U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

28–398 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 113–886 

OVERSIGHT OF THE 

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 30, 2014 

Serial No. J–113–58 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking Member 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

KRISTINE LUCIUS, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

APRIL 30, 2014, 10:10 A.M. 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 2 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

WITNESS 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 23 

Leonhart, Hon. Michele M., Administrator, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC ...................................................................................... 4 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

QUESTIONS 

Questions submitted to Hon. Michele M. Leonhart by: 

Senator Blumenthal ......................................................................................... 39 

Senator Cornyn ................................................................................................. 48 

Senator Feinstein ............................................................................................. 36 

Senator Flake .................................................................................................... 50 

Senator Grassley .............................................................................................. 41 

Senator Hatch ................................................................................................... 45 

Senator Sessions ............................................................................................... 47 

Senator Whitehouse ......................................................................................... 38 

ANSWERS 

[Note: At the time of printing, after several attempts to obtain responses 

to the written questions, the Committee had not received any communication from Hon. Michele M. Leonhart.] 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Colorado Information Analysis Center (CIAC), CIAC Report 14-65046, ‘‘Alert 

Bulletin Marijuana Infused Edibles,’’ March 19, 2014, bulletin ...................... 61 

National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS), Arlington, Virginia, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 51 

United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Eric 

J. Akers, Deputy Chief, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, Springfield, Virginia, May 10, 2014, letter ................................................................... 63 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE 

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2014 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in Room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Grassley, 

Hatch, Sessions, and Flake. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Good morning. I apologize for the delay. I 

thank the Senators who are here: Senator Grassley, Senator Sessions, Senator Flake, and of course, Senator Whitehouse, who will 

take over this hearing at some point. 

I had a chance to chat with Administrator Leonhart in the back, 

and I appreciate very much having you here. 

This hearing comes at an important time. Our Nation continues 

to struggle with an old and unfortunately persistent problem: the 

seemingly unrelenting addiction to powerful controlled substances. 

But I think a lot about that problem is evolving and changing. The 

drugs of choice are evolving, along with the path to addiction for 

many Americans. 

As I said to Administrator Leonhart, it is a lot different from the 

days decades ago when I was a prosecutor or when Senator Sessions or Senator Whitehouse were prosecutors. Prescription drug 

abuse has reached epidemic levels. Overdoses from prescription 

opioids now account for more than half of all drug-related deaths. 

That is something we did not see not very long ago. 

Around the country, law enforcement is now demonstrating a 

strong commitment to creative approaches to combating drug 

abuse. We have seen that enforcement alone is not enough. No 

amount of arrests or seized drugs can truly break America’s drug 

habit. We need a comprehensive approach—one that includes prevention, treatment, and re-entry services. 

A month ago I brought the Senate Judiciary Committee to Rutland, Vermont. Rutland is a very small city, and like rural towns 

across the country, it has seen a surge in addiction to heroin and 

other opioids. But the community has come together to respond in 

remarkable ways. At that hearing it was not a case of people point-
2 

ing fingers at each other. They were saying, ‘‘We are all in this together.’’ 

The police department almost functions as a community organizer. They partner with early intervention coordinators, social 

workers, and even building inspectors to address addiction from 

every angle. 

I am encouraged to see that the Justice Department is similarly 

committed to a comprehensive approach. Through its Smart on 

Crime Initiative, the Department is supporting prevention and reentry efforts and promoting fairer sentences. 

The DEA is committed to addressing drug abuse through prevention. The DEA has long supported educational programs that aim 

to reduce demand for drugs. I view in the same light the Office of 

Diversion Control, which controls the distribution of prescription 

drugs. 

Now, I was pleased to see that, in conjunction with DEA, authorities in Vermont just last weekend recovered over 3,300 pounds 

of unused prescription drugs through a takeback event. Now, 3,300 

pounds—remember, we are a State of only 620,000 people. This 

was enormous. That means hundreds of thousands of unwanted 

pills are no longer sitting on shelves and susceptible to abuse. Effective diversion control means effective addiction prevention. 

