U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

23–641 PDF 2006

METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC

ELIMINATION ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 3889

SEPTEMBER 27, 2005

Serial No. 109–61

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 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida

PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

MICHAEL VOLKOV, Acting Chief Counsel 

ELIZABETH SOKUL, Special Counsel for Intelligence 

and Homeland Security 

JASON CERVENAK, Full Committee Counsel 

BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2005

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 1

The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 2

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Mark Souder, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Indiana 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 5

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7

The Honorable Mark Kennedy, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Minnesota 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 16

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 17

Mr. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Chief, Office of Enforcement Operations, 

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 18

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 20

Mr. Barry M. Lester, Ph.D., Professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior 

and Pediatrics, Brown University Medical School 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 26

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 28

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ................................................... 47

Prepared Statement of Freda S. Baker, Deputy Director, Family and Children’s Services, Alabama State Department of Human Resources ................. 49

Prepared Statement of Laura J. Birkmeyer, Chair, National Alliance for 

Drug Endangered Children, and Executive Assistant to U.S. Attorney, 

Southern District of California, United States Department of Justice ........... 55

Publication entitled ‘‘The Meth Epidemic in America, Two Surveys of U.S. 

Counties: The Criminal Effect of Meth on Communities, The Impact of 

Meth on Children, submitted by the National Associatino of Counties 

(NACo) ................................................................................................................... 62

Letter from A. Bradford Card, Legislative Liaison, National Troopers Coalition to the Honorable Mark Souder and the Honorable Elijah Cummings ..... 74

Letter from Donald Baldwin, Washington Director, Federal Criminal Investigators Association to the Honorable Howard Coble ....................................... 75

Letter from Chuck Canterbury, National President, Grand Lodge Fraternal 

Order of Police (FOP) to the Honorable Mark Souder ...................................... 76

Letter from William J. Johnson, Executive Director, National Association 

of Police Organizations, Inc. ................................................................................ 78

Page

IV

Prepared Statement of the Therapeutic Communities of America (TCA) .......... 79

Prepared Statement of the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) ............................... 80

Prepared Statement of the American Council on Regulatory Compliance ......... 82

Article entitled ‘‘The Mexican Connection,’’ Steve Suo, June 5, 2005, The 

Oregonian, submitted by the Honorable Robert C. Scott ................................. 85

Article entitled ‘‘More potent supply of meth wipes out success against home 

labs,’’ Steve Suo, September 25, 2005, The Oregonian, submitted by the 

Honorable Robert C. Scott ................................................................................... 95

Letter from various medical and psychological researchers to the Subcommittee .............................................................................................................. 100

Additional Prepared Statement of Dr. Barry M. Lester, Professor of Psychiatry & Human Behavior and Pediatrics, Brown University Medical School .. 107

(1)

METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC

ELIMINATION ACT 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:02 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Howard Coble 

(Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. COBLE. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We welcome 

you all to this important hearing to examine the national epidemic 

of metham—— Meth—I did it without stumbling yesterday—with meth abuse; 

and specifically, H.R. 3889, the ‘‘Meth Epidemic Elimination Act,’’ a bipartisan proposal which was introduced by Representative 

Souder, our friend from the heartland, and the Chairman of the 

full Judiciary Committee of the House. 

In the last few years, the problem of meth abuse has grown dramatically from what was typically characterized as a local or a regional problem to a problem of national dimension. Some contend 

that meth is now the most significant drug abuse problem in the 

country, surpassing marijuana. 

The impact of meth abuse is complicated by the dangerousness 

of the drug, the ease of production, the toxicity of the drug itself, 

the production byproducts, exposure of children to the drug when 

present in locations where meth is produced, the environmental 

cost of meth labs, and the significant strain of law enforcement resources resulting from enforcement and clean-up actions. 

The National Association of Counties recently published a survey 

that revealed that 60 percent of responding counties stated meth 

was their largest drug problem. Sixty-seven percent reported increases in meth-related arrests. 

Most of the meth found in the United States is produced by Mexico-based and California-based Mexican traffickers using superlabs. 

The rapid spread of meth, however, also can be attributed to the 

proliferation of small, toxic laboratories which have had a dramatic 

impact on communities across the nation. 

No longer are these labs limited to what are termed ‘‘mom and 

pop labs,’’ but now have become more sophisticated and organized 

production and distribution outlets; causing more and more law enforcement resources to be used to dismantle such operations and 

then to clean up the labs. As a result, local law enforcement agenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Jan 12, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\092705\23641.000 HJUD1 PsN: 23641
2

cies are strained by the sheer number of these labs and the accompanying clean-up costs. 

Meth labs also have been linked to significant instances of child 

abuse. Children face specific dangers from inhalation, absorption, 

or ingestion of toxic chemicals or contaminated food that may result in respiratory difficulties, chemical burns, or ultimately, death. 

Between 2000 and 2003, more than 10,000 children were affected 

by meth manufacturing. Approximately one in ten children tested 

positive for meth. And of those, children less than 6 years of age 

were twice as likely to test positive, as were children between the 

ages of seven and 14. 

In San Diego, for example, more than 400 children have been 

taken into protective custody in the past 12 months. More than 95 

percent of these children come from homes where there was meth 

use and trafficking. 

The meth problem has significant consequences for the environment as well. The production of one pound of meth releases poisonous gas into the atmosphere, and creates 5 to 7 pounds of toxic 

waste. Many laboratory operators dump the toxic waste down 

household drains, in fields and yards, and onto rural roads. In 

2004, the DEA administered over 10,000 State and local clandestine laboratory clean-ups at a cost of approximately $17.8 million. 

Given the spread of meth abuse, and the near-crisis impact on 

local communities and law enforcement, there is no question that 

something must be done to resolve the problem, and done now. 

I want to commend my colleagues; the Chairman, Chairman Sensenbrenner; Representative Souder; Representative Kennedy, from 

the northern tier; and others who have worked so diligently on this 

issue and recently introduced H.R. 3889, a bipartisan proposal 

which represents a good first step to addressing the problem. We 

are looking forward to hearing from our distinguished panel of witnesses. 

And I am now pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman 

from Virginia, the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, the Honorable Bobby Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I’m pleased to 

join you in convening the hearing on Methamphetamine Epidemic 

Elimination Act. Unfortunately, I am not able to join you in supporting the bill in its present form. 

In the last 15 to 20 years, meth abuse has grown to what some 

now refer to epidemic proportions in parts of this country. We’ve 

been making efforts in Congress for years to address the meth 

problem. The Subcommittee on Crime held six field hearings on 

production, trafficking, and use in 1999, in Arkansas, California, 

New Mexico, and Kansas. Testimony was received from numerous 

witnesses, including former addicts, family members of victims of 

meth-related violence, law enforcement professionals, prevention 

and addiction treatment professionals. 

Despite what we heard about the need for treatment and family 

support to get people out of meth’s grip and back on track, the 

basic approach of Congress has been to increase the number of severe mandatory minimum sentences. Yet, the fact is that this approach clearly has not worked to stem the tide of meth. In fact, 

there’s no evidence to suggest that it ever will. 

3

Evidence shows that treatment works to stem addiction and 

abuse. Recently, in an open letter to the news media and policymakers, 92 researchers and treatment professionals stated that, 

and I quote: 

‘‘Claims that meth users are virtually untreatable, with small recovery rates, lack foundation in medical research. Analysis of dropout, retention and treatment, and reincarceration rates, and other 

measures of outcome in recent studies indicate that meth users respond in an equivalent manner as individuals admitted for other 

drug abuse problems. Research also suggests that the need to improve and expand treatment offered—Research also suggests the 

need to improve and expand treatment offered to meth users.’’

Drug courts have proven especially successful in the case of meth 

treatment as an alternative to the ‘‘get tough’’ approach. An Orange County, California, Superior Court drug court program is an 

example of a program that has effectively addressed the meth problem. The court requires a minimum of an 18-month treatment program in which a graduate must be drug-free for at least 6 months, 

have stable living arrangements, and be employed or enrolled in 

school. 

This has shown to have a significant retention rate, with a much 

lower recidivism rate than you would expect for drug users. Nonetheless, time and time again, Congress has responded to this serious problem primarily with more and harsher mandatory minimums. 

In the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Congress established a 5-

year mandatory minimum for 10 grams of pure meth or 100 grams 

of meth mixture, and a 10-year minimum for 100 grams. In 1999, 

Congress heightened the sentencing for ‘‘ice.’’ Then again, in 1996, 

Congress responded to the still growing problem with even tougher 

mandatory minimums, by cutting in half the quantities of the substance that would trigger the 5- and 10-year mandatory minimums. 

In the meanwhile, the epidemic has grown exponentially, despite 

these ever increasing punitive measures passed by Congress. And 

States, unfortunately, have taken a similar approach: enacting 

harsher and harsher penalties, putting more and more emphasis on 

law enforcement. Yet they have had no more success than Congress 

with this approach. 

And a recent series of articles in the Oregonian newspaper reflected the frustrating results of this approach in Oklahoma. And 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to place this article in the 

record. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

Mr. SCOTT. The article pointed out that while Oklahoma had 

great success in slashing the number of home meth labs through 

vigorous law enforcement, it failed to curb meth use. They found 

that in place of local labs, a massive influx of meth made by Mexican superlabs—where tons of the predicate, the precursor chemicals, can be obtained—had come into their locality. And this they 

found was cheaper and better quality than the locally made stuff. 

Despite the clear evidence that increasing penalties do not stem 

the spread or impact of meth, and despite the evidence that treatment does significantly decrease the problem, the response in this 

4

bill, yet again, is to increase mandatory minimum sentences even 

more. 

This bill would further lower the threshold amount of meth that 

triggers harsh mandatory minimums. The main problem with this 

approach is that it will actually make meth more available. This 

is because lowering the quantity threshold of triggering mandatory 

minimums will cause Federal prosecutors to concentrate even more 

on low-level offenders that are now being left to the States to prosecute. This will simply mean that we will be sentencing the same 

low-level offenders with longer sentences, including those who are 

tied up in conspiracy and attempt laws which punish bit players 

the same as kingpins. 

This is what we have seen with the so-called crack epidemic, 

where we are seeing that over two-thirds of those sentenced for 

crack are low-level offenders—generally, addicts dealing to supply 

their habit. And now, here we go in what Yogi Berra would say is 

‘‘deja vu all over again.’’ So Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. And I hope that they will enlighten us on proven ways to 

stem this problem; rather that simply doing what we always do: 

put low-level addicts in prison longer, while the problem continues 

on. I yield back. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. And we have 

been joined by the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, 

Mr. Bill Delahunt. Bill, good to have you with us as well. 

It is the practice of the Subcommittee, gentlemen, to swear in the 

witnesses, if you all will stand and raise your hands. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. COBLE. Let the record show that each of the witnesses answered in the affirmative. You may be seated. 

Today we have four distinguished witnesses before us, and we 

appreciate your attendance. And we appreciate, those in the audience, your attendance as well. 

Our first witness is the Honorable Mark Souder. Representative 

Souder serves the Third Congressional District in the State of Indiana. He was first elected to the Congress in 1994. He currently 

serves as Chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee on 

Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources. 

Prior to serving in Congress, Representative Souder worked for 

former U.S. Senator Dan Coates for 10 years. Last week, Representative Souder introduced H.R.3889, after conducting extensive 

hearings on the meth abuse issue. 

Our second witness is the Honorable Mark Kennedy. Representative Kennedy serves the Sixth Congressional District of the State 

of Minnesota, and was first elected to the Congress in 2000. He is 

currently a Member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Financial Services Committee. 

Prior to serving in Congress, Representative Kennedy had a successful 20-year business career. And he also dedicated himself to 

meth abuse issues, and played a critical role in the formulation of 

the bill before us, H.R.3889. 

Our third witness is Joseph Rannazzisi, the Deputy Chief of the 

Office of Enforcement Operations at the Drug Enforcement Administration. Mr. Rannazzisi is also assigned the position of ActingVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Jan 12, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\092705\23641.000 HJUD1 PsN: 23641
5

Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Office of Diversion Control. 

In this capacity, he oversees the office’s effort to protect—detect 

and investigate the diversion of pharmaceutical controlled substances. 

Previously, he served as assistant special agent in charge at the 

DEA Detroit field office, and as section chief of the dangerous 

drugs and chemicals section, where he coordinated clandestine laboratory enforcement operations worldwide. He received a B.S. in 

pharmacy from Butler University, and a J.D. from the Michigan 

State University. 

Our final witness today is Dr. Barry Lester, professor of psychiatry and human behavior at Brown University School of Medicine. 

Dr. Lester is also director of the Brown Center for the Study of 

Children at Risk, and the Infant Development Center. He is currently a member of the National Institutes of Health’s National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse, and the Family Treatment Drug 

Court Steering Committee. 

Previously, Dr. Lester worked as an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Harvard School of Medicine. He earned his undergraduate degree at Boston University, and his Ph.D. from the 

Michigan State University. 

And as I said earlier, gentlemen, good to have you all with us. 

And I want to apologize in advance. I must attend a Coast Guard 

homeland security briefing at five o’clock at the Transportation 

Committee, so I will be departing then. But do not mistake my departure for lack of interest in this very important subject. And I 

will follow up what I missed in the interim subsequently. 

Gentlemen, we adhere to the 5-minute rule here. And your first 

4 minutes, you will see a green light in the panel before you. An 

amber light will then appear, advising you that you have 1 minute 

to go. At the end of that 5 minutes, then Mr. Scott and I will call 

the U.S. marshal to haul you into—I’m kidding you. [Laughter.] 

But if you could, adhere to that red light. When the red light appears, that is your indication that the 5 minutes have elapsed. We 

have read your written testimony, and will reexamine it. 

Again, we’re delighted to have you all with us to address problems surrounding this very, very serious encounter that we face 

every day. And Mr. Souder, we will start with you. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARK SOUDER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first, greetings from 

Indiana, where we buy your wonderful North Carolina furniture—

that is, whatever isn’t made in China—and also, supply you with 

basketball players, so you can look respectable in North Carolina. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COBLE. Well, now, if the gentleman will suspend—and I 

won’t penalize your time—the furniture, I hope, came from my district, the furniture capital of the world—or at least, it was last 

month. 

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the Chairman, and I thank you and Ranking Member Scott and Members of the Subcommittee for inviting 

me to testify on behalf of the Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act. I believe this is a vital first step, a bipartisan step, and 

6

I hope the Subcommittee and the full Committee will support its 

passage. 

I could fill my whole time thanking different Members, but first 

I’d like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner of the full Committee, 

and you, Chairman Coble, for co-sponsoring this bill and the assistance of your staff in putting this together. I’d also like to thank 

Majority Whip Roy Blunt for his co-sponsorship, and Representative Mark Kennedy and Representative Darlene Hooley for providing much of the content of this bill and for their consistently 

strong leadership on the House floor on meth issues; as well as the 

four co-chairs of the Congressional Meth Caucus, Representative 

Rick Larsen, Representative Ken Calvert, Representative Leonard 

Boswell, and Representative Chris Cannon, for their and their 

staffs’ assistance and support. And to every other Member who has 

co-sponsored this bill, I express my deep appreciation. 

I don’t have to tell you, and I’m not going to get into the details 

of the meth threat, but as Chairman of the Government Reform 

Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, we’ve held ten hearings since 

2001, not only in Washington, D.C., but rural Arkansas, Ohio, Indiana, suburban and urban Minnesota, California, Hawaii, and 

urban Detroit. There are regional and local variations of the problem, but one thing remains constant: it’s almost unique in its combination of cheapness, ease of manufacture, and devastating impact 

on the user and the community. 

There are three aspects we need to make sure that we look at 

when we’re looking at these types of things. First, meth presents 

a unique challenge to Federal, State, and local law enforcement. 

It’s toxic. It ties up local law enforcement, and causes lots of money 

to be spent in clean-up. 

Secondly, the damage this drug causes is not confined to the addict. It’s terrible effects on everyone around the user, particularly 

children. California did the first child abuse law related to this; 

and child welfare agencies said 40 percent of child welfare in Saint 

Paul, Minnesota. We heard that it, from a standing start, in 12 

months, went from zero to 80 percent of the kids in child protection 

were from meth parents. 

And I’d also like, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, to introduce the county survey that showed that it was the number one 

problem—their association survey—into the record, along with 

statements from two experts on the impact of meth on children 

that were provided to my Subcommittee in July. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

Mr. SOUDER. The third major point is the meth threat is not confined to small local labs, but extends well beyond our borders to the 

superlabs controlled by large, sophisticated Mexican drug trafficking organizations and the international trade in 

pseudoephedrine and other precursor chemicals fueling those 

superlabs. 

As Mr. Scott mentioned, you can’t just push one, or you’ll go over 

to the other. You have to have a combination strategy. Any legislation that tries to deal with the meth threat must address all these 

critical aspects. 

After meeting with Chairman Wolf, who after reading a couple 

of amendments on the House floor said, ‘‘Let’s see if we can do 

7

something in combination, tie it to the appropriations bills, because 

we know they have to pass the Senate, and we need to take some 

meth action this year.’’ After meeting with him and a bipartisan 

group of nearly 20 other Members in my office who are deeply concerned about this, we worked with my Subcommittee, with the 

meth caucus, as well as your Committee and other authorizing 

Committees to come up with this package. 

It includes the following four basic categories: First, close a number of loopholes in Federal regulation of meth precursor chemicals, 

such as pseudoephedrine, including a per-transaction sales limit; 

import and manufacturing quotas, to ensure no oversupply leads to 

diversion. Mexico is pouring in huge amounts over what they need; 

regulation of the wholesale spot market. 

A second is, require reporting of major meth precursor exporters 

and importers, and would hold them accountable for their efforts 

to prevent diversion to meth production. 

Three, toughen Federal penalties against meth traffickers and 

smugglers—has nothing to do with possession; only possession with 

intent to traffic. 

Four, apply environmental regulations to those who harm the environment and endanger human health through meth lab operation. 

Each of these are vital. But we need to remember, we did not address two things. We do not address the issue of pseudoephedrine 

or similar chemical products that should be added to Schedule V. 

I have personal reservations with this, but this bill is silent on this, 

and it could be in combination with that or not. 

Secondly, we did not include any significant new grant programs 

for State and local agencies to deal with meth. I believe we need 

to do more in treatment. I believe we need to do more in multiple 

areas. This is the Judiciary Committee. You’re not in the grant 

business. And we need to look at how to do more; as we do drug 

treatment, how to make some of that targeted toward meth. That 

I agree with, but this isn’t the bill to do that. 

I yield back the balance. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Souder follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARK E. SOUDER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me to testify in support of H.R. 3889, the ‘‘Methamphetamine 

Epidemic Elimination Act.’’ I believe this bipartisan bill is a vital first step in our 

renewed fight against the scourge of methamphetamine trafficking and abuse, and 

I hope the Subcommittee and full Committee will support its passage. 

I would probably fill my entire five minutes if I tried to thank each of the Members and staff who helped with this legislation, so I will have to mention only a few. 

