accountable for the fact that they dispense large quantities of controlled 

substances through the mail. Oftentimes, certain medications that are prescribed will not work for a 

patient, the patient only needs a few doses or the patient expires, which can mean these large quantities 
48 

can go to waste. Having these large quantities of controlled substances sitting around patients' homes 

does not serve the public interest. 

In fact, a recent report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found evidence of significant 

"doctor shopping" in Medicare Part D, with 170,000 beneficiaries receiving prescription drugs 

prescribed by five or more medical practitioners for frequently abused classes of drugs. PBMs, through 

their claim processing role, are potentially in a better position to detect and prevent doctor shopping 

through claim level edits 

NCPA members are very aware of controls currently in place to address overutilization of drug 

therapies, as phannacists address a multitude of these edits in their daily practice. Regarding these 

claim-level edits, NCPA encourages efforts to ensure that existing PBM edits in place are improved. For 

example, refill-too-soon edit logic should be expanded consistently by all PBMs to include review of 

claims for multiple prescribers and pharmacies, as this will give the pharmacist a better picture of where 

patients may be filling other prescriptions. 

In sum, PBM's should provide more robust infonnation to both phannacists as well as prescribers, 

which is made more possible with the expanded use of electronic prescribing, but should not be the 

deciding factor in whether a prescription is ultimately dispensed or not. 

The Unintended Patient Care Consequences of DEA's Increased Efforts to Block Diversion of 

Prescription Drugs 

The DEA states that their increased efforts to block the diversion of prescription drugs to the black 

market by using many of the techniques it employs to combat illegal drug use have resulted in a 

substantial dismantling of "pill mills" NCPA appreciates these efforts as we believe that inappropriate 

and oftentimes blatant illegal prescribing is a primary culprit of the overall problem However, NCPA 

has serious concerns with the fact that the DEA is now using the same tactics to prosecute the legitimate 

pharmaceutical supply chain, including increased inspections and fines against drug wholesalers, which 

ultimately leads to severe consequences for independent community pharmacies. These consequences 

include wholesalers cutting of I all controlled substance supplies to certain legitimate independent 

pharmacies, with prescription orders of controlled substances going unfilled. Many independent 

pharmacies cannot obtain medications for their patients, and are fearful and reluctant to service 

legitimate patients in pain 

The wholesalers are being targeted for failure to detect "suspicious" order volume from several 

pharmacy customers. For example, over the past five years, Cardinal has publicly stated they have cut 

supplies of controlled substances to more than 375 customers nationwide, including 180 pharmacies in 

Florida. Every one of these customers is an independent pharmacy and nearly 70 percent still have 

active DEA registration numbers. NCPA contends the fact that so many of these pharmacies still have 

their registrations means that more clarity is needed from the DEA as to what constitutes excessive 

orders. 
49 

Æ