While the DEA is doing critically important work in many areas, 

I do have some concerns that I have raised. I have concerns about 

some of the DEA Special Operation Division’s investigative techniques. We have discuss this privately, and given the sensitivity of 

it, we will not discuss it openly in this hearing. But it is an area 

in which additional oversight is needed, and I want the DEA to cooperate with those of us who have the responsibility of oversight. 

I have repeatedly sought answers regarding the DEA’s involvement in a 2012 counternarcotics operation in Honduras, in which 

four Honduran civilians were killed including a 14-year-old boy. 

And the DEA must make changes to ensure this type of tragedy 

does not happen again. I realize that is before your time, but I 

want you to take a look at that because if they have not taken 

steps to ensure this would not happen again, I would have difficulty supporting DEA’s participation in such operations in the future, either wearing my hat in this Committee or in the Appropriations Committee. 

Administrator, thank you very much, and thank you for the time 

you spend on this. I am eager to hear your ideas, and right after 

we hear from Senator Grassley, we will go to you. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Welcome, Administrator Leonhart. Thank you 

for coming. Your agency faces many challenges as it tries and 

works to keep us safe from dangerous drugs. 

I am going to point out in my questioning and in my statement 

that some of those problems coming from the executive branch 

make your job even harder from my point of view. 
3 

The United States is experiencing this epidemic that the Chairman spoke about of opioid abuse, particularly heroin and prescription painkillers. We recently had a survey where 700,000 Americans reported using heroin in the past year. That seems to be increasing. 

We read about the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman, pointing 

out as just one example of a heroin overdose. 

Law enforcement, including your agency, has a critical role to 

play in responding to the epidemic. And, of course, we cannot arrest our way out of this, but we can maintain the current law enforcement tools that help the DEA go after those who are trafficking heroin. 

Unfortunately, as I said about the executive branch making your 

job more difficult, there is disagreement on this Committee on this 

issue, but I think the sentencing bill that the administration supports does just the opposite. The proposed Smarter Sentencing Act 

that recently passed out of this Committee cuts the mandatory 

minimum sentences for those who manufacture, import, or distribute even heroin—and it cuts that sentence in half. These are 

penalties for dealers, not users. In the midst of the heroin epidemic, as I said to you, I think that this makes no sense. 

I do not want you to take my word for it. In opposing the bill, 

the Federal prosecutors themselves wrote that the current system 

of penalties is the ‘‘cornerstone’’ of their ability ‘‘to infiltrate and 

dismantle large-scale drug-trafficking organizations and to take 

violent armed career criminals off the streets.’’ That is a quote from 

Federal prosecutors. And I do not want to remove that cornerstone. 

Another challenge for your agency that I hope to discuss is the 

mixed message from the administration that young people get 

about the dangers of marijuana use. The Department of Justice declined to challenge State laws that have legalized marijuana, despite the obvious conflict with Federal law. In an interview, the 

President said this, that it was ‘‘important’’ that these States ‘‘go 

forward’’ with legalization. This has caused confusion and uncertainty about whether using marijuana is really something to be discouraged. 

We had a recent scientific study that served as a reminder of 

how dangerous marijuana use can be. A paper published earlier 

this month in the Journal of Neuroscience concluded that even casual marijuana use was associated with potentially harmful changes 

to the brains particularly of young people. 

The Department of Justice apparently concluded that so long as 

the States that legalize marijuana create effective regulatory 

schemes, then Federal enforcement did not consider that a priority. 

Those priorities include the prevention of violence, increased use 

among minors, and diversion of marijuana to other States. But we 

are seeing particularly in recent news stories minors getting very 

much involved in that use, and even sale and diversion of marijuana to other States. They are telling me even in Iowa there is 

a lot of marijuana coming from Colorado. 

So I hope the administration is taking a look at the announcement they made of what they considered a priority for prosecution. 