First, I’d very much like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner of the full Committee, 

and you, Chairman Coble, for cosponsoring the bill and for the assistance your staff 

provided in putting it together. Next, I’d like to thank Majority Whip Roy Blunt for 

his cosponsorship; Rep. Mark Kennedy and Rep. Darlene Hooley for providing much 

of the content of this bill, and for their consistently strong leadership on the House 

floor on meth issues; and the four co-chairs of the Congressional Meth Caucus, Rep. 

Rick Larsen, Rep. Ken Calvert, Rep. Leonard Boswell, and Rep. Chris Cannon, for 

their and their staff’s assistance and support. And to every other Member who has 

cosponsored the bill, I express my deep appreciation. 

I don’t have to tell any of you how serious a threat meth is for our communities; 

pick up almost any newspaper or magazine these days and you can read about it 

firsthand. As chairman of the Government Reform Committee’s Subcommittee on 

8

1 National Association of Counties (NAoC) survey, ‘‘The Criminal Effect of Meth on Communities,’’ July 5, 2005. 2 Ibid. 

3 Ibid. 

4Statements of Laura J. Birkmeyer, Chair, National Alliance for Drug Endangered Children, 

and Director, National Methamphetamine Chemicals Initiative; and Freida S. Baker, MSW, 

Deputy Director, Family and Children’s Services, Alabama State Department of Human Resources; presented to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, 

July 26, 2005. 5 ‘‘The Mexican Connection,’’ and ‘‘Mexico’s Math Problem Adds Up to a U.S. Meth Problem,’’

Steve Suo, the Oregonian, June 5, 2005. 

Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, I have held ten hearings on 

the meth epidemic since 2001, not only in Washington, D.C., but in places as diverse 

as rural Arkansas, Ohio, and Indiana, suburban Minnesota, island Hawaii, and 

urban Detroit. There are regional and local variations on the problem, of course, but 

one thing remains constant everywhere: this is a drug almost unique in its combination of cheapness, ease of manufacture, and devastating impact on the user and his 

or her community. 

There are three aspects of the meth epidemic that I believe need to be emphasized 

as Congress considers this and related legislation. First, meth presents unique challenges to federal, state, and local law enforcement. The small, clandestine meth labs 

that have spread like wildfire across our nation produce toxic chemical byproducts 

that endanger officers’ lives, tie up law enforcement resources for hours or even 

days, and cost tremendous amounts of money to clean up. That, combined with the 

rise in criminal behavior, child and citizen endangerment, and other effects, have 

made meth the number one drug problem for the nation’s local law enforcement 

agencies, according to a study released over the summer by the National Association 

of Counties, which I’d like to enter into the record.1

Second, the damage this drug causes is not confined to the addict alone; it has 

terrible effects on everyone around the user, particularly children. Another survey 

by the National Association of Counties found that 40 percent of child welfare agencies reported an increase in ‘‘out of home placements because of meth in the past 

year.’’ 2 This abuse unfortunately includes physical and mental trauma, and even 

sexual abuse. 69 percent of county social service agencies have indicated that they 

have had to provide additional, specialized training for their welfare system workers 

and have had to develop new and special protocols for workers to address the special 

needs of the children affected by methamphetamine.3 With your permission, Mr. 

Chairman, I’d like to introduce the Association’s survey into the record, together 

with the statements of two experts on the impact of meth on children, which were 

provided to my subcommittee in July. They illustrate how community health and 

human services, as well as child welfare services such as foster-care, are being overwhelmed as a result of meth.4

Finally, the meth threat is not confined to the small, local labs, but extends well 

beyond our borders to the ‘‘super labs’’ controlled by large, sophisticated Mexican 

drug trafficking organizations, and the international trade in pseudoephedrine and 

other precursor chemicals fueling those super labs. Three-quarters or more of our 

nation’s meth supply is controlled by those large organizations, and over half of our 

meth comes directly from Mexico. With your permission, I’d also like to introduce 

an excellent group of articles from the Oregonian newspaper that detail the international aspects of the meth trade.5

Any legislation that tries to deal with the meth threat must address these critical 

aspects, and we have tried to do that in this legislation. We began the process of 

drafting the bill several months ago, when Chairman Frank Wolf of the Appropriations Committee’s Science-State-Justice-Commerce Subcommittee approached me on 

the House floor and offered his assistance in passing anti-meth legislation. After 

meeting with him and nearly twenty other Members who are deeply concerned 

about the meth epidemic, I asked my subcommittee staff, after consultation with 

staff for the Meth Caucus Members, as well as the relevant authorizing committees, 

to assemble a package of proposals that would enjoy strong, bipartisan support. 

That package ultimately became this bill. 

I’ve attached a detailed section-by-section analysis to my written statement for 

your review, so I will briefly mention the highlights of the bill. Among other things, 

the Act would:

• close a number of loopholes in federal regulation of meth precursor chemicals 

such as pseudoephedrine, including a per-transaction sales limit; import and 

manufacturing quotas to ensure no oversupply leads to diversion; and regulation of the wholesale ‘‘spot market’’;

9

• require reporting of major meth precursor exporters and importers, and would 

hold them accountable for their efforts to prevent diversion to meth production;

• toughen federal penalties against meth traffickers and smugglers; and

• apply environmental regulations to those who harm the environment and endanger human health through meth lab operation.

Each of these steps is vital to our success in the fight against meth, and I hope 

that the Subcommittee and the full Committee will support them. 

Finally, I’d like to say a word or two about two key issues not addressed in the 

bill. First, we did not address the issue of whether pseudoephedrine and similar 

chemical products should be added to Schedule V of the federal Controlled Substances Act. The Schedule V issue is already dealt with by the Combat Meth Act 

(H.R. 314 / S. 103), and thus there was no need for us to include it in our legislation. 

I myself have some concerns about the Schedule V approach, which I believe may 

have unintended consequences for consumers, retailers, and the health care system. 

However, I look forward to working with Mr. Blunt and other supporters of that legislation to see if we can forge a workable solution. 

Second, we did not include significant new grant programs for state and local 

agencies to deal with meth, nor did we attempt to amend or revise existing grant 

programs. I do believe that Congress must address the question of how best to help 

our beleaguered state and local law enforcement, child welfare, and treatment and 

prevention agencies deal with this incredibly destructive and expensive drug threat. 

That issue is very complex, however, and will require extensive review by the authorizing committees before it can be resolved. 

Mr. Chairman, every one of us, regardless of where we come from, has a stake 

in the outcome of this fight. We have to stop the meth epidemic from spreading, 

and we need to start rolling it back. I believe that H.R. 3889 will be an important 

step in that process. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today, and 

I would be happy to answer any questions that you and the other Members may 

have. 

10

ATTACHMENT


MES0001.eps
11


MES0002.eps
12


MES0003.eps
13


MES0004.eps
14


MES0005.eps
15


MES0006.eps
16

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Indiana. 

The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Kennedy. 

THE HONORABLE MARK KENNEDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Mr. KENNEDY. Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott——

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Kennedy, if you would suspend just a minute, 

we’ve been joined by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Feeney, and 

the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. KENNEDY. And the Members of the Committee, I’d like to 

thank you first of all for holding this hearing on a very important 

issue, the Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act. I’d also 

like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Souder for 

his interest in this. 

This bipartisan legislation, sponsored by Representatives Souder, 

Sensenbrenner, Blunt, and myself and others, is one of the most 

significant pieces of legislation that has been offered to respond 

comprehensively to the scourge of methamphetamine. 

Mr. Chairman, our communities face many challenges, from 

keeping our kids safe in our neighborhoods to the war on terrorism; 

but few have such immediate consequences as we face with meth. 

For years, meth’s threat has been underestimated. It is now clear 

to almost everyone that meth threatens lives, safety, and health, 

at great cost to all of us. 

A recent study by the University of Illinois conveyed shocking 

stories of 10-year-old children becoming surrogate parents to their 

younger siblings, as their parents cycled through day-long highs, 

often accompanied by psychotic symptoms, followed by crashes and 

days of sleep. According to the Illinois study, the children of alcoholics were said to have a thunderstorm of problems, but the children of meth addicts suffer a tornado of trauma. They are at an 

extraordinary level of risk of mental health and substance abuse 

disorders. 

Parents making the drug in their homes have exposed their children to toxic fumes and the danger of explosions or fires. Some ask 

their children to steal items needed for making of meth, or to stand 

guard, armed with a gun, looking out for police and other authorities. 

Mr. Chairman, I have often spoken about the tragic story of a 

young girl named Megan, from a beautiful town in my home State 

of Minnesota. Megan got started on meth when she was in seventh 

grade, at the age of 13. One of her friends offered her the drug and, 

in her words, she liked meth so much that she knew she would do 

it again and again. 

Well, when she became—when she couldn’t afford her addiction, 

she, like so many other female addicts, was exploited into becoming 

a prostitute to pay for the meth she craved every second of the day. 

After hitting bottom at age 18, Megan has managed to pull her life 

together now, after the 5 years that meth stole from her. But she 

has too much company in her treatment and addiction programs. 

About one in five of those treated for methamphetamine use in 

the State of Minnesota are 17 years old or younger. As Members 

of Congress, in the face of so much suffering, we have an obligation 

17

to act. This bill brings together a number of proposals made by 

many of my colleagues to fight this devastating scourge. 

I am pleased that H.R.3889 includes provisions I drafted to increase criminal penalties on meth pushers, to target the international superlabs that are the source of so much of this poison, 

and language from my Clean Up Meth Act to assist communities 

in dealing with the environmental destruction from meth production. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing here today. 

I’d like to thank again the witnesses who agreed to come to speak 

about the ravages of methamphetamine. I urge the swift passage 

of this important legislation. Doing so will send a strong signal 

that Congress is serious about fighting the scourge of meth. 

We must send a signal to the pushers of this poison that they 

are not welcome in our communities. Most importantly, we must 

send a signal to the law enforcement officers who wake up every 

morning to protect our families that we stand with them in the 

fight against drugs, and will work to give them every tool they 

need to be successful. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask for my full statement to be made part of 

the record, and yield back the remainder of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kennedy follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARK KENNEDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESTORA

Chairman Coble, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Scott, Members of 

the Subcommittee, I’d like to begin by thanking you for holding this hearing on H.R. 

3889, the Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act. 

This bipartisan legislation, sponsored by Reps. Souder, Sensenbrenner, Blunt and 

myself is one of the most significant pieces of legislation that has been offered to 

respond comprehensively to the scourge of methamphetamine. 

Mr. Chairman, there are 128 members in the Congressional Caucus to Fight 

Methamphetamine; these members represent districts all across this country. 

They know that methamphetamine is no longer a western problem or a rural 

problem; it is a problem that has infiltrated every corner of virtually every Member’s district in this country. 

Mr. Chairman, our communities face many challenges, from keeping our kids safe 

in our neighborhoods to the war on terrorism. 

But few have such immediate consequences as we face from meth. For years, 

meth’s threat was underestimated. It is now clear to almost everyone: meth threatens lives, safety and health, at great cost to all of us. 

A recent study by the University of Illinois conveyed shocking stories of 10-yearold children becoming surrogate parents to their younger siblings as their parents 

cycled through days-long highs, often accompanied by psychotic symptoms, followed 

by crashes and days of sleep. 

This study provided shocking evidence of the devastating effect of meth on our 

children. The children of alcoholics were said to have ‘‘thunderstorm’’ of problems, 

but the children of meth addicts suffer a ‘‘tornado’’ of trauma. They are at an extraordinary level of risk of mental health and substance abuse disorders. 

Parents making the drug in their homes exposed their children to toxic fumes and 

the danger of explosions or fires. Some asked their children to steal items needed 

for making the drug or to stand guard, armed with a gun, looking out for police or 

other authorities. 

Mr. Chairman, I’ve often spoken before about the tragic story of a young girl 

named Megan from a beautiful town in my home state of Minnesota. 

Megan got started on meth when she was in the 7th grade at the age of 13. 

One of her friends offered her the drug, and in her words, she liked meth so much 

that she knew she would do it again and again. 

But when she couldn’t afford her addiction, she, like too many other female addicts, was exploited into becoming a prostitute to pay for the meth she craved every 

second of the day. 

18

After hitting rock bottom at the age of 18, Megan is managing to pull her life back 

together now after the 5 years meth stole from her. 

But she has too much company in her treatment and addiction programs: about 

one in five of those treated for methamphetamine use in the state of Minnesota are 

17 years old or younger. 

As Members of Congress, in the face of so much suffering, we have an obligation 

to act. 

The Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act brings together a number of 

proposals made by many of our colleagues to fight this devastating scourge. 

This legislation provides increased regulation of methamphetamine precursors, 

particularly pseudoephedrine; important tools to control the international superlabs; 

enhanced criminal penalties against methamphetamine kingpins and manufacturers; and greater attention to the environmental impact of domestic clandestine 

methamphetamine production labs. 

I have worked with Representative Darlene Hooley of Oregon on many of the significant criminal penalties in this legislation in our bill, H.R. 3513, the Solutions 

to Limit the Abuse of Methamphetamine, or SLAM, Act. 

We both believe that we must make sure that traffickers in meth are too scared 

by the prospect of long prison sentences to ever try to push this poison on our kids 

again. 

Additionally, I can tell you from the experience of law enforcement in my home 

state of Minnesota, and in many other states dealing with the meth problem, local 

law enforcement spends roughly 80 percent of its time fighting small meth labs that 

produce only 20 percent of the meth on our streets. However, they lack the tools 

and resources to go after the source of the other 80 percent of the meth, international super labs. 

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3889 includes language I offered in an amendment to the 

FY06 State Department Authorization Act that was supported by the House International Relations Committee and 423 members of the House. 

This language will bring some of the same weapons to bear on the international 

superlabs that produce methamphetamine that have proven successful and effective 

in controlling other natural drugs like heroin and cocaine. 

This language serves to update, in an important way, our foreign policy to recognize the emergence of methamphetamine and other manufactured drugs. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing here today, and I’d like to 

again thank the witnesses who agreed to come to speak about the ravages of methamphetamine. 

I urge the swift passage of this important legislation. 

Doing so will send a strong signal that Congress is serious about fighting the 

scourge of meth. 

We must send a signal to the pushers of this poison that they are not welcome 

in our communities. 

Most importantly, we must send a signal to the law enforcement officers who 

wake up every morning to protect our families that we stand with them in the fight 

against drugs and will work to give them every tool they need to be successful. 

Thank You.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Rannazzisi and Dr. Lester, you two have been 

placed in the bull’s eye of the target, because both these guys beat 

the red light. So the pressure is on you. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Rannazzisi, it’s good to have you with us, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH T. RANNAZZISI, DEPUTY CHIEF, OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS, U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Thank you very much, sir. Chairman Coble, 

Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished Members of the House 

Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security, on behalf of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Administrator, Karen P. Tandy, I appreciate your invitation 

to testify today regarding the DEA’s efforts to combat the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine and its precursor 

chemicals, in H.R.3889, the ‘‘Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act.’’

19

Methamphetamine has swept across the country, and its devastating consequences are being felt throughout this nation by innocent children and adults, governmental agencies, businesses, and 

communities of all sizes. Methamphetamine found in the United 

States originates from two general sources, controlled by two distinct groups. 

Mexico-based and California-based drug trafficking organizations 

control superlabs, and produce the majority of methamphetamine 

available in this country. The second source for methamphetamine 

comes from small toxic labs, which supplement the supply of this 

drug in the United States. Though these labs produce relatively 

small amounts of methamphetamine and are generally not affiliated with major drug trafficking organizations, they have an enormous impact on local communities, especially in rural areas. 

A precise breakdown is not available, but current drug and lab 

seizure data suggests that roughly two-thirds of the methamphetamine used in the U.S. comes from larger labs, increasingly outside 

of the U.S., and that approximately one-third of the methamphetamine consumed in this country comes from the small toxic labs. 

In an effort to combat methamphetamine, the DEA aggressively 

targets those who traffic in and manufacture this dangerous drug, 

as well as those who traffic in the chemicals utilized to produce it. 

We have initiated and led successful enforcement efforts focusing 

on meth and its precursor chemicals, that have dismantled and disrupted high-level methamphetamine traffic organizations, as well 

as dramatically reduced the amount of pseudoephedrine illegally 

entering our country. 

We are also working with our global partners to target international methamphetamine traffickers, and have forged agreements to pre-screen pseudoephedrine shipments to ensure that 

they are being shipped to legitimate companies for legitimate purposes. 

As a result of our efforts and those of our law enforcement partners in the U.S. and Canada, we have seen a dramatic decline in 

methamphetamine superlabs in the U.S. This decrease is largely a 

result of DEA’s enforcement successes against suppliers of bulk 

shipments of precursor chemicals; notably, ephedrine and 

pseudoephedrine. Law enforcement has also seen a huge reduction 

in the amount of pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and other precursor 

chemicals seized at the Canadian border. 

We are also working closely with our State and local law enforcement partners to assist in the elimination of the small toxic labs 

that have spread across the country. The DEA administers the 

clean-up of the majority of meth labs seized in this country, with 

approximately 10,000 last year alone. 

In an effort to further streamline the clean-up process and reduce costs, with the assistance of the Community Oriented Policing 

program, ‘‘COPS,’’ in fiscal year 2004 we joined the Kentucky state 

police in initiating a container program. This container program 

has further reduced clean-up costs, and we plan to expand the program to other States during fiscal year 2006. 

More than any other controlled substance, methamphetamine 

trafficking endangers children through the exposure of drug abuse, 

neglect, physical and sexual abuse, toxic chemicals, hazardous 

20

waste, fire, and explosions. We are providing assistance to 

methamphetamine’s victims through our Victim Witness Assistance 

Program. Through this program, the DEA’s goal is to ensure that 

all endangered children are identified, and that the child’s immediate safety is addressed at the scene by appropriate child welfare 

and health care providers. 

In an effort to provide further information to America’s youth 

about the dangers of methamphetamine, last month DEA launched 

a new website entitled ‘‘justthinktwice.com.’’ This website is devoted to and designed by teenagers to give them the hard facts 

about methamphetamine and other illicit drugs. 

The DEA also monitors State legislation aimed at combatting 

methamphetamine. It has noted the success experienced by some 

States in reducing the number of small toxic labs within their borders. The Administration strongly supports the development of 

Federal legislation to fight methamphetamine production, trafficking, and abuse. 

Effective Federal legislation would include an individual purchase limit of 3.6 grams for transactions for retail sales of products 

containing pseudoephedrine; elimination of the blister pack exemption for pseudoephedrine products, thus requiring all products containing this substance to be subject to Federal law regardless of the 

packaging; and to prevent diversion of pseudoephedrine shipments 

for illegal use, a requirement that importers of pseudoephedrine request and receive approval from the DEA if there is a change to 

the shipment’s original purchaser. 

Thank you for your recognition of this important issue and the 

opportunity to testify today. I’ll be happy to answer any questions 

you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rannazzisi follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH T. RANNAZZISI

Chairman Coble, Representative Scott, and distinguished members of the House 

Judiciary Committee—Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, 

on behalf of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) Administrator, Karen 

Tandy, I appreciate your invitation to testify today regarding the ‘‘Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act.’’ I am pleased to testify here today. 