As a result, it is hardly surprising that a senior DEA official recently told the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control 
4 

that what was happening in these States—meaning Washington or 

States where there has been recreational marijuana or even medicinal marijuana—is ‘‘reckless and irresponsible.’’ 

At this point, those words apply equally to the Department of 

Justice’s policy that has permitted States to legalize a drug for recreational purposes that Congress has chosen to make illegal. 

As the above examples attest, marijuana is being combined with 

cookies and candy in Colorado in a way that is attractive to young 

people, including children. I hope to discuss the legislation that 

Senator Feinstein and I introduced last year called ‘‘Saving Kids 

From Dangerous Drugs Act,’’ that we can get something done to 

deter this kind of marketing. 

I am going to put the rest of my statement in the record, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. We will look at any legislation you or anybody else may come up with. I am always worried about whether legislation steps on States’ rights and what 

they might be doing. 

Please go ahead, Ms. Leonhart. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHELE M. LEONHART, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Administrator LEONHART. Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member 

Grassley, and Members of this Committee, it is my honor to appear 

before you to discuss the Drug Enforcement Administration and 

our role in reducing crime and protecting the American people from 

drugs. I welcome the opportunity to continue the successful and 

positive relationship that DEA and the Department of Justice have 

with this Committee. 

Throughout our more than 40-year history, DEA has successfully 

pursued the world’s most violent and prolific drug-trafficking organizations, and this includes the Sinaloa cartel, whose leader, Joaquin ‘‘El Chapo’’ Guzman, was arrested earlier this year by Mexican authorities. And as the head of the Sinaloa cartel, Guzman 

contributed to the death and destruction of millions of lives all 

around the world, and the arrest of the world’s most wanted international drug trafficker is a major step forward in our shared fight 

against drug trafficking and violence. 

In the past year, ten more of the most wanted drug traffickers, 

known as ‘‘CPOTs’’ by the Department of Justice and otherwise 

known as ‘‘kingpins,’’ have been arrested. Six were extradited to 

the United States, and among them was Daniel ‘‘El Loco’’ Barrera, 

who for more than 20 years led an organization that distributed 

hundreds of tons of cocaine around the world, leaving a trail of violence in his wake. Barrera was considered one of the last true drug 

kingpins in the Andean region. 

Since we started tracking CPOTs in 2003, a total of 179 have 

been identified around the world, and of those, through our enforcement efforts, 75 percent have been indicted, 55 percent have 

been arrested, and 31 percent have actually been extradited to the 

United States, and this is a record that we are very proud of. 
5 

By keeping the pressure on drug traffickers and stripping them 

of almost $27 billion in revenue since 2005, we have prevented the 

use of these funds to fuel the next round of drug production and 

other nefarious activities. This is one of DEA’s contributions to the 

comprehensive national drug control strategy, which has guided a 

decrease in the overall rate of illicit drug use in America by 35 percent in the past 35 years. And just like the efforts to eliminate cancer or poverty, the fight against drug abuse is a generations-long 

struggle, and it will not be won overnight. 

Since 2006, the number of current users of any form of illicit 

drug other than marijuana dropped 8 percent, and regular cocaine 

use dropped 32 percent between 2006 and 2012, and at the same 

time, methamphetamine use is down by 40 percent. But we still 

have areas of concern. 

An estimated 6.8 million Americans regularly use prescription 

drugs for non-medical reasons. As troubling, 80 percent of firsttime heroin users started by using prescription pain pills. 

The availability of both heroin and marijuana is growing. In 

2012, 438,000 Americans were addicted to heroin, and 10 times 

that number were dependent on marijuana. From 2007 to 2012, the 

number of regular heroin users in this country more than doubled, 

and not surprisingly, overdose deaths have increased as well. 

One trend we have seen over and over again is that drug use 

rises as the perception of risk decreases. We are seeing that now 

with marijuana. From 2008 to 2013, past month use of the drug 

increased among all 8th, 10th, and 12th graders surveyed. These 

increases parallel softening attitudes about the perceived risk of 

harm and disapproval associated with marijuana use. 

Marijuana use is a very serious problem in this country, and 

here are some of the facts: 

Marijuana-related emergency room visits increased by 48 percent 

between 2007 and 2011. One out of every 15 high school seniors is 

a near-daily marijuana user. In fact, since 2009, more high school 

seniors have been smoking marijuana than smoking cigarettes. 

And researchers have found that adolescents who use marijuana at 

least 4 days per week lost an average of 8 IQ points. 

These facts paint a picture of the choices we have to make and 

of the future we will be facing. Drug abuse is devastating on a personal level, and drug trafficking poses a serious threat to society 

because of the violence and the hazards that accompany it and the 

terrorist organizations that are often funded by it. 

So now is not the time to sound the retreat but, rather, we 

should be redoubling our efforts. DEA will continue attacking these 

threats using tools and techniques that have worked so well for us 

in the past: close relationships with Federal, State, local, and international partners, information sharing and case coordination, and 

going after what drug traffickers value most—that is, their money. 

I have great confidence that DEA, with your support, will continue to build on our gains and overcome the challenges that lie 

ahead, and those challenges are not insignificant. Today’s drug 

traffickers exploit new and evolving technologies to communicate, 

to launder ill-gotten gains, to facilitate the smuggling of drugs and 

weapons, and develop new substances that can be abused. 
6 

So thank you for your partnership, and I look forward to continuing to work with this Committee and Congress on these important issues, and I ask that my written statement be added to the 

record. 

Chairman LEAHY. It will be placed in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Leonhart appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. We do appreciate you being here. After all, you 

are somebody with 30 years of law enforcement experience, starting 

as a Baltimore City police officer, then as a DEA special agent, so 

you can speak with firsthand knowledge of many of these issues. 

I am concerned with how prescription opioids have become the 

drug of choice in America. I think we have seen it all over the 

country. Demand for treatment has skyrocketed. Deaths from overdose have far eclipsed all other drugs. Opioid addiction all too often 

leads to heroin, as you know. We see this in every State, including 

my own of Vermont. And that is why it is concerning to see powerful new opioids without any abuse deterrent technologies enter our 

communities. 

The most recent example I have been told about is Zohydro. 

What is DEA doing to monitor the use of this? And what will you 

do if you find widespread abuse? 

Administrator LEONHART. Thank you, Senator, for mentioning 

the opioid problem. It is the Nation’s fastest growing drug problem, 

and it is not confined to large cities or the west coast versus the 

east coast. It is across our country. So DEA shares your concerns. 

We also share the concern with any new opioids that come on the 

market and are prepared and have to be prepared for additional 

use to become additional abuse and—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Does that include Zohydro? 

Administrator LEONHART. We anticipate, because it is really the 

first hydrocodone, pure hydrocodone product coming out, that we 

will have addicts that will seek it out just because it is pure 

hydrocodone. We are concerned because anytime you put a new opiate on the street—we all remember the days of Oxycontin, when 

that was released. This is a drug that is coming out without any 

tamper-resistant ability to prevent it being crushed, smoked, and 

snorted by addicts. 

So we are very concerned, but we also believe that the enforcement efforts that we have put forth and what we have done to really move our agencies toward prioritizing prescription drugs will 

help alleviate, will help confront any additional use or abuse we 

see. 

Chairman LEAHY. I would hope also the manufacturer would 

start cooperating with you; otherwise, they face the potential for 

backlash from Congress, which is something they probably would 

not want to face. So I hope they do cooperate with you. 

We also consistently hear from Vermont law enforcement that a 

stronger DEA presence is needed in southern Vermont. You have 

agents stationed in Burlington. Where are we toward the possible 

permanent assignment in southern Vermont of DEA agents? 

Administrator LEONHART. Well, to help in Rutland—and I have 

met with the police chief and met recently with members of the 

Vermont Highway Patrol, we have been very active working in 
7 

Vermont. We have actually—even though Burlington is a small office, we have actually sent agents temporarily, TDY on a continuous basis, to help in Rutland and make sure that we have an enforcement presence there. 