OVERVIEW

Methamphetamine’s devastating consequences are felt across the country by innocent children and adults, governmental agencies, businesses and communities of all 

sizes. More commonly known as ‘‘meth,’’ this highly addictive stimulant can be easily manufactured using ‘‘recipes’’ available over the Internet and ingredients available at most major retail outlets. While meth used to be associated only with a few 

outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMG), the use and manufacturing of this deadly substance is now a national problem. Today, few communities in the United States 

have not been impacted by methamphetamine. 

In an effort to combat methamphetamine, the DEA aggressively targets those who 

traffic in and manufacture this dangerous drug, as well as those who traffic in the 

chemicals utilized to produce it. We have initiated and led successful enforcement 

efforts focusing on meth and its precursor chemicals. Every day the DEA works side 

by side with our federal, state and local law enforcement partners to combat the 

scourge of meth. Last spring, DEA Administrator Tandy directed DEA’s Mobile Enforcement Teams (MET) to prioritize methamphetamine trafficking organizations 

during their deployments. These and other initiatives have resulted in tremendously 

successful investigations, that have dismantled and disrupted high-level methamphetamine trafficking organizations, as well as dramatically reduced the amount 

of pseudoephedrine illegally entering our country. 

21

1 p.6, Interim Report. 

2Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, August 2005. 

In addition to our enforcement efforts, the DEA is combating this drug by administering the cleanup of labs across the country, providing assistance to the victims 

of methamphetamine and educating communities on the dangers of this drug. The 

DEA also monitors state legislation aimed at combating methamphetamine and has 

noted the success experienced by some states in reducing the number of small toxic 

labs within their borders. Additionally, the Administration supports the development of Federal legislation to fight methamphetamine production, trafficking and 

abuse. Any such legislation should of course balance law enforcement needs with the 

need for legitimate consumer access to widely used cold medicines. 

METHAMPHETAMINE IN THE U.S. 

Methamphetamine is a synthetic central nervous system stimulant that is classified as a Schedule II controlled substance. It is widely abused throughout the 

United States and is distributed under the names ‘‘crank,’’ ‘‘meth,’’ ‘‘crystal,’’ and 

‘‘speed.’’ Methamphetamine is commonly sold in powder form, but has been distributed in tablets or as crystals (‘‘glass’’ or ‘‘ice’’). Methamphetamine can be smoked, 

snorted, injected or taken orally. The clandestine manufacture of methamphetamine 

has been a concern of law enforcement officials since the 1960’s, when OMGs produced their own methamphetamine in labs and dominated distribution in the 

United States. While clandestine labs can produce other types of illicit drugs such 

as PCP, MDMA, and LSD, methamphetamine has always been the primary drug 

manufactured in the vast majority of drug labs seized by law enforcement officers. 

STATE APPROACHES TO CONTROL METHAMPHETAMINE

As was discussed in the Interim Report from the National Synthetic Drugs Action 

Plan, the only two states that had enacted legislation from which we had reliable 

data at the time, were Oklahoma and Oregon. During April 2004, Oklahoma enacted the first and at that time, the most far-reaching state law restricting the sale 

of pseudoephedrine products. To date, over forty States have enacted or proposed 

various laws to restrict the sale of pseudophedrine products. This law made 

pseudoephedrine a Schedule V Controlled Substance in Oklahoma. Provisions of this 

law included: limiting sales of both single-entity and combination pseudoephedrine 

products to pharmacies; requiring pseudoephedrine products to be kept behind the 

pharmacy counter; and requiring the purchaser to show identification and sign a log 

sheet. 

Oklahoma’s law was noted in the National Synthetic Drugs Action Plan and was 

the first of many similar proposals introduced in State legislatures this past year. 

The Interim Report of May 2005 again noted Oklahoma’s law, as well as Oregon’s 

approach. In October 2004, Oregon adopted a similar approach to Oklahoma’s model 

through a temporary administrative rule. Oregon, unlike Oklahoma, allowed combination pseudoephedrine products—those containing pseudoephedrine plus other 

active medical ingredients—to be sold at stores other than pharmacies, provided 

that the products were kept in a secure location. At the time of the Interim Report’s 

release, only four months of data from Oregon were available for review. This review showed an approximate 42 percent reduction in the number of labs seized from 

the same months in the prior year. A review of 12 months worth of data from Oklahoma showed a 51 percent reduction in lab seizures (April 2004 through March 

2005).1

The Interim Report noted that, even with the stabilization in methamphetamine 

laboratory numbers observed nationally, no states with consistently significant numbers of methamphetamine labs have seen the reductions in lab numbers that Oklahoma and, to a lesser but still significant extent, Oregon had seen. The Interim Report stated that, with the available data—a year’s worth of data from Oklahoma, 

four months of data from Oregon, and several years worth of national data—strongly suggested that Oklahoma’s and Oregon’s state-level approaches were probably 

primary reasons for the dramatic reduction in the number of small toxic labs (STL) 

in Oklahoma, as well as smaller reductions in Oregon. It should also be noted that 

since the release of the Interim Report, Oregon has enacted legislation that made 

pseudoephedrine a Schedule III Controlled Substance. 

Since the release of the Interim Report, the seizure of meth labs in Oklahoma has 

continued to remain at low levels, with a total of 115 meth labs being seized from 

April through July 2005.2 The seizure of these 115 labs is significantly less than 

22

the seizures reported in Oklahoma during this same time period in 2004 (261) and 

2003 (423). 

Furthermore, the State of Oregon has recently enacted legislation that classifies 

pseudoephedrine as a Schedule III Controlled Substance. This law is not scheduled 

to fully go into effect until July of 2006, so data does not yet exist to draw any conclusions as to its effectiveness. 

METHAMPHETAMINE THREAT ASSESSMENT AND TRENDS

Methamphetamine found in the United States originates from two general 

sources, controlled by two distinct groups. Most of the methamphetamine in the 

United States is produced by Mexico-based and California-based Mexican drug trafficking organizations. These drug trafficking organizations control ‘‘super labs’’ and 

produce the majority of methamphetamine available throughout the United States. 

Mexican criminal organizations control most mid-level and retail methamphetamine 

distribution in the Pacific, Southwest, and West Central regions of the United 

States, as well as much of the distribution in the Great Lakes and Southeast regions. Mexican midlevel distributors sometimes supply methamphetamine to OMGs 

and Hispanic gangs for retail distribution throughout the country. 

Asian methamphetamine distributors (Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Thai, and Vietnamese) are also active in the Pacific region, although Mexican criminal groups trafficking in ‘‘ice methamphetamine’’ have supplanted Asian criminal groups as the 

dominant distributors of this drug type in Hawaii. OMGs distribute methamphetamine throughout the country, and reporting indicates that they are particularly 

prevalent in many areas of the Great Lakes region, New England, and New York/

New Jersey regions. 

The second source for methamphetamine comes from STLs, which supplement the 

supply of methamphetamine in the United States Initially found only in the most 

Western States, there has been a steady increase and eastward spread of STLs in 

the United States. Many methamphetamine abusers quickly learn that the drug is 

easily produced and that it can be manufactured using common household products 

found at retail stores. For approximately $100 in ‘‘materials,’’ a methamphetamine 

‘‘cook’’ can produce approximately $1,000 worth of this poison. Items such as rock 

salt, battery acid, red phosphorous road flares, pool acid, and iodine crystals can be 

used as a source of the necessary chemicals. Precursor chemicals such as 

pseudoephedrine can be extracted from common, over-the-counter cold medications, 

regardless of whether it is sold in liquid, gel, or pill form. Using relatively common 

items such as mason jars, coffee filters, hot plates, pressure cookers, pillowcases, 

plastic tubing and gas cans. A clandestine lab operator can manufacture meth almost anywhere without the need for sophisticated laboratory equipment. 

Widespread use of the internet has facilitated the dissemination of technology 

used to manufacture methamphetamine in STLs. This form of information sharing 

allows wide dissemination of these techniques to anyone with computer access. 

Aside from marijuana, methamphetamine is the only widely abused illegal drug that 

is capable of being produced by the abuser. Given the relative ease with which manufacturers are able to acquire ‘‘recipes’’ and ingredients, and the unsophisticated nature of the production process, it is not difficult to see why this highly addictive 

drug has spread across America. 

STLs produce relatively small amounts of methamphetamine and are generally 

not affiliated with major drug trafficking organizations. However, STLs have an 

enormous impact on local communities, especially in rural areas. 

A precise breakdown is not available, but current drug and lab seizure data suggests that roughly two-thirds of the methamphetamine used in the United States 

comes from larger labs, located outside the United States, and that approximately 

one-third of the methamphetamine consumed in this country comes from the small, 

more toxic laboratories. 

BATTLING METHAMPHETAMINE AND ITS PRECURSOR CHEMICALS

As a result of our efforts and those of our law enforcement partners in the U.S. 

and Canada, we have seen a dramatic decline in methamphetamine super labs in 

the U.S. In 2004, 55 super labs were seized in the United States, the majority of 

which were in California. This is a dramatic decrease from the 246 super labs seized 

in 2001. This decrease is largely a result of DEA’s enforcement successes against 

suppliers of bulk shipments of precursor chemicals, notably ephedrine and 

pseudoephedrine. Law enforcement has also seen a huge reduction in the amount 

of pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and other precursor chemicals seized at the Canadian border. 

23

More than any other controlled substance, methamphetamine trafficking endangers children through exposure to drug abuse, neglect, physical and sexual abuse, 

toxic chemicals, hazardous waste, fire, and explosions. An appalling example of 

methamphetamine-related abuse was discovered by the DEA in Missouri during November 2004. During an enforcement operation targeting a suspected methamphetamine laboratory located in a home, three children, all less than five years of age, 

were found sleeping on chemical-soaked rugs. The residence was filled with insects 

and rodents and had no electricity or running water. Ironically, two guard dogs kept 

by the ‘‘cooks’’ to fend off law enforcement were also found: clean, healthy, and wellfed. The dogs actually ate off a dinner plate. 

Since being implemented in 1992, the DEA has enhanced its Victim Witness Assistance Program, and each of our Field Divisions now has a Victim/Witness Coordinator to ensure that all endangered children are identified and that the child’s immediate safety is addressed at the scene by appropriate child welfare and health 

care providers. Assistance has also been provided to vulnerable adults, victims of 

domestic violence, and to customers and employees of businesses such as hotels and 

motels where methamphetamine has been produced or seized. 

We also provide training on drug endangered children to federal, state, and local 

law enforcement and to national, state and local victim organizations. The DEA 

serves as a resource for child protective service and school social workers, first responders, mail carriers, and utility company personnel, all of whom may come in 

contact with labs and victims. To provide the public with current information on 

methamphetamine and drug endangered children, the DEA participates in numerous local, state, and national conferences and exhibits. The issue of victim services 

is included as part of our Basic Agent Training, and also is presented to our management across the country. 

We have continued to investigate, disrupt and dismantle major methamphetamine 

trafficking organizations through the Consolidated Priority Organization Target 

(CPOT) list and our Priority Target Organization (PTO) investigations. The DEA is 

also significantly involved in the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task program 

(OCDETF) and we continue to work with state and local law enforcement agencies 

across the country to combat methamphetamine. Additionally, in March 2005, Administrator Tandy directed the DEA’s MET teams to prioritize methamphetamine 

trafficking organizations during their deployments. 

In an effort to provide further information to America’s youth about the dangers 

of methamphetamine, on August 30, 2005, the DEA launched a new website entitled 

‘‘justthinktwice.com.’’ This website is devoted to and designed by teenagers to give 

them the hard facts about methamphetamine and other illicit drugs. Through this 

website, the DEA is telling teens to ‘‘think twice’’ about what they hear from 

friends, popular culture, and adults who advocate drug legalization. Information is 

also provided regarding the harm drugs cause to their health, their families, the environment, and to innocent bystanders. 

The DEA also continues its work to ensure that only legitimate businesses with 

adequate chemical controls are licensed to handle bulk pseudoephedrine and ephedrine in the United States. In the past seven years, over 2,000 chemical registrants 

have been denied, surrendered, or withdrawn their registrations or applications as 

a result of DEA investigations. Between 2001 and 2004, DEA Diversion Investigators physically inspected more than half of the 3,000 chemical registrants at their 

places of business. We investigated the adequacy of their security safeguards to prevent the diversion of chemicals to the illicit market, and audited their recordkeeping 

to ensure compliance with federal regulations. 

The DEA is also working with our global partners to target international methamphetamine traffickers and to increase chemical control efforts abroad. The DEA 

has worked hand in hand with our foreign law enforcement counterparts and have 

forged agreements to pre-screen pseudoephedrine shipments to ensure that they are 

being shipped to legitimate companies for legitimate purposes. An example of our 

efforts in this area is an operation worked with our counterparts from Hong Kong, 

Mexico and Panama, which prevented approximately 68 million pseudoephedrine 

tablets from reaching ‘‘meth cartels.’’ This pseudoephedrine could have produced 

more than two metric tons of methamphetamine. 

COMMENTS REGARDING THE ‘‘METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC ELIMINATION ACT’’

As you can see, the DEA has known and has been working on the meth crisis 

for many years. We appreciate Congress’ interest in this issue, and, without endorsing the specific legislative language of the bill, would like to offer some general observations regarding the ‘‘Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act.’’

24

Title I—Domestic Regulation of Precursor Chemicals 

This title repeals the federal ‘‘blister pack’’ exemption; reduces the federal pertransaction sales threshold for pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine products from 9 grams to 3.6 grams; and clarifies the law to include derivatives of each of these chemicals. The section also extends the Attorney General’s ex- isting authority to set import and production quotas, expands the existing penalties 

for illegal production and importation, and seeks to address a gap in our existing 

regulatory control system for imports and exports of pseudoephedrine. 

As the Committee knows, the Administration strongly supports the development 

of Federal legislation to fight methamphetamine production, trafficking, and abuse. 

Effective Federal legislation would include an individual purchase limit of 3.6 grams 

per transaction for retail sales of over-the-counter products containing 

pseudophedrine; elimination of the blister pack exemption for pseudoephedrine 

products, thus requiring all products containing this substance to be subject to Federal law regardless of packaging; and, to prevent diversion of pseudoephedrine shipments for illegal use, a requirement that importers of pseudoephedrine request and 

receive approval from the DEA if there is a change in the shipment’s original purchase. Additional controls on pseudoephedrine, however, must always be balanced 

against legitimate consumer access to affected products. A number of States have 

approached this challenge in different ways, taking into account their individual law 

enforcement and consumer access needs. As referenced above, early data indicate 

that several States which have done this through individual legislative and regulatory initiatives appear to have seen real and sustained reductions in the number 

of methamphetamine labs in their states. Denying methamphetamine cooks the 

ability to gather the ingredients they need, while balancing the need of law abiding 

citizens to be able to access these commonly used cold products, is an approach that 

works. We look forward to working with Congress. 

Title II—International Regulation of Precursor Chemicals 

This title would require additional reporting requirements for importers of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenolpropanolamine by requiring them to file additional 

information about the chain of distribution of imported chemicals. It also would 

place an additional reporting requirement on the State Department to identify the 

5 largest exporters of major methamphetamine precursor chemicals, and the 5 largest importers that also have the highest rate of meth production or diversion of 

these chemicals to the production of meth. This title would incorporate these countries into the annual international counternarcotics ‘‘certification’’ process, and 

would make many forms of foreign assistance contingent on the President’s certification that these countries are ‘‘fully cooperating’’ with the U.S. in enforcing chemical controls. (For chemical control efforts, the bill reverts to the stricter standard 

in effect before the 2002 certification cycle, after which the President designates 

only those countries that have ‘‘failed demonstrably’’ to cooperate.) Finally, the legislation would require the State Department’s Bureau for International Narcotics and 

Law Enforcement Affairs to provide assistance to Mexico to prevent the production 

of methamphetamine in that country and to encourage Mexico to stop the illegal diversion of meth precursor chemicals. 

We have serious concerns about these provisions. As you know, the Administration already reports on some of the information this language would require in the 

annual International Narcotics Control Strategy Report. Although we agree that diversion of precursor chemicals is a serious problem and that the annual counternarcotics ‘‘certification’’ process should do more to account for the actions of our foreign counterparts with respect to chemical control, we believe that there are more 

appropriate and plausible ways to achieve this overall goal. An inter-agency group 

coordinated by the Department of State, with the Department of Justice taking the 

lead in drafting, has also been addressing the problem of how to take better account 

of synthetic drugs and precursor chemicals in the certification process. We would 

like the opportunity to consult with the Committee as we address some of the same 

difficult issues you face in attempting to evaluate chemical commerce and countries’

chemical control efforts. 

In October 2004, the Administration released the National Synthetic Drugs Action 

Plan. In doing so, we proclaimed the seriousness of the challenges posed by methamphetamine—along with other synthetic drugs and diverted pharmaceuticals—and 

our resolve to confront those challenges. Part of the Action Plan specifically recognized the move of large labs outside the United States requires that we offer assistance to strengthen anti-methamphetamine activities. This, in turn, requires working 

with other countries known to suppling methamphetamine producers with illicit 

pseudoephedrine. A Synthetic Drugs Interagency Working Group (SD-IWG), cochaired by the ONDCP and the Department of Justice, was directed to oversee imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Jan 12, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\092705\23641.000 HJUD1 PsN: 23641
25

plementation of the Action Plan and to report to the ONDCP Director, Attorney 

General, and Secretary for Health and Human Services six months after the document’s release. In the Interim Report, dated May 2, 2005, the SD-IWG responded 

to this portion of the Action Plan:

• China (particularly Hong Kong) has been a significant source of 

pseudoephedrine tablets that have been diverted to methamphetamine labs in 

Mexico. The United States and Mexico have obtained a commitment by Hong 

Kong not to ship chemicals to the United States, Mexico, or Panama until receiving an import permit or equivalent documentation and to pre-notify the 

receiving country before shipment.

• The United States has made significant progress in assisting Mexican authorities to improve their ability to respond to methamphetamine laboratories. The DEA has played a role by providing diversion and clandestine lab 

cleanup training courses for Mexican officials (both Federal and State).

• In conjunction with our joint efforts, Mexico this year began to impose stricter 

import quotas for pseudoephedrine, tied to estimates of national needs and 

based on extrapolations from a large population sample. Additionally, distributors have agreed to limit sales of pseudoephedrine to pharmacies, which 

in turn will sell no more than approximately nine grams per transaction to 

customers.

These developments stand as a model for the next steps to be taken with the limited number of manufacturers who produce bulk ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. 

Our efforts are, and will continue to be, focused on the primary producing and exporting countries for bulk ephedrine and pseudoephedrine: China, the Czech Republic, Germany, and India. Some of these efforts are not new, but involve a long-term 

commitment, using the tools at the Administration’s disposal, to engage with foreign 

law enforcement and regulatory counterparts in these countries and to replicate the 

steps taken with Hong Kong and Panama. These steps include improving the sharing of information on pseudoephedrine shipments with other countries, thus preventing their diversion—especially to Mexico. 