I am hoping by the end of the week or even earlier next week 

that I will be having a conversation with the U.S. Attorney in 

Vermont who has been talking to our special agent in charge. And 

as we make decisions about moving forward with resources or reallocating resources, I will take into account what his needs are 

and what he feels DEA could do to assist him in his district. 

Chairman LEAHY. And by highway patrol, I assume you mean 

the Vermont State Police, which do a lot—— 

Administrator LEONHART. That is correct. 

Chairman LEAHY [continuing]. More than patrolling the highway. 

They handle many other things. I am very proud of what they do. 

I sent a letter earlier this year expressing my concerns about certain DEA investigative techniques. Some of that information remains classified. Some has been deemed law enforcement sensitive. 

We do need more of a public dialogue. Senator Whitehouse and I 

have both raised this. So will you cooperate with our Committee’s 

oversight? Will you advocate within the executive branch for additional transparency with respect to DEA’s investigative efforts? 

Administrator LEONHART. Senator, I am limited in what I can 

talk about regarding those programs. 

Chairman LEAHY. I understand. 

Administrator LEONHART. But just be assured we have had oversight of those programs since 1992, and we will work with you. I 

know that we have come up to brief some Members of this Committee, and we will continue to look at ways to improve. And if it 

is found that additional oversight is needed, we welcome a look at 

what we have been doing. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, Senator Whitehouse and I and others 

will continue to ask questions about that. I always worry when 

things are suddenly classified, and I realize that a lot of things 

should be, but sometimes things are classified because they do not 

stand the light of day. And we want to make sure that is not the 

case. And I know that some of these practices have been suspended 

by the Department of Justice pending review, and that is what I 

mean about facing the light of day. Sometimes they do not stand 

up for that. And without going into classified matters, we will discuss this further. 

I also sent last year a letter regarding the counternarcotics operation in Honduras in 2012 that killed four civilians, including a 14- 

year-old boy. In response to my letter of last year, I received a response this week. 

Have you changed at DEA these types of counternarcotics operations as a result of the Honduras experience? Are you doing 

things to minimize casualties, especially civilians? 

Administrator LEONHART. Senator, I assure you that we have 

looked at that operation from many sides to figure out, number 

one, how to learn from that; number two, you know, working with 

our Honduran counterparts, making sure that we are providing 

them the best training that we can. I want to assure you that we 
8 

feel very, very bad about any tragedy, and this with the loss of four 

civilians is included. 

We going forward, however, have looked at ways that we could 

improve operational planning, how we can improve the training 

that we are giving. 

Chairman LEAHY. Considering the corruption and other problems 

in Honduras, I would hope that you and your department would 

put very strict controls because otherwise, we could have real problems. 

And, last—and I realize I have gone over my time—the farm bill 

has provisions for hemp research by universities and State departments. A lot of hemp is used in clothing and other material. People 

want to conduct serious research, not only in my State but a lot 

of other States. When are you going to provide guidance to the public on how to conduct this research? And will you work with the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is looking at the research 

here, on the commercial nature of hemp in clothing and everything 

else? 

Administrator LEONHART. Yes, Senator. With the passage of the 

farm bill as well as directed from the Deputy Attorney General 

from last August on priorities, use of resources for the Department 

on marijuana cases, the Department is currently reviewing both of 

those to better understand how we need to go forward with hemp 

issues. And working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and 

other stakeholders, we will make sure that once decisions are made 

by the Department, that we put out guidance and that we work 

with those stakeholders. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, and I apologize to Senator Grassley for going over time, and I yield to him. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I do not complain because you go over time 

because you always give me equal time. 

Chairman LEAHY. That is right. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I am going to repeat a sentence that I gave 

in my opening statement. It is hardly surprising that a senior DEA 

official recently told the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics 

Control that what was happening in these States—meaning Washington and Colorado and maybe also, I think, by implication where 

there was medicinal marijuana—is ‘‘reckless and irresponsible.’’ 

So I want to go then to the Cole memo of last August where the 

Department of Justice established a number of Federal priorities to 

guide its marijuana enforcement activities in States that legalized 

it. However, the memo also warned that, ‘‘If State enforcement efforts are not sufficiently robust to protect against the harms set 

forth above, the Federal Government may seek to challenge the 

regulatory structure itself.’’ 

Now, I do not agree that the administration should be talking 

about what they are going to prosecute or not prosecute, but if they 

follow closely whether or not the State is doing what the Justice 

Department said you had to do if they were not going to have prosecution, then that makes it a little more responsible. 

So then leading up to my question, the first three priorities listed 

in the Cole memo are: one, preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors; two, preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana going to criminal enterprises involving drug-trafficking gangs 
9 

and cartels; and, three, preventing the diversion of marijuana to 

other States. 

So a simple question: Could you tell us what the trends are in 

Colorado in these areas? 

Administrator LEONHART. Senator, on those enforcement priorities you discussed, obviously DEA and our State and local law enforcement partners are concerned about marijuana going from Colorado or Washington to surrounding States. And we are very concerned about what we see happening in Colorado. 

Take, for instance, Kansas, and we have talked to our partners 

in Kansas, and they have already been seeing a 61-percent increase 

in marijuana seizures coming from Colorado, and these seizures 

were destined for 18 other States. They have also seen an increase, 

a 49-percent increase in money seizures of money going back to 

Colorado that they assume were a part of the proceeds coming back 

from marijuana loads. So that is of great concern to us, as is the 

first priority, which is preventing the distribution of marijuana to 

minors. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Now, on that latter point, you have seen some 

of that very much advertised on recent news reports about 4th 

graders selling marijuana for $11 as an example. When you said 

you are concerned about sales to minors, have you observed sales 

to minors like I think I have heard in the news reports? 

Administrator LEONHART. Well, not only in Colorado, but other 

States that have marijuana dispensaries, where we have seen that, 

those instances give us reason to take action, and we have. We 

have closed down dispensaries. We have done investigations, and 

especially, you know, I am thinking of one in particular in California where we got a call from a school principal who warned us 

that a local dispensary had put notices on the cars in the high 

school parking lot advertising, you know, ‘‘Stop by.’’ 

We also have complaints from citizens about their kids being 

stopped on the way to school and being given—or asked to come 

into the store and being given samples. So those are what causes 

most of our investigations. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Maybe as a matter of a summary, would you 

say that the trends are moving in the right direction or the wrong 

direction? 

Administrator LEONHART. The trends are what us in law enforcement had expected would happen. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. So it does not end up being a surprise 

to you. 

As a follow-up to that, and my understanding is that you are not 

involved in the prosecution—I mean, in carrying out the Department of Justice’s recommendations on prosecution, but have you 

talked to anyone at the Department of Justice who is monitoring 

what is happening in Colorado for the purposes of re-evaluating its 

decision not to challenge the State law? And, second, do you know 

whether anyone there is actually doing so? 

Administrator LEONHART. Well, I can tell you we have been talking with the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney in Colorado. In fact, on Friday, we were able to—based on an indictment, 

we made arrests for exactly what we have been concerned about. 

These were Colombian nationals who had invested in a marijuana 
10 

business in Colorado. We took action. Part of the investigation 

went down last fall, and we were able to obtain indictments and 

make arrests, and there is more to come. 

So we have been working with the Department and working with 

the U.S. Attorney’s Office to bring cases that we at DEA feel are 

significant and violate those eight factors. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Do you think that some of the things you just 

told me have led to any discussion about revisiting the decision not 

to challenge the State law? Has it gone that far? 

Administrator LEONHART. I am not aware of any discussion. I 

know the stakeholders within Government—ONDCP, HHS, and 

others—you know, we are finding a way to look at the data that 

is coming out from those States so that we are in a better position 

to assess what is going on. 