Under existing Federal law, the DEA must be notified if an ephedrine or 

pseudoephedrine product is destined for, or will transit through, the United States. 

But the legal and regulatory tools to limit imports and after-import distribution are 

relatively crude. Moreover, the prevailing interpretation of the 1988 United Nation’s Convention that controls chemicals allows most finished pharmaceutical products 

containing pseudoephedrine in combination with other ingredients to be shipped in 

international commerce without pre-notification—a wide-open loophole that continues to be exploited by drug traffickers. The U.S., along with our Mexican and Canadian counterparts, has been working to gain international support for voluntary 

international cooperation to pre-notify shipments of these products; our efforts are 

being channeled through the drug control commission of the OAS (‘‘CICAD’’). 

Title IV—Enhanced Environmental Regulation of Methamphetamine By-Products 

This title would give additional authority to the Transportation Department and 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce environmental regulations 

against meth cooks who cause toxic pollution with meth by-products. In addition, 

this title would clarify existing law in light of the recent Eighth District Court of 

Appeals decision in United States v. Lachowski to allow the Federal government to 

seek restitution for environmental cleanup costs on persons involved in meth production and trafficking. 

While the Administration cannot comment on the specific proposals in this title, 

the environmental costs associated with meth production have long been a concern 

of the DEA. In FY 1988, the DEA’s Hazardous Waste Disposal Program was established to assist our Special Agents in the management of the chemicals, waste and 

contaminated equipment seized at clandestine drug laboratories. Funding for this 

program was initially provided through the Asset Forfeiture Fund. In 1998, the 

DEA began receiving funding from the Community Oriented Policing (COPS) program, and DEA Appropriated Funds in FY 1999, to support the cleanup of clandestine drug laboratories seized by state and local law enforcement. Together with the 

Asset Forfeiture Fund, these funding sources continue today. 

Today, when a federal, state or local agency seizes a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory, EPA regulations require the agency to ensure that all hazardous 

waste materials are safely removed from the site. To facilitate the removal of these 

materials, the DEA awarded the first private sector contracts in 1991for hazardous 

waste cleanup and disposal. This program promotes the safety of law enforcement 

personnel and the public by using qualified companies with specialized training and 

equipment to remove hazardous waste seized at clandestine drug laboratories. 

26

These contractors provide response services to DEA, as well as state and local law 

enforcement officials nationwide. These contracts serve communities by removing 

the source-chemicals that may pose threats to the public, which also helps to protect 

the environment. 

Since the DEA first began using contractor services in the early 1990s, the number of cleanups has skyrocketed, though the average cost per cleanup has greatly 

decreased. The average cost per cleanup during the initial contract was approximately $17,000. During FY 2002, the average cleanup cost dropped to approximately 

$3,300, and currently, the average cost per cleanup is approximately $2,000. 

To further reduce the cost of lab cleanups, in FY 2004, the DEA, with assistance 

provided by COPS, joined the Kentucky State Police to establish a pilot, clandestine 

lab ‘‘container program’’ in Kentucky. The program allows trained Kentucky law enforcement officers to safely package and transport hazardous waste from the clandestine laboratory sites to a centralized secure container that meets all hazardous 

waste storage requirements. The waste is subsequently kept in the container until 

it can be removed by a DEA contractor. The container program has streamlined the 

laboratory cleanup process by enabling law enforcement officials to manage small 

quantities of seized chemicals more quickly and efficiently. As of the third quarter 

of FY 2005, the average cost of cleanup in this project was approximately $350. The 

DEA is currently working to expand this program to several other states. 

CONCLUSION

Methamphetamine continues to take a terrible toll on this country. To combat this 

poison, the DEA is attacking methamphetamine on all fronts. Our enforcement efforts are focused not only on the large-scale methamphetamine trafficking organizations distributing this drug in the U.S., but also on those involved in providing the 

precursor chemicals necessary to manufacture this poison. The DEA is well aware 

of the importance of controlling the precursor chemicals necessary to produce methamphetamine and is working with our international counterparts to forge agreements to control the flow of these chemicals 

We are also working closely with our state and local law partners to assist in the 

elimination of the small toxic labs that have spread across the country. The DEA’s 

Hazardous Waste Program, with the assistance of grants to state and local law enforcement, supports and funds the cleanup of a majority of the laboratories seized 

in the United States. The DEA has also taken an active role in the Victim Witness 

Assistance Program to assist methamphetamine’s victims educating communities 

about the dangers of meth and other illicit drugs. 

Thank you for your recognition of this important issue and the opportunity to testify today. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. We’ve been joined by the distinguished gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters. Ms. Waters, good 

to have you with us. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. Dr. Lester. 

TESTIMONY OF BARRY M. LESTER, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRY AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND PEDIATRICS, BROWN 

UNIVERSITY MEDICAL SCHOOL 

Mr. LESTER. Chairman Coble, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Scott, Members of this Subcommittee, we’re in a similar situation today with methamphetamine as we were in the mid1980’s with what became known as the cocaine epidemic. During 

that time, there was legitimate concern for the welfare of children 

born cocaine-exposed. Based on poor information, there was a rush 

to judgment that led to an overreaction by society that had negative consequences for women and children. 

Many women were prosecuted; children were removed from their 

biological mothers; and families were broken up. As a result, the 

number of children in foster care reached an all-time high in the 

mid-1990’s. Many children suffered emotional problems from multiple foster care placements. And this is what led to the 1997 pasVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Jan 12, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\092705\23641.000 HJUD1 PsN: 23641
27

sage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, requiring permanent 

placement within 12 months of a child being removed from his or 

her biological mother. 

After 20 years of research, we learned that the effects of cocaine 

were not nearly as severe as initially feared. In fact, when factors 

like other drugs and poverty are controlled, the effects are subtle. 

We’re talking about three or four IQ points, slight increases in behavior problems. In fact, these effects are not very different from 

those of cigarette smoking during pregnancy. 

We also learned that while there are most definitely drug-using 

women that are inadequate parents, there are also drug-using 

women who are competent parents, and that with treatment, families can be kept together. 

Our understanding of addiction has also changed in the past 20 

years. We know more about addiction as a disease, as a medical 

mental health issue, and a disease that can be treated. It’s a complex disease with multiple mental health co-morbidities, so that 

women who use drugs also tend to have other mental health problems. 

So the bad news is that addiction is complex and requires serious 

treatment dollars. The good news is that it is treatable, and if we 

take a treatment-oriented rather than a punitive approach, we can 

reduce the problem of drug addiction in the country. I don’t see the 

treatment approach in this legislation. 

We learned some real hard lessons as the cocaine story unfolded. 

And I’m concerned that we’re making the exact same mistakes with 

methamphetamine that we made with cocaine, as suggested by recent media coverage, by the punitive nature of this bill, and the absence of treatment dollars. 

Methamphetamine is a stimulant like cocaine. Research on the 

effects of prenatal methamphetamine exposure on child outcome 

are just beginning. The only longitudinal study that’s being done 

so far is our NIH study. And so far, what we’re finding is very similar subtle effects to the effects we saw with cocaine. Again, to give 

you a context for this: not very different than women who smoke 

cigarettes during pregnancy. 

Does this mean it’s harmless, or that it’s okay for women to use 

meth during pregnancy, or that we should not treat the women or 

the children? Of course not. Drug use of any kind should be discouraged during pregnancy, and treated. We know from previous 

research that even these smaller effects can turn to larger deficits, 

if the parenting environment is not adequate. And it is also possible that there are drug effects that don’t show up until children 

get to school. 

What we need here is a more balanced approach, and one that 

will get at the root causes of drug addiction. Sending more people 

to prison for longer periods of time is not the answer. Our knowledge base is still evolving, and will continue to do so. But we know 

enough now to fight addiction with treatment and keep families together if possible. 

So here are some specific suggestions. We need a national consensus on how to deal with issues like maternal drug use that does 

justice to state-of-the-art knowledge in research and treatment and 

28

demonstrates a fair and unbiased attitude toward women with addiction and their children. 

We need to improve access to treatment; develop and coordinate 

multidisciplinary treatment programs with interconnected services 

based on the needs of women, mothers, and children. Models of 

methamphetamine treatment are based on adult male models. 

There are no treatment models designed to meet the specific needs 

of women, pregnant women, or mothers. For example, we know 

from the cocaine experience that it doesn’t do any good to tell a 

poor mother with four kids in tow that she has six different appointments in six different locations, without providing transportation and babysitting. 

We need to develop systematic prevention efforts, both treatment 

and education. And this includes education to prevent the onset or 

continuation of drug use and treatment to prevent future problems 

due to drug use. 

And we need to develop family treatment drug courts, with the 

goal of keeping custody or reunification whenever possible. Drug 

courts are a way of providing a ‘‘treatment with teeth’’ approach 

that includes rewards for compliance with treatment and sanctions 

for non-compliance with treatment. 

In Rhode Island, we have a program called ‘‘VIP’’—it stands for 

‘‘Vulnerable Infants Program’’—which includes a family treatment 

drug court. We say ‘‘vulnerable’’ to imply that these children are 

somewhat fragile, but not damaged. And of course, they are VIPs; 

they’re very important people. 

This is a voluntary ‘‘treatment with teeth’’ program that has already been successful. We have reduced the length of stay of drugexposed babies in the hospital; increased the number of infants 

who are going home with their biological mothers, hence reducing 

the number in foster care; and increased the number of children 

being reunified with their biological mothers. We should consider 

waiving punishment for clients who agree to, and comply with, 

treatment. 

In sum, we have made tremendous gains in our understanding 

of addiction and treatment in the past 20 years. We have the opportunity to keep families together today in ways that were not 

possible only a few years ago. I am very optimistic about our ability 

to reduce addiction and save future generations of children through 

treatment. It would be not only a missed opportunity, but also a 

step backward, to put all of our eggs in the punishment basket. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lester follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. BARRY M. LESTER

Chairman Coble, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Scott, Members of 

the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3889, the Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act. 

We are in a similar situation today with methamphetamine as we were in 20 

years ago during the cocaine epidemic. During that time, there was legitimate concern for the welfare of children exposed to cocaine in the wbomb. But based on insufficient or inaccurate information, society rushed to judgment—an over-reaction 

that had negative consequences for women and children. Many drug-addicted 

women were prosecuted and children were removed from their care. Families split 

up. As a result, by the mid 1990s, the number of children in foster care reached 

an all-time high to over 500,000. Many of these children suffered emotional probVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Jan 12, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\092705\23641.000 HJUD1 PsN: 23641
29

lems from multiple foster care placements. This lead to the 1997 passage of the 

Adoption and Safe Families Act, or ASFA, requiring permanent placement of a child 

within 12 months of being removed from his or her biological mother. 

After 20 years of research, we learned that the effects of cocaine are not nearly 

as severe as initially feared. In fact, when factors like other drugs and poverty are 

controlled, the effects are subtle—IQ lowered by 3 to 4 points, a slight increase in 

behavior or attention problems. These effects are similar to those caused by cigarette smoking during pregnancy. Scientists also learned that while there are most 

definitely drug users who are inadequate mothers, there are also drug users who 

are competent mothers who, with treatment, can care for their children. 

Our understanding of addiction has also changed in two decades. We know more 

about addiction as a disease—a medical condition that can be treated. Addiction is 

a complex disease with multiple mental health co-morbidities; Women who use 

drugs also tend to be depressed and anxious and may have even more severe mental 

health problems. So the bad news: Addiction is complex. The good news: Addiction 

is treatable. We can reduce the problem of drug addiction in the country. I don’t 

see treatment addressed in this legislation. 

We learned some hard lessons since the cocaine story unfolded. I am concerned 

that we are on the verge of making the same mistakes with methamphetamine that 

we made with cocaine, as suggested by sensational media coverage, the absence of 

federal treatment dollars—and the punitive nature of this bill. 

Methamphetamine is a stimulant like cocaine and produces similar effects on 

neurotransmitters in the brain. Research on the effects of prenatal methamphetamine exposure on child outcome is just beginning. To my knowledge, my current 

research into the prenatal effects of methamphetamine is the only such project funded the national Institutes of Health. Children in our study are still infants. So we 

can’t measure all the affects of this drug. But, so far, we are seeing the same kind 

of subtle changes with methamphetamine that we saw with cocaine. Again—to put 

this in context—not very different than what you’d see with cigarette smoking. 

Does this mean methamphetamine is harmless? Is it acceptable for women to use 

the drug during pregnancy? Of course not. And we know from previous research— including research with cocaine-using mothers—that even small neurobehavioral effects can turn to larger deficits if parenting is not adequate. 

What we need is a balanced approach—one that will attack the root causes of 

drug addiction. Sending more people to prison for longer periods of time is not the 

answer. We know enough now to fight addiction with treatment and, if possible, 

keep families together. 

Here are some specific suggestions:

• Develop a national consensus on how to deal with maternal drug use that 

draws on current research and tested treatment strategies—and demonstrates a fair and unbiased attitude towards drug-addicted women and 

their children.

• Improve access to treatment and develop coordinated treatment programs 

with interconnected services based on the needs of women, mothers and children. Models of methamphetamine treatment are based on adult male models. None are designed to meet the specific needs of women, pregnant women 

or mothers. For example, we know from the cocaine experience that it does 

no good to tell a poor mother with four kids in tow that she has six different 

appointments in six different locations without providing transportation or 

baby-sitting.

• Develop systemic prevention efforts. This includes education to prevent onset 

or continuation of drug use as well as treatment to prevent future problems 

due to drug use.

• Develop Family Treatment Drug Courts with the goal of keeping custody or 

reunification whenever possible. Drug Courts are a way providing a ‘‘treatment with teeth’’ approach that includes rewards for compliance with treatment and sanctions for noncompliance with treatment. In Rhode Island, we 

have a program called VIP (Vulnerable Infants Program) which includes a 

Family Treatment Drug Court (FTDC). Vulnerable is meant to imply that 

these children are somewhat fragile but not damaged and of course they are 

Very Important People. This is a voluntary ‘‘treatment with teeth’’ program 

that has been successful. We have reduced the length of stay of drug-exposed 

babies in the hospital, increased the number of infants who are going home 

with their biological mothers (hence reducing the number in foster care) and 

increased the number of children being reunified with their biological mothers. We should consider waiving punishment for clients who agree to and 

comply with treatment.

30

In sum, we have made tremendous strides in 20 years when it comes to understanding drug addiction and treatment. We have the opportunity to keep families 

together today in ways that were not possible only a few years ago. I am very optimistic about our ability to reduce addiction and save future generations of children 

through treatment. It would be not only a missed opportunity, but a major step 

backward, to put all of our eggs in the punishment basket. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today. I would 

be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Dr. Lester. And thanks to each of you for 

your testimony. Gentlemen, we impose the 5-minute rule against 

ourselves as well, so if you all could keep your answer as terse as 

possible it would enable us to move along. 

Mark—We’ve got two ‘‘Marks.’’ Mr. Souder, you touched on this 

very briefly, but I want to revisit it. The Talent-Feinstein proposal 

listed pseudoephedrine as a Schedule V drug under the Controlled 

Substances Act, and restricts monthly sales to individuals. Why did 

you not include it in your bill? 

Mr. SOUDER. We tried to deal with the question of blister packs 

and quantity purchase. We’re silent on that. That way, it could be 

merged with this. But let me say what my personal opinion is; 

which does not necessarily represent the group of sponsors on the 

bill, because it’s silent on this subject. 

Meth, unlike crack and other things, has not covered the whole 

country. Even in my district, it’s in the rural areas and some of the 

small towns, but not in the city of Fort Wayne, of 200,000, or in 

Elkhart, of 45,000. It’s nowhere near the East Coast. It may get 

there as it moves east, and it may go into the cities. 

But it means that shutting down pseudoephedrine products, cold 

medicines, for everybody in the United States doesn’t make much 

sense, in my opinion. Certainly, in rural areas where they don’t 

have pharmacies in a lot of the grocery stores, in effect, you’ll pull 

all the profitability of the grocery stores out and you’ll shut them 

down. In these little markets in New York City and in Los Angeles, 

in big cities, you take all the cold medicines out. That’s part of the 

profit of these stores, and you’re depriving consumers when they 

don’t have a meth problem. 

Now, I believe that you should get at it at the wholesale level. 

Where you see it go up, we should try to address that. But I believe 

we’re taking a big stick to whack a problem that is isolated—growing; it’s a threat; but if we need to do that, if it becomes national, 

then we do it. I don’t favor it at this point, and I think we need 

to look for something that’s a more complex, diversified approach, 

than a simplistic answer. 

Mr. COBLE. All right, thank you, Mark. 

Dr. Lester, let me put a three-part question to you. How successful are drug treatment programs for meth abuse, A? What types of 

drug treatment programs work and what types do not work, B? 

And finally, C, how addictive is meth, as compared to other drugs? 

Mr. LESTER. There are methamphetamine programs that are successful. Probably, the best well-known one is called the ‘‘Matrix’’

program, which was developed out in California. I think the problem with all of the methamphetamine programs, including Matrix, 

is that they were pretty much developed on adult male models. So 

again, they don’t deal with special populations like women and 

mothers, and certainly pregnant women. 

31

So I think the ideal situation would be to take some of the models that have been developed for cocaine and methamphetamine 

and reorganize them for special populations. And I think we also 

need to get them combined with family treatment drug courts; 

what would be, you know, a whole package to go. 

What types of programs work? The kinds of programs that work 

are programs that are comprehensive, that are family based—in 

other words, that treat the whole family. You know, for example, 

if you treat the mother and put her back in the home where her 

husband or her boyfriend is using, that’s not going to do any good. 

They have to be comprehensive, and treat the mental health comorbidities that go along with substance abuse. So comprehensive 

programs are critical. And the programs that do not work are the 

kind of one-shot, you know, just going after one aspect of the problem, and ignoring everything else. 

Mr. COBLE. How about the addictive? Is it more addictive than 

other drugs, or how does it compare with other drugs? 

Mr. LESTER. It’s more psychologically addictive than a lot of 

other drugs. It’s not necessarily physiologically addictive. I mean, 

it’s psychologically addictive like cocaine, maybe even a bit more, 

depending on the nature of the user. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

I think I have time for one more question. Mr. Rannazzisi, what 

tools would assist the DEA in increasing enforcement actions 

against the larger meth traffickers and the Mexican superlabs? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, there’s a variety. Again, we’re treating 

these cases just like we treat normal drug cases. We’re going after 

the larger organizations. That being said, since there’s two components here, we’re looking at both the small labs, trying to deal with 

that, and also the large Mexican organizations. 

We have the CPOT program, and we’re targeting these large, 

major organizations, these principals that are running these drug 

organizations, through that program. However, you know, again, 

we have to go back to what we need legislatively. 

I think that the Administration, through Secretary Leavitt, AG 

Gonzales, and Mr. Walters from ONDCP, laid out what we need 

legislatively to help us along with this case: the 3.6-gram limit on 

purchases; the elimination of the blister pack exemption that, you 

know, has been dogging us for years now; and also, removal of the 

chemical spot market loophole. 