Senator GRASSLEY. But then is that information being accumulated to advise people in prosecution whether or not these States 

ought to be left alone or not? That is what I was getting at. Do you 

think it is being revisited by the people that originally made the 

decision as a result of some of the things you can tell them if they 

listen to you? 

Administrator LEONHART. I believe that they are assessing it. To 

what extent they are assessing it, I do not know. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. Let me go to the heroin epidemic. I am 

sure you would agree that enforcement of our drug-trafficking laws 

is an important component of the Federal response to our country’s 

heroin epidemic, so I ask a question about heroin trafficking. 

First, I want to be clear about whether mandatory minimums are 

applicable to heroin users or dealers. The law currently applies a 

5-year mandatory minimum sentence for possessing with the intent 

to distribute 100 grams of heroin. So my first question is: How 

many hits does 100 grams of heroin contain? And is that number 

of hits consistent with someone who is just a plain dealer? 

Administrator LEONHART. Well, Senator, to answer your question, this packet is a 1-gram packet, so 100 of these. Depending on 

the experience of the user—because it will change. If you are a novice user, you will not need as much. If you are an experienced user, 

you will need more. And this is not taking into account what type 

of heroin it is or what part of the country this is coming from. But, 

on average, with one hit being about 30 milligrams, this one packet—100 of these would produce about 3,300 to 3,500 uses. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. Well, then, is that number of hits consistent with someone who is just a plain user? 

Administrator LEONHART. That in our world would be dealer 

quantities. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. 

Administrator LEONHART. Traffickers. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I will have to end with this because my equal 

time is just about up. As I mentioned earlier, our Federal prosecutors making these cases on the line every day have told us that the 

system of penalties in place now is a critical tool for them to be 

able to dismantle drug-trafficking networks to keep our communities safe. Do you and your DEA line agents find the mandatory 

minimum sentence to be a valuable tool? And if so, explain why 

you consider it a valuable tool? 
11 

Administrator LEONHART. Having been in law enforcement as an 

agent for 33 years, a Baltimore City police officer before that, I can 

tell you that for me and for the agents that work for DEA, mandatory minimums have been very important to our investigations. We 

depend on those as a way to ensure that the right sentences are 

going to equate to the level of violator that we are going after. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Tell Senator Leahy he can have 23 more seconds. I went over that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator 

Grassley. 

I have two questions that I will address now with the Administrator. The first has to do with the development of your policies as 

prescription drugs, and the abuse of prescription drugs, and particularly opioid prescription drugs, increasingly dominates America’s drug abuse problem. My worry is that as you direct more law 

enforcement attention to that problem and more regulatory attention to that problem, you may intrude on the legitimate and proper 

use of those prescription drugs. And I am wondering what the 

structure is within DEA for evaluating those concerns, because 

while it is definitely a concern that we address the abuse of these 

prescription drugs, it is also a concern if an 80-year-old woman who 

is alone in the world and living in a nursing home is in terrible 

pain at 2 o’clock in the morning and there is no way for her to get 

relief from her pain because we have made it such a fortress of regulation around her bedside that you have to get a doctor up at 2 

in the morning to go do that, and that is not likely to happen. 

How does the sensitivity to the concerns of the elderly and other 

needy users of these drugs, legitimate users of these drugs, play 

into your calculation? 

Administrator LEONHART. Senator, at DEA, you know, we have 

the Office of Diversion Control, and working with them, it is very 

important to strike that balance. It is very hard, but it is very important to us because—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Who is the advocate for that balance within DEA? 

Administrator LEONHART. Well, I am the advocate for the balance, but so are the men and women that are working not only in 

the Office of Diversion Control but even with our special agents in 

charge, and I can give you an example. We have—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I mean more specifically, in terms of the 

development of this regulation, there are people who are going to 

be involved in it. Is there somebody in that who actually has the 

task of trying to look at this from the legitimate user’s point of 

view and make sure that that point of view is brought into the discussion? 