The chemical spot market loophole is, basically, killing us. What 

happens is, in the spot market, if an importer brings drugs—an importer sets up to import a certain amount of pseudoephedrine, say, 

for two or three companies. He gets permission from DEA. Over a 

15-day period, we give him permission for those particular downstream customers. 

Now, when the drugs come in, or the pseudoephedrine comes in, 

at that point in time, if he loses one of those customers, he could 

sell it to anybody, and DEA is not aware of it. That’s the spot market loophole. It could go to any distributor, anywhere in the U.S. 

So what we’re asking for is to close up that loophole. That’s the 

tools we need. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. My time has expired. 

The distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt. 

32

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to compliment the DEA for the good work that they do. I also want to 

compliment my colleagues, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Souder. I know 

that their commitment is outstanding in terms of dealing with this 

particular issue. 

Let me tell you what my problems are. I don’t see anything about 

treatment in here. Okay? Secondly, we’ve been down the road before of mandatory sentences. I think it was you, Mr. Kennedy, that 

alluded to sending messages. We’ve been sending messages. 

I think it should be by now conclusive evidence that just simply 

enhancing penalties is in no way going to reduce the trafficking in 

a particular controlled substance. You know, in 1988, there was 

legislation. I think that was the year that created the 5- and 10-

year minimum mandatories. In 1996, I believe it was—the threshold amount was reduced. We’re going back to do the same thing 

again. 

You know, I’m convinced that if we’re going to do something significant and substantial, we have to look at the treatment paradigms, and make some choices in terms of our funding. There’s no 

reference in the legislation about treatment. I mean, the demand—

you’ve got to attack this on the demand side. 

Deterrence, I’m not saying that we don’t have to have penalties. 

Clearly, we have to have significant sanctions. But we’ve been 

down that route. And now we have an epidemic. We didn’t have the 

epidemic in 1988 and 1996. Now it’s an epidemic, as described in 

the title of this bill. 

There is a program, I understand, out in Orange County that requires a minimum of an 18-month treatment program, and whoever graduates from it must be drug free for a period of 180 days, 

must be employed, must have his or her act together. 

What about Professor Lester’s observation about there are some 

successful programs dealing with adult males now, and expanding 

that to all different subsets of the addict population? Congressman 

Souder. 

Mr. SOUDER. May I respond? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Please. 

Mr. SOUDER. Several things. First off, this is—we’re doing a series of meth bills and a series of amendments. These are different 

appropriations. This is the Judiciary Committee. It has to be targeted to judiciary things. To go on Frank Wolf’s Appropriations 

Subcommittee, which is where this may be attached, it had to be 

relevant to that appropriations bill; therefore, it doesn’t address 

that. 

I believe this does not add mandatory minimums. In fact, we 

changed it to make sure we held bipartisan support. We did lower 

the thresholds because meth—unlike crack and unlike heroin, 

these people are producing and selling simultaneously. It’s a different type of a drug than anything else we’re dealing with. 

Now, in the treatment question, first off, I don’t disagree that we 

need to do more. And we need to be looking at the Labor-HHS bill 

to address that. We need to be targeting things inside that on 

meth. Charlie Curie, the head of SAMHSA, was in my district. 

We’ve met with different treatment providers. 

33

I strongly disagree with the statements—some of them—earlier; 

I agree with some of the conclusions. There is no adult male meth 

treatment. He’s talking about cocaine and heroin. I don’t think he’s 

got that much experience with meth. 

The Matrix model isn’t working in meth. They’re trying to get it 

to work, but you have the mom, the dad, their whole group. There’s 

not like an enabler, a support group, to put them back. 

We need to be targeting funds in HHS, and drug treatment 

funds. We need to increase drug courts. We’ve heard that drug 

courts work because if you have a law and enforcement, then 

they’ll go to treatment. And we need to make sure there are treatment dollars there. 

This is a law enforcement bill. We need to look at how to take 

this Matrix model where—you know one other problem? In these 

rural areas, they can’t do the Matrix model because they don’t have 

enough dollars to pay a staff-level person who’s experienced enough 

even to test the Matrix model in these mom-and-pop labs. 

I don’t disagree with you at all on treatment. I support more dollars for treatment. I support legislation for that. I’ve co-sponsored 

legislation for that. That’s not what this is. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Just reclaiming my time for 1 minute, you know, 

what concerns me is that a bill would come from this Committee 

with these mandatory minimums, and nothing will happen on the 

treatment side. What I would suggest to you, in terms of expanding 

your base of support, that there be an omnibus bill to be presented 

to the Committee, including and implicating treatment. 

Whether the Matrix program works or not, I don’t know. But I 

do know this. Okay? By cutting the threshold amounts, it’s the 

same thing as expanding the minimum mandatory sanction. And 

it hasn’t worked. It just won’t work. 

You know, mandatory treatment—mandatory treatment—should 

be a concept that I would suggest should be introduced into this 

kind of legislation; rather than just simply a mandatory minimum 

prison sentence. Mandatory treatment is something that I dare say 

would receive widespread support. 

Yes, you do need those triggers, and you need those sanctions. 

Oftentimes, people will not come voluntarily to these potential 

treatment programs unless there is some sort of coercion. But 

that’s the direction we ought to be going in. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. 

The distinguished gentleman from Florida, Mr. Feeney. 

Mr. FEENEY. I thank the Chairman. And I want to congratulate 

my colleagues, Congressman Souder and Congressman Kennedy, 

for tackling a major national problem that seems to be expanding 

very rapidly. 

One question I have for any of the panel is related to the demographics. On page 3 of our memorandum, the Members here have 

an indication that, of the Federal offenders, something like 60 percent of the offenders are white, 33 percent are Hispanic, and only 

2 percent are African American. Do you have any explanations or 

theories as to the disproportionately high level of Caucasians and 

disproportionately low level of African Americans that have been 

convicted of Federal offenses? 

34

Mr. SOUDER. If I can take a quick stab at that, based on our regional field hearings, I’ve asked the same question in multiple locations across the country. It appears that it is in the rural areas 

where you see the mom-and-pop labs, which are the easiest ones 

to arrest because they tend to blow up their families, tend to pollute the rivers. So they come into law enforcement quicker than 

those who are from the superlabs and the crystal meth—they tend 

to be disproportionately white. The rural areas are disproportionately white. They start off in a motorcycle gang, spread into the 

community, and are heavily white. 

When you see the superlab organizations come in, even in the 

rural areas, they’re predominantly Hispanic; but they’re still selling 

meth. It’s predominantly a rural, and increasingly a suburban, phenomenon. 

Omaha and Minneapolis/Saint Paul are the two big cities that 

have been hit. I asked the U.S. Attorney and the State Director in 

Minneapolis, when we were up there in Saint Paul at Congressman 

Kennedy’s request, why we didn’t see meth in the African American community. And he said because the traditional distribution 

methods are with cocaine in the major cities, and/or heroin; not 

meth. 

But in one neighborhood in Minneapolis, one of the distribution 

groups moved over to meth. And in that area, in 3 months, 20 percent of the people arrested in that community—the whole community—were meth, because that one neighborhood switched over, because the local gang realized they could cut out the Colombians 

and just work with the Mexican superlabs with meth. 

That’s why I believe this is a potential epidemic that’s going to 

destroy Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, and other cities, if 

it gets into the larger urban communities. 

Even in my home town of Fort Wayne, which is 230,000, we have 

had one lab, and around it—we are fifth-largest in the nation, but 

it hasn’t come into the city because the distribution network is cocaine and heroin. 

Mr. FEENEY. Doctor? And by the way, could you address—I asked 

the question based on ethnic demographics, but I’d also be interested based on economic demographics. Are we largely talking 

about, you know, poor people? Or is this an exotic, you know, drug 

in the Wall Street and Hollywood——

Mr. LESTER. Sure you want to know? I can only speak from our 

ongoing NIH study. In that study, the places where we’re doing 

this research are Oklahoma, Iowa, southern California, and Hawaii. And the demographics that we’re seeing are pretty much 

what you described: very, very few black; mostly Caucasian and 

Hispanic. 

We’re looking into that because we don’t, you know, quite understand it. What we’ve been hearing is that a lot of it is cultural; that 

for some reason, you know, cocaine seems to be—you know, cocaine 

seems to be confined to, you know, black, inner-city, poverty populations; and meth seems to just be more popular with—not so much 

strictly poverty, but a lot of blue-collar workers, a lot of, you know, 

farm people, factory workers. And not necessarily poor; it’s working 

people. 

35

Mr. FEENEY. Okay, Doctor. But what do you think of Mr. 

Souder’s theory? He’s got a very good control group of African 

Americans. His theory is that it’s—based on the evidence that he’s 

heard—is that the use disparity is because of the distribution networks; and once you infiltrate the distribution network of the traditional cocaine users, that the African American community—this 

problem will mushroom as well. 

Mr. LESTER. We haven’t seen that. What we’ve heard is that, for 

whatever cultural reasons, the inner-city African Americans don’t 

like it. They just—they prefer cocaine. 

Mr. FEENEY. Well, let’s hope that’s true. Finally, either for my 

good friend—— Mr. LESTER. Why would you hope that’s true? 

Mr. FEENEY.—Mr. Kennedy or Mr. Souder, on the 10th amendment issue, I have concerns about federalizing every crime. This 

doesn’t actually add any new crimes; although it does lower some 

of the thresholds. Is that right? 

Mr. KENNEDY. It does lower the thresholds. Where we give the 

ability to add an additional penalty is when they’re using these expedited entry programs coming in from Mexico; which is distinctly 

a Federal issue. 

Mr. FEENEY. The import-export I have no problem with. 

Mr. KENNEDY. So we want to make sure that we’re keeping commerce going back and forth between Mexico and America, Canada 

and America. So when they use those sort of, you know, ‘‘You’re 

clean, we’ll let you through quicker,’’ and then bring meth in, we 

want them to have an extra penalty. And I think that is a Federal 

role. 

Mr. FEENEY. I’m out of time. It’s up to the Chairman, Dr. Lester. 

Mr. COBLE. I didn’t see the red light. The distinguished gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Lester, do I understand that you treat pregnant women that may be drug addicted 

with meth? 

Mr. LESTER. Well, in Rhode Island, we don’t have much meth; so 

mostly, we treat cocaine users. We are seeing some of the meth 

users in our other studies. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, in the other studies, I assume your interest is 

to reduce the drug use, just a straight—that’s your interest. And 

in that interest, what is the medical protocol to reduce the drug 

use? Is it to turn the pregnant woman over to the police, or to start 

a prevention treatment protocol? 

Mr. LESTER. This is not a treatment study, so what we’re doing 

is looking at the effects of prenatal methamphetamine exposure on 

the development of the children. So we’re not providing treatment. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, what would be the protocol to deal with the 

problem? 

Mr. LESTER. Well, the protocol that we would use would be the 

one that we’re using in Rhode Island for the cocaine using mothers, 

which is our VIP program, where we identify the patients in the 

hospital, present the voluntary treatment part to them and lay out 

a treatment plan, and then develop a treatment plan and get them 

to sign up for it. And if they do, then they get to either keep their 

baby or, if the baby has already been removed, they get reunified. 

36

Mr. SCOTT. But the focus with the goal of reducing drug use 

would be treatment, not incarceration? 

Mr. LESTER. Oh, absolutely. No, I mean, the whole idea would be 

that if you can reduce the addiction, then you’re going to reduce 

the need for drugs, right? And also, you know, since we work with 

children, our firm belief is that you would then prevent children 

from growing up in drug environments, and perhaps reduce the 

prevalence of drug users in the next generation. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Mr. Rannazzisi, for 5 grams of crack cocaine you get 5 years mandatory minimum. To get the 5 years 

mandatory minimum, you’ve got to get up to 500 grams of powder. 

Is that right? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, I believe that’s correct; five and five, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is there any evidence that people use powder rather 

than crack cocaine because of the disparity in sentencing where 

you can get probation versus 5 years mandatory minimum? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I don’t necessarily if our users use the statutory 

minimums as a deterrent. I think it’s their personal choice, whatever drug they want to use. 

Mr. SCOTT. Right. And the fact that you can get probation for one 

or 5 years mandatory minimum doesn’t really enter into the calculation. They’re both illegal. So you did not reduce the incidence 

of crack use by having a draconian 5-year mandatory minimum 

sentence; did you? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Putting it that way, I guess not. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Let me ask you another question. You were 

talking about 3 grams of meth to trigger the Federal mandatory 

minimums in this bill? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I just briefly read the bill, and I believe that 

was 3 grams, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Three-point-five. 

Mr. SOUDER. It’s intent to distribute; not for usage. Possession 

doesn’t do it; it’s intent to distribute. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if you’ve got it and you’ve got friends, you pretty much can—have you got a problem, if you’ve got somebody with 

a requisite amount, busting them for distribution, if they’ve got 

friends and they kind of use it together? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I believe that would be up to the U.S. attorney 

to make that decision. 

Mr. SCOTT. How much is a weekend’s worth of meth? How much 

does that cost, and how many grams is it? If somebody just wanted 

to get high over the weekend, how much would they be buying? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, that would be up to the user. You know, 

usually, they buy in grams or half-grams. It’s usually three to five 

hits per gram. And it just depends. Remember, methamphetamine 

keeps you high, or keeps you up, a lot longer than cocaine does; so, 

you know, depending on the user, how long he’s used it, he could 

be up for—you know, two or three hits could keep him up all day, 

maybe into the next day. It just depends on the user and the tolerance of the user for the drug. 

Mr. SCOTT. For a user, 3 grams, how long would that last? I 

mean, would it be a month’s worth? 

37

Mr. RANNAZZISI. No, it wouldn’t be a month’s worth. Probably— probably, two, three, maybe 4 days, if he’s a regular user, and if 

he’s not sharing. 

Mr. SCOTT. Wait a minute. Three grams would be a couple of 

days worth? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Three, maybe 4 days, yes. It depends on how 

many hits he’s taking. It depends on the amount he’s using for one 

hit. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, we’re just kind of getting a ball park figure to 

know what the trigger is for the mandatory minimums. My time 

is up. We’re going to have another round, I believe. So, thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. The distinguished gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to 

thank our panelists for being here today, and my colleague, Mr. 

Souder, for his interest in this area. 

I don’t know if you know, Congressmen, about all that we’ve been 

through with crack cocaine and mandatory minimum sentencing. 

In addition to the mandatory minimum sentencing, the conspiracy 

laws that work hand-in-hand have jailed an awful lot of folks in 

the black community, a lot of women who happen to be the mates 

or girlfriends of guys who get caught up in possession and sale of 

crack cocaine. 

What’s troublesome about crack cocaine is young people, 19 years 

old, who have never committed a crime before, who come from good 

families, who—you know, at the wrong place, the wrong time, the 

wrong crowd—with 5 grams of crack cocaine, end up in prison 

under mandatory minimum sentencing laws. And of course, the 

number of years increases with the amount in possession. And 

these young people, once they do 5 years in Federal penitentiary, 

probably will never work again. It’s hard to get their lives together. 

Mandatory minimum sentencing has been devastating on the African American community. 

I hear questions being asked about, ‘‘Why don’t they use meth?’’ It’s kind of a strange question, and I’m trying to figure out what 

that means. But the fact of the matter is, we have gone through 

heroin, PCP, crack, now meth. And meth is being talked about as 

the most devastating drug in the Midwest, with the whites, I suppose, falling prey to this devastation. 

The fact of the matter is, whether it is crack or meth, you know, 

we have a drug problem in America, and it’s not going to be solved 

with mandatory minimum sentencing. As a matter of fact, we exacerbate poverty and family separation and devastation to communities with these kinds of penalties. 

What we don’t want to talk about is the cost of dealing with drug 

addiction and the fact that we need treatment programs and we 

need a bevy of people who are trained, social workers who are 

trained, to be assigned to families, to keep up with them while they 

complete their treatments and see them into mainstream. 

But that’s just too much for us to talk about. And even though 

you say that treatment is dealt with in other places where it’s more 

appropriate and they have the jurisdiction, and you come here to 

talk about trying to do something on the criminal justice side, I 

submit to you that those of us who have been working with the 

38

Sentencing Commission and who have been working—I hold a 

workshop every year with the Congressional Black Caucus. And I 

have brought in hundreds of folks who have been the victims of 

mandatory minimum sentencing. 

Judges don’t like it. They hate it. I’ve written to every Federal 

judge who has responded, you know, ‘‘It’s a problem that Congress 

created for us, and you need to do something about it.’’ So I can’t in any way be helpful or supportive of anything that 

increases mandatory minimum sentencing. I’m very, very supportive of getting tough on superlabs, getting tough on incorrigible 

individuals who are intent on production—and I think there are 

some ways to do that—clearly identified as criminals. 

But most of these young people, you’re going to find, whether it’s 

in Idaho or any of these other places, that end up in these parties 

or barns that go on all night with the use of meth, are not really 

criminals. And they need help, and they need treatment programs. 

And if these young people end up in prison, with mandatory minimum sentencing—and you’re reducing it from five to three—you’re 

just creating another problem in our society for people who cannot 

get a job, cannot get student loans, cannot get section 8 programs. 

And they come back and they rob and they steal and they survive. 

So I would ask you to look at this again, and rethink whether 

or not you want to deal with the mandatory minimum sentencing 

in this way. I think there’s some room to deal with the precursors. 

I think there’s some room to deal with the border. I mean, you 

know, come in here and talk to me about Vicente Fox, and what 

we’re going to do with him and trade if they don’t do something 

about transporting these drugs across the border from these 

superlabs in Mexico. 

But to just, you know, talk about, you know, young people who 

use this meth and get high, going to penitentiary, does not do anything to make me believe that it’s going to be helpful. I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. GOHMERT. [Presiding.] Thank the gentlelady from California. 

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, may I briefly comment on what the 

bill says? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Do you have any objections? 

[No response.] 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right, without objection, you may take 2 minutes. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. I appreciate the gentlelady’s concern. 

This deals with distribution. I know Congressman Rangel, when he 

first did the crack cocaine mandatories, was trying to get ahead of 

the curve with it in New York City and elsewhere. 

And you can argue about the power of crack, and whether that 

worked, but meth is different. The users are the cookers. We’re 

talking here about home labs—home-type labs, not the crystal 

meth. And it’s not kids. For the most part, this problem isn’t kids. 

It’s adults. And it is rural-wise, moving toward the suburban and 

urban areas. 

Ms. WATERS. Where is your empirical data on all of this? 

Mr. SOUDER. Oh, it’s documented through drug court data, 

through DEA data. If you go in the only cities where they’ve had 

meth for 10 years, like Honolulu, it has moved into the cities. And 

39

then it starts to look like any type of drug. But they’re having—

but what’s different about a mom-and-pop lab is they’re having to 

spend $300 to $400 in some apartment complexes to fumigate it, 

once it hits the city, because it endangers—the toxic chemicals endanger the next family coming in. 

This is different than other types of drugs, and we have to understand it’s going to take a different solution. I don’t believe the solution here, personally, is more mandatory minimums for usage. I believe you do have to get into hardline positions on distribution and 

get control of this. 

Ms. WATERS. But distribution is possession. So how much are 

you talking about in possession in order to trigger these reduced 

mandatory minimums? 

Mr. SOUDER. It’s also different than other drugs, because you do 

not get off easy, in the sense of you start with a light part—it’s not 

something like marijuana, where you find casual users; or even 

crack or cocaine, where you find casual users; or heroin users, who 

can still function. Meth users tend to go straight down on a line, 

unless they go cold-turkey off it. It’s different than other drugs. 

Ms. WATERS. No, I want to tell you, we heard this about crack. 

It’s supposed to be one hit, and you can never stop. So, you know, 

as each of these drugs are introduced into our public policy making, 

they’re always described as one being more terrible than the other. 

They’re all terrible. 

Mr. SOUDER. Oh, I agree——

Ms. WATERS. They’re all terrible. 

Mr. GOHMERT. We’ve lost the organizational flow here. Did you 

yield? If you want to yield to the gentlelady from California, then 

that’s how it would have to be, because it was your 2 minutes. But 

did you finish? 

Mr. SOUDER. Yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay, next—all right, then the chair yields 5 minutes to Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Mr. Rannazzisi, in manufacturing and 

distributing meth, how much of the price that the buyer pays is actual production cost, as opposed to distribution cost? Is it fair to 

say the cost of the product is de minimis in the overall transaction? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I don’t know, you’re looking at $100—well, between $80 and $100 a gram, we’ll say. Okay? Usually, the small 

labs are not making—you know, they’re making an ounce. They’re 

usually about a half-ounce, but they could make up to an ounce or 

two. It doesn’t cost a lot to make the drug. Actually, it’s very cheap 

to make the drug, extremely cheap to make the drug. 

Mr. SCOTT. In the superlab, out of the $100, $80 to $100 you pay 

for the ounce, how much did they pay for product? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. You mean—I’m sorry, the gram. Eighty to $100 

a gram. 

Mr. SCOTT. Gram? Okay. Whatever—Okay, $80 to $100 a gram. 

How much of that went to the actual product cost? 

Ms. WATERS. Five dollars. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is it safe to say it’s de minimis? I mean, it’s meaningless. 

40

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I wouldn’t know. I wouldn’t know to answer that 

question. It depends on how much they’re paying for their materials, their raw materials. 

Mr. SCOTT. Right. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Exactly. 

Mr. SCOTT. And the raw materials, in the overall cost of what 

you make, the overall cost of the materials would be essentially de 

minimis. I mean, the real stuff is the distribution, the risk of getting arrested, and all that. That’s what you’re paying for: distribution, not manufacturing. Is that right? 

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Scott, I agree with this: on the superlabs, it’s 

almost all distribution. On the mom-and-pop, the price varies so 

much by area, and whether they’re selling to their friends. Sometimes they’re just selling it to purchase more materials to make it. 

Mr. SCOTT. And with the mom-and-pop, they don’t have the—

what do you have?—the savings in volume, because they’ve got to 

buy the equipment. And if they just make a couple of ounces, all 

of their equipment and setup is spread over just a few ounces. 

Whereas, the superlab, that same cost would be spread over 

pounds. 

Mr. SOUDER. The other minimal thing that we’ve heard—we 

haven’t had a lot of meth addicts who’ve testified, but in talking 

to some of them and having their testimony, they don’t appear to 

be able to hold a job shortly after becoming addicted. It’s a fairly 

downward cycle relatively rapidly. So they try to replace income for 

their car, sometimes their house payments, with the sale. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, we’re aimed at true kingpins. And is it true 

that the low-level guy caught up in the conspiracy will get charged 

with the whole operation? So if you had a corner guy, just passing 

it, and it’s a million-dollar operation, he will be charged with the 

whole million dollars; is that right? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Again, that’s up to the United States attorney 

that reviews the case. 

Mr. SCOTT. Can he do it? He can do it; is that right? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. The U.S. attorney would make that decision. If 

he feels he has enough evidence to do that prosecution——

Mr. SCOTT. If he’s got a multi-million-dollar operation, everybody 

in the operation is on the hook to the multi-million-dollar threshold; is that right? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Again, if the evidence proves that a person is involved in the conspiracy and can be culpable for that amount, the 

U.S. attorney makes that decision. 

Mr. SCOTT. Culpable in the distribution, in the operation—your 

little, low-level operator in a multi-million-dollar operation. The 

fact is that when they say, ‘‘How much were you involved with?’’

in terms for threshold purposes, it’s the whole ball of wax, all of 

it. Everybody gets charged with all of it; isn’t that right? Excuse 

me, may be charged, at the discretion of the U.S. attorney. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. At the discretion of the U.S. attorney. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. So we know it’s possible. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, it is possible. 

Mr. SCOTT. In terms of the import quotas for the chemicals, who 

gets to set what the quota will be? How much actually gets in? 

41

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, since this is new, I can only speak for 

what we do as far as controlled substances. As far as controlled 

substances go, raw materials, we look at the national consumption. 

Mr. SCOTT. Wait, wait a minute. Who is ‘‘we’’? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. The Drug Enforcement Administration. 

Mr. SCOTT. DEA? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Not FDA? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. The Drug Enforcement Administration. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. There are legitimate uses for these chemicals; 

is that right? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Absolutely. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, I mean, suppose the drug manufacturers, the 

cold remedy people, want more. Who gets to decide whether or not 

they can import the stuff? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, are we talking an aggregate quota? They 

would have to provide justification for importing more. They’d have 

to provide justification. As we’re setting up a quota system, justification has to—they have to provide justification for us to determine what the quota amount will be. They just don’t give us a figure and we say, ‘‘Okay.’’ There’s got to be some justification. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if I could, Mr. Chairman, is this quota——

Mr. GOHMERT. The Chair will yield an additional minute. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Is this quota per transaction? I mean, 

you just kind of make it up as you go along? Or is there a national 

quota, that so much can come in? Or you kind of regulate it piece 

by piece? How would that work? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I can only speak for controlled substances, but 

when we have raw material quotas on controlled substances, it 

changes year to year, depending on the legitimate need of the——

Mr. SCOTT. Is this an aggregate quota for the country? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. For the country, absolutely, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. And then who gets it? I mean, does Merck get 

it, and Eli Lily can’t get it? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. For controlled substances we take each individual company, each individual company that requests a need for 

a particular raw material. And when we look at all the companies 

together, that’s how we determine the aggregate amount. 

Mr. SCOTT. And does Merck get what you allocated to them? Suppose they say, ‘‘Wait a minute, we can sell more than that’’? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, every year a quota is made, so every year 

they have an opportunity to re-request additional quota amounts. 

And I believe in the system we’ve built in where, if a company does 

need additional amounts, we’re able to grant that, in some cases. 

Mr. SCOTT. And if they have a complaint, like they feel they 

weren’t treated fairly, what remedy do they have? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. They would again apply to DEA, and it would 

go through our process of reconsideration. 

Mr. SCOTT. And if DEA is obnoxious, what remedy do they have? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I believe——

Mr. SCOTT. I mean, suppose——

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I believe DEA is fairly——

42

Mr. SCOTT. No, suppose you’ve got two competing drug companies and you’ve allocated more to one than the other. I mean, can 

you go to court? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. It goes through the regulatory process. And 

there’s a notice and comment period, and they can request a hearing. 

Mr. SCOTT. And so when the DEA says, ‘‘Merck, no, you can’t get 

any more cold medicine,’’ that’s it? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, again, it goes through—— Mr. SCOTT. No remedy. Is there a remedy? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, I believe there is a remedy. I believe that’s 

through the regulatory process, administrative process. 

Mr. SCOTT. What about a lawsuit? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I’m sure that—everybody, I think, has that opportunity to file a lawsuit, sir. 

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

I did want to ask questions. I got in this afternoon. My district 

has been hit by Hurricane Rita, and we were already holding quite 

a few folks from Hurricane Katrina. But I did want to ask, I mean, 

Texas has been restricting the numbers of pseudoephedrine that an 

individual could get for some time now. And I wondered if there 

was any empirical data that had been gathered from States that 

had been restricting the purchases of pseudoephedrine for a while. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, the only full-year data set we have is from 

Oklahoma. And that was described in the interim report for the 

National Synthetic Drugs Action Plan Strategy. Oklahoma had approximately a 52 percent reduction, based upon their restrictions, 

which was a straight Schedule V restriction. 

It was kind of like a hybrid Schedule V, because in Oklahoma 

you actually—there were three products—liquids, gel caps, and liquid gel caps—that aren’t affected by that law, so they could be sold 

in the retail markets. Other than that, in Oklahoma Schedule V, 

they’re sold in pharmacies only. 

Now, there’s other States, such as Oregon who went through the 

pharmacy board to create a regulation to make it similar to Schedule V. But if I’m not mistaken, the combination products—the single-entity products were Schedule V; the combination products 

were not—were kept in pharmacies only. The combination products 

were sold outside of the pharmacies. And I believe that was 

changed later on. 

In Iowa, it’s all Schedule V. Even if you have a trace amount of 

pseudoephedrine in the product, it’s a Schedule V product. 

So as you see, all the States are operating differently. Now, Oregon has shown a 42 percent reduction in the first 4 months of enactment, and that was in the interim——

Mr. GOHMERT. When you say 52 percent in Oklahoma and 42 

percent in Oregon, reduction, in such a short turnaround, what is 

it? Fifty-two percent reduction in what? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. In lab seizures, clan lab seizures, a 52-percent 

reduction in clandestine lab seizures. 

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SOUDER. When we first held a hearing, I had the Oklahoma 

program come forth when it was brand new. I was enthusiastic 

43

about this program. The fact is, Kansas doesn’t have such a program. They have Meth Watch, and they also dropped. Indiana just 

did one that put it behind the counter, but not Schedule V, and 

guess what? Meth labs have dropped before the law was implemented. 

The fact is that if you tackle this issue, and if you have a combined effort in the community—through law enforcement, through 

drug treatment, through prevention programs, through TV and 

newspaper awareness—it’s a drug that’s so bad that you can turn 

it around. 

But over-reaction, which I believe is happening in some—Mr. 

Scott put it into the record. The Oregonian is reporting that they’ve 

had a rise now in meth in Oklahoma; only it’s first coming in with 

the superlab stuff. 

But the second thing is, we all know the biggest problem in drug 

trafficking is Internet. At least when it’s going into a local pharmacy, you can kind of see where it’s coming up. You can have the 

law enforcement come in, check it, figure out why a pharmacy is 

doing it. If these people start ordering on the Internet—and most 

of them will say they got the recipe on the Internet—if they start 

ordering from Mexico and Canada, we’ll never find them. We won’t 

have any control. 

So what looks like a quick, short-term, 12- to 24-month solution, 

I would argue, is causing greater problems down the road. And I 

came through as an enthusiast for this initially. Maybe that’s 

where we’ll have to go if the epidemic gets too bad. But it’s too 

quick of a political reaction to a complex, difficult, multi-level problem. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I’d agree with you, except I do believe it is an epidemic. As a district judge in Texas, I was constantly sentencing 

people who were cooking or selling the results of the cooks. And of 

course, when it was a hot cook, well, that was a little easier to 

spot, because of the smell, and then when it went to the cold 

cook—of course, you could also find people after the explosions 

sometimes, in the hot cook. But the cold cook made it harder to 

catch them. 

But for someone who is already on the record—because I’ve had 

to give my driver’s license and everything else, just to get the 

Sudafed so I don’t snore at night when I take the Sudafed and it 

opens up my sinuses—it’s a real hassle to somebody that’s lawabiding, plays by the rules. But I know those people that want it, 

they don’t come in and turn their driver’s license in like I did, and 

have all that stuff written down. 

So I wasn’t sure, from the law enforcement I’ve worked with and 

was a judge for so many years and dealt with it, that making honest, law-abiding people like me go in and have to be restricted in 

what we can get, and also now have to give in your driver’s license, 

that it really made that much difference to people that were determined to be criminal. 

It is an epidemic. It does need additional enforcement. Of course, 

some of the testimony I heard, if your neighbor is mowing his lawn 

at 3 a.m., he’s a suspect, even if you don’t smell the cook or whatever. [Laughter.] 

44

That came up in one trial I was trying. If your neighbor is mowing at three, you may want to let law enforcement know. 

But anyway, I just hate to rush head-long into anything, if it 

may sound like a good quick fix, when overall it may not actually 

be what fixes the problem, to a multi-faceted problem. 

Now, my time has expired, but if you’d care to address, any one 

of you? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, I just want to say that if you look at the 

States and what they’ve done, the States have tailored their legislation to their needs, what they feel their law enforcement needs. 

And it’s all over the board. 

We have some States that follow Federal legislation. We have 

some States, like Oklahoma and Iowa, that have gone to the extreme end. It’s just a balance. We have to balance law enforcement 

needs with the legitimate consumer needs. 

I didn’t say one thing, though. If I’m not mistaken, Kansas was 

one of the States mentioned that was Meth Watch. I believe they 

went to a Schedule V, as well. 

Mr. SCOTT. If I could ask one other question? 

Mr. GOHMERT. The Chair yields to the gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Could you tell me how this bill would affect convenience stores and drug stores? 

Mr. SOUDER. What roughly happens is, in Indiana, after it was 

originally proposed as a Schedule V—in a Schedule V, it’s got to 

be in a pharmacy. And in small towns, the grocery stores don’t 

have pharmacies. In fact, they’re lucky if they have a grocery store 

or a pharmacy any more, because it can’t make money. In Indiana, 

just going behind the counter, which means you have more and 

more behind the counter—you have lottery tickets, you have cigarettes, you have everything else—that they’ve restricted—the practical implementation in the last 30 days has been they’ve gone from 

120 alternative cold medicines down to 20. They can’t put them all 

behind the counter. 

Furthermore, as it starts to ripple through, when you realize it’s 

only—even in a State like Oklahoma, it’s not in the big cities. And 

in States like Indiana, it’s not in the mid-sized cities. So you’re restricting everybody in the cities from their ability to get cold medicine because you have an epidemic outside. But if you don’t, they 

merely go to the adjacent State. But if we restrict it at the States, 

they’re going to go to Canada and Mexico and the Internet. 

The problem is the reason—with the Meth Caucus tomorrow, 

we’re having a roundtable summit. And my frustration with this 

Administration is it takes every angle. It takes a law enforcement 

angle. I’m proud of this bill, and I believe it’s a compromise. But 

we’re also having ADMHA there tomorrow, we’re having NIDA 

there tomorrow, we need—the National Institute for Drug Abuse, 

the Alcohol and Mental Health and Drug Substance, ADMHA. We 

need to have them working on treatment programs. 

We need to have the Safe and Drug Free School Program looking 

at how to get the kids themselves involved in this. We need to have 

our community programs talking about a community effort. We 

need to be looking at every agency and how, when this hits, to get 

ahead of the curve. 

45

This is one we’ve seen march west to east, Hawaii to California, 

going to the Midwest, now in upstate Pennsylvania, in eastern 

North Carolina. It’s coming. It’s coming inside out. It hit Dayton 

for the first time last week. And so we need to get ahead of this 

comprehensively. 

Mr. SCOTT. My question was what effect the bill would have on 

drug stores and convenience stores. 

Mr. SOUDER. The bill has no—has minimal effect. It restricts the, 

basically, 48-count; gets rid of the blister packs; gets it into a manageable form; starts to track the wholesale spot market. 

As Mr. Rannazzisi said, you look at this, and you’re trying to get 

the places where there are bulges in the market addressed. We’re 

trying to get the big amounts of pseudoephedrine coming into the 

United States. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I mean, you’ve testified that you’re trying—is 

this thing targeted? I mean, because it sounds like the bill would 

apply where there’s no problem and it would create the administrative hassles whether there’s a problem in the area or not. Is that 

true? 

Mr. SOUDER. What started this discussion was Mr. Coble’s question to me about Schedule V with my bill. This bill is silent. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, my question—I don’t know what Mr. Coble’s 

question was—was if you’re running a convenience store or a drug 

store or a grocery store, what difference would the bill make? 

Mr. SOUDER. Minimal. That’s quantity sales. 

Mr. SCOTT. Quantity? 

Mr. SOUDER. For the individual retailer, all it does is reflect 

quantity sales at that store. He’s restricted if somebody comes in 

with a big blister pack, wants more than 48 at a time, he’s restricted. But it’s not behind the counter; it’s not at a pharmacy. 

We’re going at the wholesale national level. 

There is another bill moving that Senators Talent and Feinstein 

have done in the Senate, that Congressman Blunt has in the 

House, that could be married to this. And I was expressing my 

opinions and concerns about that bill. This bill is de minimis impact on an individual retailer, and de minimis impact on people in 

Virginia and other parts. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Chairman, I’d 

like a letter, testimony from the American Council on Regulatory 

Compliance, in reference to the legislation, and one from—and the 

other letter that I’ve cited from, signed by 92 professionals, suggesting that we need to focus on prevention. 

Mr. GOHMERT. If there is no objection. 

[No response.] 

Mr. GOHMERT. I don’t hear any down at either end. Okay. Well, 

without objection, then, those will be entered into the record. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix.] 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Anything else? 

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. 

Mr. SOUDER. May I clarify one other thing from earlier? That we 

have a safety valve in this matter of sentencing. For people who 

aren’t central to drug trafficking, it allows a sentence beneath the 

46

mandatory minimum. You can’t be charged as a kingpin if you 

aren’t the leader of the organization. That’s different than conspiracy. So kingpin is statured slightly different than conspiracy. It 

also allows the sentence to be negotiated if you turn in the higherlevel person. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. And by the way, that 3 a.m. mowing, 

it actually came out in a capital murder case, because the whole 

ring was involved, and one of them they were afraid was a snitch, 

and she was killed and stuffed in a 55-gallon drum. But anyway, 

unpleasant stuff we’re dealing with. And it is an epidemic, and we 

appreciate your attention to that. 

I do thank the witnesses for their testimony. This Committee 

thanks you—or this Subcommittee. And we appreciate all you’re 

trying to do to help with the epidemic and the problem. 

And in order to ensure a full record and adequate consideration 

of this important issue, the record will be left open for additional 

submissions for 7 days. Also, any written questions that a Member 

wants to submit should be submitted within the same 7-day period. 

This concludes the legislative hearing of H.R.3389 [sic], the ‘‘Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act.’’ I thank you for 

your cooperation. This Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:31 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(47)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join you in convening this hearing on 

the ‘‘Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act.’’ Unfortunately, I am not able to 

join you in supporting the bill in its current form. 

In the last 15 to 20 years, methamphetamine (Meth) abuse has grown to what 

some now refer to as epidemic proportions in parts of this country. We’ve been making efforts in the Congress for years to address the meth problem. The Subcommittee on Crime held 6 (six) field hearings on methamphetamine production, 

trafficking, and use in 1999, in Arkansas, California, New Mexico, and Kansas. Testimony was received from numerous witnesses, including former methamphetamine 

addicts, family members of the victims of methamphetamine related violence, law 

enforcement professionals, and prevention and addiction treatment professionals. 

Despite what we heard about the need for treatment and family support to get people out of meth’s grip and back on track, the basic approach of the Congress has 

been to increase the number and severity of mandatory minimum sentences. Yet, 

the fact is that this approach clearly has not worked to stem the tide of meth and 

the fact that there is no evidence to suggest it ever will. 

The evidence shows that treatment does work to stem meth addiction and abuse. 

Recently, in an open letter to the news media and policy makers, 92 researchers and 

treatment professionals stated that: ‘‘Claims that methamphetamine users are virtually untreatable with small recovery rates lack foundation in medical research. Analysis of dropout, retention in 

treatment and reincarceration rates and other measures of outcome, in several recent studies indicate that methamphetamine users respond in an equivalent manner 

as individuals admitted for other drug abuse problems. Research also suggests the 

need to improve and expand treatment offered to methamphetamine users.’’ Drug Courts have proven especially successful in the case of methamphetamine 

treatment as an alterative to the ‘‘get tougher’’ approach. The Orange County, California, Superior Court Drug Court Program is an example of a program that has 

effectively addressed the methamphetamine problem. This court requires a minimum of an 18-month treatment program in which the graduate must be drug free 

for 180 days, have a stable living arrangement, and be employed or enrolled in a 

vocational or academic program. This Drug Court has a 72 percent retention rate, 

with 80 percent of the graduates not being rearrested for drugs and 74 percent with 

no arrest for anything. 

Nonetheless, time and again, Congress has responded to this serious problem primarily with more and harsher mandatory minimums. In the Anti-Drug Abuse Act 

of 1988, Congress established a 5 year minimum for 10 grams of pure meth or 100 

grams of meth mixture and a 10 year minimum for 100 grams of pure meth or 1 

kilogram of meth mixture. In the 1990 Crime Control Act, Congress heightened sentencing for ‘‘Ice’’ a particular form of Meth. Then again in 1996, Congress responded 

to the still growing problem with even tougher mandatory minimums, by cutting in 

half the quantities of the pure controlled substance and mixture that would trigger 

the respective five and ten year mandatory minimums. 

In the meantime, as the epidemic has grown exponentially despite these ever-increasing punitive approaches by the Congress, states have taken a similar approach, 

enacting harsher and harsher penalties and putting more and more emphasis on 

law enforcement. Yet, they have had no more success than Congress with this approach. A recent series of articles in The Oregonian newspaper reflected the frustrating results of this approach in Oklahoma, and ask unanimous consent to place 

48

this article in the record. The article pointed out that while Oklahoma had great 

success in slashing the number of home meth labs through vigorous law enforcement, it failed to curb meth use. They found that in place of the local labs, a massive influx of meth made by Mexican ‘‘superlabs,’’ where tons of pseudoephedrine 

can be easily obtained, had come into their locale, and that it was cheaper and better quality than the locally made stuff. 

Despite the clear evidence that increasing penalties does not stem the spread or 

impact of meth, and despite the evidence that treatment does significantly decrease 

the problem, the response in this bill, yet again, is to increase mandatory minimum 

sentencing, even more. This bill would further lower the threshold amount of meth 

that triggers harsh mandatory minimum sentences. The major problem with this 

approach is that it will actually make meth more available. This is because lowering 

the quantity threshold for triggering mandatory minimums will cause federal prosecutors to concentrate even more on low-level offenders that are now being left to 

the states to prosecute. This will simply mean that we will be sentencing the same 

low level offenders to longer sentences, including those who are tied in through conspiracy and attempt laws which punish bit players the same as kingpins. This is 

what we have seen with the so-called crack epidemic, where we are seeing that over 

2⁄3 of those sentenced for crack offenses are low levl offenders, generally addicts 

dealing to supply their habit. And now, her we go, in the words of Yogi Berra, with 

‘‘de ja vue all over again.’’

So, Mr. Chairman, I look for word to the testimony of our witnesses with the hope 

that they will enlighten us on proven ways to stem this problem, rather than simply 

doing what we always do—put more low level addicts in prison longer, while the 

problem rages on. Thank you.

49

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FREDA S. BAKER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FAMILY AND

CHILDREN’S SERVICES, ALABAMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES


FSB0001.eps
50


FSB0002.eps
51


FSB0003.eps
52


FSB0004.eps
53


FSB0005.eps
54


FSB0006.eps
55

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAURA J. BIRKMEYER, CHAIR, 

NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR DRUG ENDANGERED CHILDREN, AND EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


LJB0001.eps
56


LJB0002.eps
57


LJB0003.eps
58


LJB0004.eps
59


LJB0005.eps
60


LJB0006.eps
61


LJB0007.eps
62

PUBLICATION ENTITLED ‘‘THE METH EPIDEMIC IN AMERICA, TWO SURVEYS OF U.S. 

COUNTIES: THE CRIMINAL EFFECT OF METH ON COMMUNITIES, THE IMPACT OF

METH ON CHILDREN, SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATINO OF COUNTIES

(NACO)


NACO0001.eps
63


NACO0002.eps
64


NACO0003.eps
65


NACO0004.eps
66


NACO0005.eps
67


NACO0006.eps
68


NACO0007.eps
69


NACO0008.eps
70


NACO0009.eps
71


NACO0010.eps
72


NACO0011.eps
73


NACO0012.eps
74

LETTER FROM A. BRADFORD CARD, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, NATIONAL TROOPERS COALITION TO THE HONORABLE MARK SOUDER AND THE HONORABLE ELIJAH CUMMINGS


NTC1.eps
75

LETTER FROM DONALD BALDWIN, WASHINGTON DIRECTOR, FEDERAL CRIMINAL

INVESTIGATORS ASSOCIATION TO THE HONORABLE HOWARD COBLE


FCIA1.eps
76

LETTER FROM CHUCK CANTERBURY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, GRAND LODGE, 

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE (FOP) TO THE HONORABLE MARK SOUDER


FOP1.eps
77


FOP2.eps
78

LETTER FROM WILLIAM J. JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF POLICE ORGANIZATIONS, INC.


NAPO1.eps
79

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE THERAPEUTIC COMMUNITIES OF AMERICA (TCA) 

Therapeutic Communities of America respectfully requests that this written statement become part of the official record for the hearing held before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on September 27, 

2005 on H.R. 3889, the Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act. TCA commends the Chairman and the Committee for their leadership in holding a hearing 

on this important issue. 

METHAMPHETAMINE AND THERAPEUTIC COMMUNITIES

Therapeutic Communities of America (TCA), founded in 1975 as a non-profit 

membership association, represents over 500 community-based non-profit programs 

across the country dedicated to serving individuals with substance abuse and co-occurring mental health problems. Members of TCA are predominately publicly funded through numerous federal, State, and local programs across multiple agency jurisdictions. 

TREATING METHAMPHETAMINE ADDICTION

Therapeutic communities have been successful in helping many addicted individuals, often thought to be beyond recovery, secure a way out of self-destructive behavior. There is a misunderstanding, mentioned several times during the hearing, 

that methamphetamine addiction cannot be treated. Methamphetamine can and is 

being treated successfully, both in TCA member programs and by other treatment 

providers. 

Historically, therapeutic communities have been extremely effective at adapting 

their programs to provide effective treatment as drug use trends change, and in this 

respect, the current methamphetamine epidemic is no different. Therapeutic communities and other treatment providers have found success in creating special protocols to deal with the unique challenges that methamphetamine addicts present, 

while treating them with the general population of patients addicted to other drugs 

of choice. No less than Dr. Nora Volkow, the Director of the National Institute of 

Drug Abuse, has noted that ‘‘methamphetamine addiction can be treated successfully using currently available behavioral treatments.’’

Counselors at several TCA member therapeutic communities that treat a high volume of meth users have recorded long-term abstinence rates for their patients of 

between 30–50%. These numbers are not much different from typical long-term abstinence rates for treating alcohol and other drugs. In the words of a clinician from 

a TCA member program, ‘‘Overall success rates have been the same or better in our 

programs after the meth wave came as compared to before. Meth users initially experience some cognitive deficits, but otherwise there is not much of a difference between them and other users.’’

TCA RECOMMENDATIONS

While TCA strongly commends H.R. 3889’s focus on methamphetamine abuse, we 

believe that this bill could be greatly strengthened with provisions providing for 

methamphetamine treatment funds. The 2002 National Survey on Drug Abuse and 

Health Report stated that only 18.2 percent of all Americans over the age of 12 

needing treatment actually received it. Along with enhanced law enforcement capabilities and interdiction efforts, evidence-based treatment services provide a valuable tool in fighting the growing methamphetamine epidemic. Treatment funds are 

especially crucial because of the nature of the meth epidemic—the drug is mostly 

present in rural communities, where evidenced-based treatment services tend to be 

scarce or limited. 

TCA also recommends that H.R. 3889 include a component that encourages NIDA 

to undertake further research on effective modalities for treating methamphetamine 

addiction. Lastly, TCA respectfully requests that the Committee recognize the benefits of treatment as part of the solution to eradicating the methamphetamine epidemic from our communities, and strongly encourages the Judiciary Committee to 

work with the relevant committees with jurisdiction over substance abuse treatment 

to add provisions that support treatment to this important piece of legislation.

80

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE (FMI) 

INTRODUCTION

The Food Marketing Institute (FMI), on behalf of the nation’s supermarkets and 

grocery stores, appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security in response to the 

issue of methamphetamine abuse in the United States and legislation that is designed to combat the problem. 

By way of background, FMI is a national trade association that conducts programs in research, education, industry relations and public affairs on behalf of its 

1,500 member companies—food retailers and wholesalers—in the United States and 

around the world. FMI’s members operate approximately 26,000 retail food stores with combined annual sales of $340 billion—three quarters of all food retail store 

sales in the United States. FMI’s retail membership is composed of large multi-state 

chains, regional companies and independent grocery stores. Our international membership includes some 200 companies from 50 foreign countries. 

As reflected in our testimony presented by Joseph R. Heerens, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Marsh Supermarkets, Inc., before the House Government 

Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources on 

November 18, 2004, the supermarket industry fully understands the magnitude of 

the methamphetamine problem here in America, and we also recognize the sad fact 

that legitimate cough and cold products containing the ingredient pseudoephedrine 

(PSE) are used to make methamphetamine. 

According to law enforcement sources, legitimate PSE products either purchased 

or stolen from retail stores account for approximately 20 percent of methamphetamine that is made domestically here in the United States, whereas the lion’s share 

of meth found in this country, an estimated 80 percent, comes from foreign sources, 

primarily super labs located in Mexico. Thus, it is FMI’s view that to effectively address the methamphetamine problem we need a comprehensive strategy and partnership between law enforcement, regulatory agencies, OTC manufacturers and the 

retail community. 

SCHEDULE V—SUPERMARKET CONCERNS

The supermarket industry has serious concerns and misgivings over recent initiatives that have been enacted into law at the state level and pending federal legislation (S. 103-H.R. 314) that impose stringent controls on precursor chemicals at the 

retail level. We are referring to what is called the Oklahoma model that relegates 

PSE products to Schedule V status. Under this approach, only retail stores that 

have a pharmacy department are allowed to sell these OTC medications, and these 

items must be kept behind the pharmacy counter. 

Without question, Schedule V is very troublesome to our industry. That’s because 

an overwhelming majority of grocery stores doing business in the United States 

don’t have a pharmacy department and would be precluded from selling PSE products. For those supermarkets that do have a pharmacy department, store hours are 

quite different from hours of operation in the pharmacy department. For example, 

while supermarkets may be opened from 7:00 am to 11:00 pm, the pharmacy department operates on an abbreviated schedule and may only be open from 9:00 am to 

9:00 pm weeks days, 9:00 am to 7:00 pm on Saturday and 11:00 am to 5:00 pm on 

Sundays. Thus, even though the grocery store is open for business, if the pharmacy 

department is not open, or if the pharmacist is not on duty, PSE product sales 

would not be permitted. 

IMPACT ON CONSUMERS

The end result under the rigid Schedule V approach is a dramatic reduction in 

consumer access to cough and cold medications depending upon whether their local 

grocery store has a pharmacy department and what hours the pharmacy department is opened on a particular day. For consumers living in rural areas or in inner 

city communities, Schedule V can create major hardships if the nearest pharmacy 

is 15 to 20 miles from their home or if the person is elderly or poor and would have 

to rely on public transportation in order to get to a pharmacy to purchase PSE products. 

FMI along with the National Consumers League (NCL) gauged consumer opinion 

and views on sales restrictions of PSE products in a national survey that was released in April of 2005. What the FMI-NCL survey found is rather revealing. Forty 

four percent of the 2,900 adult survey respondents felt that Schedule V would create 

a hardship for them, while 62 percent said they did not believe that restricting sales 

of PSE products to pharmacies is a reasonable measure for controlling meth producVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Jan 12, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\092705\23641.000 HJUD1 PsN: 23641
81

tion. In stark contrast, the survey respondents were far more receptive to less severe restrictions to Schedule V, such as placing cough cold and allergy products behind a counter, not a pharmacy counter, or placing them in a locked display case. 

Additionally, more than 80 percent of the survey participants expressed support for 

limiting the quantity of such products that individuals can purchase, and 74 percent 

said it would be reasonable to restrict the age of purchasers. 

For the above mentioned reasons, FMI and our members cannot support a Schedule V classification for cough and cold products containing pseudoephedrine. Schedule V clearly poses significant problems for consumers who have legitimate needs 

for these medications to treat their allergies, coughs and colds. Schedule V means 

reduced consumer access and hardship because their nearby grocery store, which 

they visit 2.2 times per week, won’t be allowed to sell these items. FMI further suspects that Schedule V may mean higher prices as PSE products move from self-service to behind the pharmacy counter, where the pharmacist, a highly salaried professional, will be required to ask for photo identification and have the customer sign 

a log book. While our industry applauds the hard work of the law enforcement community in their efforts against the methamphetamine plague, we do not believe 

Schedule V is the right solution. 

COMBAT METH ACT OF 2005 IS FLAWED

In terms of pending federal legislation, the Combat Meth Act of 2005 (S. 103) approved by the Senate on September 9, 2005, as part of the FY 2006 Commerce/Justice Appropriations, FMI firmly believes that this proposal is both deficient and 

flawed, and in need of significant revisions. The following are the deficiencies and 

flaws that we see in this legislation:

• S. 103 fails to provide for a national standard governing the sale of PSE products. Methamphetamine is a nationwide problem that necessitates a national 

solution. Regrettably, S. 103 allows states and well as localities to establish 

different restrictions on the sale of PSE products, making compliance by retailers more difficult and complicated.

• The Combat Meth Act of 2005 does not exempt liquids and gel caps even 

though every state Schedule V law regulating the sale of PSE products exempts liquids and gel caps.

• Unless the Combat Meth Act of 2005 is amended, it will trigger a ‘‘by prescription only’’ requirement in as many as 19 states. This would mean consumers would have to get a prescription from their doctor in order to purchase PSE products. As a result, a product that normally sells for about $6.00 

at retail will now cost close to $60 when you factor in the physician office visit 

charge.

• Moreover, the Schedule V provisions in S. 103 will force grocery warehouses 

and distribution centers that handle PSE products to apply for a Controlled 

Substances Registrant license from the Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA). This will entail higher licensing fees and new regulatory burdens for 

these facilities. Imposing Schedule V requirements and costs on warehouses 

and distribution centers makes no sense since these facilities are not a source 

of supply for meth cooks.

• S. 103 is too narrow. It only addresses 20 percent of the problem in terms 

of domestic meth production resulting from PSE products that have been obtained or stolen from retail stores. S. 103 does nothing to address 80 percent 

of methamphetamine that finds its way into the United States from foreign 

countries.

• The Combat Meth Act of 2005 dramatically and unfairly reduces consumer 

access to cough and cold products by limiting their sale to stores that have 

a pharmacy. PSE products would have to be placed behind a pharmacy 

counter. Moreover, due to space limitations in the pharmacy, retailers will not 

be able to carry and offer for sale the wide variety of PSE medications that 

consumers want or need, and because these products will be behind the pharmacy counter, consumers will no longer have the opportunity read and compare product labels.

• The Combat Meth Act of 2005 limits purchasers to no more than 7.5 grams 

within a 30-day period. This arbitrary limit may be unfair to a family with 

allergy problems or a parent with several sick children who has a legitimate 

need for more than 7.5 grams within a 30-day period.

• S. 103 is cavalier in its treatment of internet sales and flea markets. The legislation allows but does not require the Attorney General to promulgate reguVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Jan 12, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\092705\23641.000 HJUD1 PsN: 23641
82

lations governing the sale of PSE products over the Internet. Furthermore, 

S. 103 has no provisions relating to flea markets which routinely sell PSE 

products that in most cases have been stolen from retail stores by organized 

theft gangs. Flea markets should be precluded from selling PSE products unless these transient vendors have written authorization or appropriate business records from the manufacturer.

• S. 103 allows stores without a pharmacy department to sell PSE products 

under very limited circumstances. The exemption process is so complicated 

and convoluted involving both state and federal agencies. It is our view that 

very few exemptions will be granted and they will not be granted in a timely 

fashion.

• The implementation dates for Schedule V are unrealistic. For example, single 

ingredient PSE products would be placed in Schedule V 90-days after enactment and retailers would be required to maintain a log book. It is highly unlikely that the Department of Justice (DOJ) would be able to promulgate necessary regulations in 90-days to tell retailers how to comply with the law. 

FMI SUPPORTS METH EPIDEMIC ELIMINATION ACT

FMI wishes to express our industry’s support for the Meth Epidemic Elimination 

Act (H. R. 3889) that has been introduced by Representatives James Sensenbrenner 

(R-WI), Mark Souder (R-IN), Chairman Howard Coble (R-NC) and Roy Blunt (RMO). Unlike the narrow focus of the Combat Meth Act of 2005, this initiative seeks 

to address the methamphetamine problem in a comprehensive manner. The legislation is multi-faceted with provisions that would establish domestic as well as international regulation of precursor chemicals while providing for more severe penalties 

for methamphetamine production, possession or trafficking. 

In expressing our industry’s support for the Meth Epidemic Elimination Act, we 

would urge the Subcommittee to make the following changes:

• Amend the bill to include strong federal pre-emption language governing the 

sale the PSE products in order to facilitate retailer compliance, or at the very 

least prohibit local communities from implementing restrictions that are different from sales restrictions that have been established by a state.

• Revise the legislation from a 3.6 gram per single transaction to 6 grams per 

transaction.

• Establish a ban on Internet sales of precursor chemicals.

• Prohibit flea markets from selling PSE products as well as infant formula unless these transient vendors have written authorization from the manufacturer.

FMI, on behalf of the nation’s supermarket, appreciates the opportunity to provide 

testimony on this important issue to the Subcommittee. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON REGULATORY COMPLIANCE

The American Council on Regulatory Compliance is an association especially established for small and mid-size manufacturers, distributors and retailers of overthe-counter medicines and preparations containing List I chemicals that are regulated by the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Although this constitutes 

a very diverse group of businesses both in size and activity, they nevertheless share 

certain common regulatory concerns by virtue of distributing these products. 

Although many such businesses may be members of other associations, no one 

single association addresses this situation in depth. The commerce in these registered products serves the legitimate requirements of millions of consumers. The 

American Council on Regulatory Compliance and its members recognize and accept 

the importance of regulating these products in order to assure proper use. They support the state and federal government, and particularly the US Drug Enforcement 

Administration in this important effort. Although this effort involves concerns and 

continually changing issues to the business community, it is essential that government and business establish the maximum level of cooperation and communication. 

THE ACRC COOPERATES WITH CONGRESS AND FEDERAL AGENCIES

The American Council on Regulatory Compliance is dedicated to cooperating with 

the U.S. Congress, Federal regulatory and law enforcement agencies, such as the 

Drug Enforcement Administration, State and Local Authorities, and other organizations to help prevent illegitimate use. 

83

The ACRC encourages all members to improve training and compliance activities 

and to establish constructive partnerships at all levels of government. The association supports the following initiatives:

(1) Compliance training for Members;

(2) Assisting with education and compliance at the retail level;

(3) Developing security and record keeping models;

(4) Implementing a system for screening orders and monitoring sales.

(5) Promote understanding of laws and regulations. 

‘‘METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC ELIMINATION ACT’’

The ACRC supports the overall thrust and spirit of H.R. 3889 and believes that 

it addresses a major problem of illicit Methamphetamine use through import controls and increasing penalties for the illicit production of Methamphetamine. However, there are provisions of the bill that could be modified to improve and clarify 

the legislation. 

Current law, Title 21, United States Code (21 USC), Section 971 (c) (1), allows 

the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to disqualify customers of a List I 

Chemical Importer, if the List I Chemical may be diverted to the clandestine manufacture of Controlled Substances. This is achieved by providing written notice to the 

Importer. After the Importer has given notice of their intent to import, they are not 

permitted to continue the transaction. The Importer registrant is then entitled, by 

written request, pursuant to 21 USC 971(c) (2) to an administrative hearing within 

45 (forty-five) days, to challenge the DEA’s allegations. 

Currently, the law specifies that a challenge can only be made by whom the order 

applies. Thus, there is a dispute as to whether the wholesaler or downstream customer of the Importer can challenge DEA’s allegations against them. Heretofore, 

DEA, with the exception of situations in which they have been challenged in District 

Court, have not given ‘‘standing’’ to customers of the Importers. The new legislation 

language codifies DEA’s position of not giving ‘‘standing’’ to customers of the Importer. This procedure, and the current approach taken by DEA, does not give the 

right of the accused to face their accuser in an administrative hearing to challenge 

the DEA allegations. The limited times, it seems, that DEA has been challenged by 

the downstream customer, in lieu of the Importer registrant, appears to the outsider, to have been mired in court actions, appeals and continued objections by DEA. 

Section 104 of H.R. 3889 (lines 6 through 10) seeks to place ephedrine (EPH), 

Pseudoephedrine (PSE) and Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) within the same statute 

that currently applies to Schedule III-V Narcotic Controlled Substances. (This could 

be modified to apply to the creation of a special statute section for the listed chemicals PSE, EPH and PPA.) 

The significant questions posed by the provisions of H.R. 3889 are:

• Under what criteria will imported quantities of EPH, PSE and PPA be determined?

• Who will decide the legitimate use in the U.S. for PSE, EPH and PPA—DEA 

or FDA?

• Will convenience stores, which DEA classifies as ‘‘gray market’’ distributors, 

be entitled to continue dispensing products that contain PSE, EPH and PPA?

• Will retail restrictions be used by DEA to tabulate retail quantities to limit 

imports?

The proposed legislation in lines 15–26 on page 7 and continued in lines 1–20 on 

page 8 address only the right of Importers to have legal standing. It does not address the needs of downstream customers of the Importer registrants. If the Importer wishes not to challenge the downstream customer, i.e. distributor or retailer, 

his customer has no ‘‘standing’’. 

Section 105 defines the conditions by which an Importer registrant must adhere, 

if their initial customer does not purchase the import they originally requested. This 

language subjects the new customer, if any, to the aforementioned scrutiny of possible denial, again based upon only a challenge by the Importer registrant. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

We do not dispute the need to control the Importation of Listed Chemicals, especially 

with majority of the problem being illegal importation. However, the downstream 

customers of Importer registrants have no legal standing to challenge DEA’s allegations they are using listed chemicals PSE, EPH and PPA illegitimately ‘‘on the 

84

grounds that the listed chemical may be diverted to the illegal or clandestine manufacture of a controlled substance’’. DEA has long held the opinion that convenience 

stores selling cold remedies containing EPH, or EPH are not legitimate retail distributors (‘‘gray market’’). 

If not modified, certain provisions of this bill could be construed to limit sales of 

legitimate cold remedies to small stores by arbitrarily limiting imports to Distributor registrants that sell to small retail establishments. In many administrative 

hearings, DEA has used past retail sales history of cold products as evidence that 

the store is engaged in the illegal diversion of pseudoephedrine, even if the store 

increases retail sales in a legal manner. 

Recent enactments of state law also pose a problem. Liquid gel cap forms of listed 

chemical drug products that have been exempted from Schedule V requirements 

under state law could be cumulatively aggregated together in import quotas and applied against small retail distributors. In such a case, retail establishments would 

not have standing to protest arbitrary restrictions of their supply of medications. 

PROPOSED REVISIONS

1. EPH, PSE and PPA should not be subjected to the same statutory scrutiny as 

controlled drugs in Schedule III-V Narcotics for purposes of importation as proposed on page 7. There is sufficient legislation currently in place under the provisions of 21 USC, Section 971 that govern imports of listed chemicals.

2. Under the provisions of the proposed new section (d)(1) there are no rights given 

to a registrant (distributor) or business exempted from registration (convenience 

store). The only rights are given to the Importer registrant to object to DEA’s 

denial. Importer registrants will be persuaded not to object to challenges, as they 

are now, for future considerations in the marketplace.

3. Title 21, Section 971 should be amended in all proper places, by the insertion 

of language to expand the rights of the customer of the Importer registrant, 

which are the distributor, dispenser or business exempt from registration (retail 

stores not registered as a pharmacy). All rights of the customers of the Importer 

registrant should be delineated, to provide for the expectations of all registrants 

to be permitted to face their accuser.

85

ARTICLE ENTITLED ‘‘THE MEXICAN CONNECTION,’’ STEVE SUO, JUNE 5, 2005,

THE OREGONIAN, SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. SCOTT


ArtA0001.eps
86


ArtA0002.eps
87


ArtA0003.eps
88


ArtA0004.eps
89


ArtA0005.eps
90


ArtA0006.eps
91


ArtA0007.eps
92


ArtA0008.eps
93


ArtA0009.eps
94


ArtA0010.eps
95

ARTICLE ENTITLED ‘‘MORE POTENT SUPPLY OF METH WIPES OUT SUCCESS AGAINST

HOME LABS,’’ STEVE SUO, SEPTEMBER 25, 2005, THE OREGONIAN, SUBMITTED BY

THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. SCOTT


ArtB0001.eps
96


ArtB0002.eps
97


ArtB0003.eps
98


ArtB0004.eps
99


ArtB0005.eps
100

LETTER FROM VARIOUS MEDICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCHERS

TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE


DCL0001.eps
101


DCL0002.eps
102


DCL0003.eps
103


DCL0004.eps
104


DCL0005.eps
105


DCL0006.eps
106


DCL0007.eps
107

ADDITINOAL PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. BARRY M. LESTER, PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRY & HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND PEDIATRICS, BROWN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL SCHOOL

Chairman Coble, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Scott, Members of 

the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3889, the Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act. 

We are in a similar situation today with methamphetamine as we were 20 years 

ago during the cocaine epidemic. During that time, there was legitimate concern for 

the welfare of children exposed to cocaine in the womb. But based on insufficient 

and inaccurate information, society rushed to judgment—an over-reaction that had 

negative consequences for women and children (1). Many women were prosecuted 

and children were removed from their birth mothers. Families split up. As a result, 

by the mid 1990s, the number of children in foster care reached an all-time high 

of over 500,000. Many of these children suffered emotional problems from multiple 

foster care placements. This lead to the 1997 passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, or ASFA, requiring permanent placement of a child within 12 months of 

being removed from his or her birth mother. Unfortunately, ASFA has been counterproductive for families who could easily be reunited if they had access to appropriate drug treatment and/or if they were not in jail for drug related offenses. 

After 20 years of research, we learned that the effects of cocaine are not nearly 

as severe as initially feared (2). In fact, when factors like other drugs and poverty 

are controlled, the effects are subtle—IQ lowered by 3 to 4 points, a slight increase 

in behavior or attention problems. These effects are similar to those caused by cigarette smoking during pregnancy. Scientists also learned that while there are most 

definitely drug users who are inadequate mothers, there are also drug users who 

are competent mothers who, with treatment, can care for their children. Families 

can be preserved. 

We also learned that the ‘‘cure’’ of foster care can be worse than the disease of 

addiction. University of Florida researchers (3) studied two groups of infants born 

with cocaine in their systems. One group was placed in foster care, the other with 

birth mothers able to care for them. After six months, the babies were tested using 

all the usual measures of infant development: rolling over, sitting up, reaching out. 

Consistently, the children placed with their birth mothers did better. For the foster 

children, being taken from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine. 

It is extremely difficult to take a swing at ‘‘bad mothers’’ without the blow landing 

on their children. That doesn’t mean we can simply leave children with addicts—

it does mean that drug treatment for the parent is almost always a better first 

choice than foster care for the child. 

Our understanding of addiction has also changed in two decades. We know more 

about addiction as a disease—a medical condition that can be treated. Addiction is 

a complex disease with multiple mental health co-morbidities; Women who use 

drugs also tend to be depressed and anxious and may have even more severe mental 

health problems. So the bad news: Addiction is complex. The good news: Addiction 

is treatable. We can reduce the problem of drug addiction in this country. I don’t 

see treatment addressed in this legislation. 

We learned some hard lessons since the cocaine story unfolded. I am concerned 

that we are on the verge of making the same mistakes with methamphetamine that 

we made with cocaine, as suggested by sensational media coverage, the absence of 

federal treatment dollars—and the punitive nature of this bill. 

Methamphetamine is a stimulant like cocaine and produces similar effects on 

neurotransmitters in the brain. Research on the effects of prenatal methamphetamine exposure on child outcome is just beginning (4). The National Toxicology Program, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for the Evaluation 

of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR), Expert Panel Report of 2005 on meth 

concluded that

in terms of the potential adverse reproductive and developmental effects of 

meth exposure, that ‘‘studies that focused upon humans were uninterpretable 

due to such factors as a lack of control of potential confounding factors and the 

issue of the purity and contaminants of the methamphetamine used by the drug 

abusers.

To my knowledge, my current research into the prenatal effects of methamphetamine is the only such project funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIDA). 

Children in our study are still infants. So we can’t measure all the effects of this 

drug. But, so far, we are seeing the same kind of subtle changes with methamphetamine that we saw with cocaine (5). Again—to put this in context—not very different than what you’d see with cigarette smoking. 

108

In a recent open letter (attached), more than 90 medical and psychological researchers, with many years of experience studying prenatal exposure to 

psychoactive substances, outlined the science in this area.

The use of stigmatizing terms, such as ‘‘ice babies’’ and ‘‘meth babies,’’ lack scientific validity and should not be used. Experience with similar labels applied 

to children exposed parentally to cocaine demonstrates that such labels harm 

the children to which they are applied, lowering expectations for their academic 

and life achievements, discouraging investigation into other causes for physical 

and social problems the child might encounter, and leading to policies that ignore factors, including poverty, that may play a much more significant role in 

their lives. The suggestion that treatment will not work for people dependant 

upon methamphetamines, particularly mothers, also lacks any scientific basis.

Does this mean that methamphetamine is harmless? Is it acceptable for women 

to use meth during pregnancy? Of course not. And we know from previous research—including research with cocaine-using mothers—that even small 

neurobehavioral effects can turn to larger deficits if the parenting environment is 

not adequate. And, it is also possible that there are drug effects that don’t show up 

until children get to school and higher-level brain functions get activated. 

In terms of treatment, even a cursory examination of the data shows that methamphetamine is not uniquely addictive, and that methamphetamine abuse is treatable. The federal government’s most recent National Survey on Drug Use and 

Health found that 4.9% of Americans have used methamphetamine at some point 

in their life. Only .6%, however, have used it within the last year, and only .2% have 

used it within the last month. Most people who use methamphetamine do not become addicted and those who do become addicted can be treated. The recent open 

letter by dozens of leading researchers notes:

claims that methamphetamine users are virtually untreatable with small recovery rates lack foundation in medical research. Analysis of dropout, retention in 

treatment and reincarceration rates and other measures of outcome, in several 

recent studies indicate that methamphetamine users respond in an equivalent 

manner as individuals admitted for other drug abuse problems. Research also 

suggests the need to improve and expand treatment offered to methamphetamine users.

Disturbingly, this bill would lower the trigger thresholds for long mandatory minimum sentences to amounts that methamphetamine addicts typically possess. It 

seems designed to ensure that Americans with substance abuse problems get long 

prison sentences instead of treatment. What we need is a balanced approach—one 

that will attack the root causes of drug addiction. Sending more people to prison 

for longer periods of time is not the answer. We know enough now to fight addiction 

with treatment and do much more to keep many families safely together. 

Here are some specific suggestions:

• Develop a national consensus on how to deal with maternal drug use that 

draws on current research and tested treatment strategies—and demonstrates a fair and unbiased attitude towards drug-addicted women and 

their children.

• Urge states to enact legislation protecting mothers who voluntarily seek drug 

treatment from having their children taken away. Many mothers who want 

treatment are afraid to come forward out of fear they will lose their children.

• Improve access to treatment and develop coordinated treatment programs 

with interconnected services based on the needs of women, mothers and children. Models of methamphetamine treatment are based on adult male models. Few are designed to meet the specific needs of women, pregnant women 

or mothers. For example, we know from the cocaine experience that it does 

no good to tell a poor mother with four kids in tow that she has six different 

appointments in six different locations without providing transportation or 

baby-sitting.

• Enact a federal grant program that encourages states to develop treatment 

programs for women.and families

• Develop systemic prevention efforts. This includes education to prevent onset 

or continuation of drug use as well as treatment to prevent future problems 

due to drug use.

• Develop Family Treatment Drug Courts with the goal of keeping custody or 

reunification whenever possible. Drug Courts are a way providing a ‘‘treatment with teeth’’ approach that includes rewards for compliance with treatVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Jan 12, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\092705\23641.000 HJUD1 PsN: 23641
109

ment and sanctions for noncompliance with treatment. In Rhode Island, we 

have a program called VIP (Vulnerable Infants Program) which includes a 

Family Treatment Drug Court (FTDC). Vulnerable is meant to imply that 

these children are somewhat fragile but not damaged and of course they are 

Very Important People. This is a voluntary ‘‘treatment with teeth’’ program 

that has been successful. We have reduced the length of stay of drug-exposed 

babies in the hospital, increased the number of infants who are going home 

with their biological mothers (hence reducing the number in foster care) and 

increased the number of children being reunified with their birth mothers. We 

should consider waiving punishment for clients who agree to and comply with 

treatment. 

Sacramento County, California has pulled all of these strategies together 

into a comprehensive, effective system for coping with meth addiction and 

keeping families safely together. As a program planner for child protective 

services in that county recently told the authoritative trade journal Youth 

Today:

We’ve got big meth issues in Sacramento County, but they’re not paralyzing anybody.

• Enact legislation prohibiting health facilities that receive federal funds from 

denying treatment to patients with addition and dependency disorders because they have relapsed and manifested the disease they are fighting. Many 

people with diabetes cheat—use sugar, fail to stay on their diets yet they are 

not denied insulin, thrown out of their treatment program, and disconnected 

from the health care that can eventually help them to control their disease. 

Similarly people with hypertension who eat fatty foods and fail to exercise are 

not thrown out of their treatment programs and do not have their blood pressure medication taken away from them. Congress could significantly improve 

health care and chances for long-term recovery by ending this unique form 

of discrimination.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the focus of H.R. 3889 is to ‘‘further regulate and 

punish illicit conduct relating to methamphetamine’’ and that other companion bills 

may address the treatment and other research issues raised in my testimony. However, I would ask that the official hearing record include a copy of the Final Report 

of the Methamphetamine Interagency Task Force http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/

methintf/ as an existing comprehensive strategy aimed at blending both criminal 

justice and public health approaches to reducing methamphetamine use. While this 

Report originated in a previous Administration, most if not all of the guiding principles, findings, recommendations, and research priorities are still relevant and may 

save Congress and the current Administration from reinventing the wheel. 

Specifically, I’m sure that the scientific community would endorse the panoply of 

prevention, education and treatment initiatives outlined in the report. I would give 

special emphasis to the following: (1) Increasing treatment capacities in correctional 

facilities; (2) conducting research on which treatment models work best in prison, 

in drug court and in the community; (3) increasing research on medications development and other treatments for meth, and (4) conducting research on the effects of 

meth on pregnant women, treatment of exposed infants and (5) evaluation of treatment programs for children and adolescents. 

Additionally, I would appreciate it if you would include the attached update highlighting NIDA research on methamphetamine addiction. 

In sum, we have made tremendous strides in 20 years when it comes to understanding drug addiction and treatment. We have the opportunity to keep families 

together today in ways that were not possible only a few years ago. I am very optimistic about our ability to reduce addiction and save future generations of children 

through treatment. It would be not only a missed opportunity, but a major step 

backward, to put all of our eggs in the punishment basket. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today. I would 

be happy to answer any questions. 

REFERENCES

1. Lester, B.M., Andreozzi, L., Appiah, L. Substance Use During Pregnancy: Time 

For Policy To Catch up With Research. Harm Reduction Journal, 2004 Apr 

20;1(1):5.

2. Lester, B. M., LaGasse, L. L., and Seifer, R. Cocaine exposure and children: The 

meaning of subtle effects. Science. 1998;282:633–634

3. Wobie, K., Behnke, M., et. al., To Have and To Hold: A Descriptive Study of Custody Status Following Prenatal Exposure to Cocaine, paper presented at joint anVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Jan 12, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\092705\23641.000 HJUD1 PsN: 23641
110

nual meeting of the American Pediatric Society and the Society for Pediatric Research, May 3, 1998.

4. Wouldes, T., LaGasse, L., Sheridan, J., Lester, B. Maternal Methamphetamine 

Use During Pregnancy and Child Outcome: What Do We Know? N Z Med J. Nov 

26;117(1206):U1180, 2004.

5. Lester, B., LaGasse, L, Smith, L. M., Derauf, C., Grant, P., Shah, R., Arria, A., 

Huestis, M., ann Liu, J. Prenatal exposure to methamphetamine and child development. Proceedings of the Community Epidemiology Work Group. 2005;22:1–4

111

ATTACHMENT


BML0001.eps
112

Æ


BML0002.eps