Administrator LEONHART. Several different levels, and it depends 

on what regulation, but regulations that require rulemaking always have a comment period, and so the regulations that we have 

put out as interim or as proposed rulemaking, all of those comments have come back, and we have had some that have come back 

with 200-plus comments. All of those comments are taken into consideration and addressed. And so those comments and concerns are 
12 

looked at by the Office of Diversion Control in coming up with a 

final rule, but they are also looked at—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So the comment process is really key to 

that, because it is outside voices coming through the comment process that are really the advocacy voice on this side of that balance. 

Administrator LEONHART. It is outside voices, but as the rule 

moves within the agency at the chief of diversion control level, he 

is looking at it, and he has done a very good job making sure that 

there is that balance. And then before it gets to the Deputy Administrator or myself, there is discussion about impact on any rule that 

we sign with the Office of Diversion Control. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Okay. As this goes forward, just do not 

forget the elderly lady alone and in pain as you are trying to crack 

down, very legitimately, on these abused but regulated and lawful 

prescriptions. 

The other question is on electronic prescribing. The agency and 

I have had a long back-and-forth on this subject, and after a considerable effort and considerable time, ultimately you changed the 

regulations to allow electronic prescribing of controlled substances, 

which I think was a huge step forward. 

One of the values of that is allowing for law enforcement access 

to data that the system produces so that you know if a podiatrist 

is prescribing lots of hydrocodone, maybe that is worth looking into. 

If the same individual is going to five different doctors and five different pharmacies and getting prescriptions filled for oxycodone, 

maybe that is worth looking into. And if somebody goes from 50 

prescriptions a month to 500, maybe that is worth looking into. 

But I do not see that developing very effectively between DEA 

and the States, and I am told that the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology is right now working to 

develop consensus standards for exchanging this kind of information with the prescription drug monitoring programs. I am not 

aware that DEA is actually involved in that conversation. Similarly, there is a White House initiative called the ‘‘National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace,’’ which helps deal with 

authentication and other issues when you are dealing with electronic information. And I am not aware that DEA is involved in 

that process either. 

Are you involved in those processes, and should you be? 

Administrator LEONHART. Senator, I will go back and check on 

the first one you mentioned. I am not aware of, and we very well 

could be. On the second one, I know we have been involved in the 

certification process, if that is what you are talking about. We have 

certified the companies that then go in and bless whatever technology is going to be used. So we are often involved in the conversation. But having been involved with the trusted IDs, as you— 

the conversation as you have just described, I will need to get back 

to you on that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Okay. Well, I look forward to working 

with you. I think that the value of moving toward electronic prescribing for controlled substances from an enforcement point of 

view is to be able to identify peculiarities and outliers for further 

law enforcement investigation. And if you are not engaged in getting that done, you are not helping the program go forward. 
13 

I will stop right here and end the tradition of going well over 

time and yield to Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I agree with 

you that prescription drugs, as we described in Mobile a number 

of years ago, the illegal use of prescription drugs is a winnable war. 

I mean, it is something that can be controlled, and I believe a 

united effort can make real progress in that. I hope you will continue to work at it. 

Isn’t it true that a number of illegal prescription drugs that are 

found on the streets may actually have been paid for by Medicaid, 

Medicare, or private insurance and, indeed, represent a fraud on 

those companies and the taxpayers? 

Administrator LEONHART. You are absolutely correct, Senator. In 

fact, a number of our cases we work with other agencies who are 

investigating Medicaid and Medicare fraud. That is quite common 

in our diversion investigations. 

Senator SESSIONS. Our little plan was simply with the police department that everybody arrested with an illegal prescription drug, 

the case would not be plea bargained until they told where they got 

the drug, and we ended up forfeiting two drug stores who were distributing drugs out the back door illegally. 

My experience in this area came when President Reagan appointed me United States Attorney in the early 1980s, and we commenced a community-wide effort to create a climate of hostility to 

drug abuse. At that time, according to the authoritative University 

of Michigan study, over 50 percent of high school seniors acknowledged that they had used an illegal drug within the last year. That 

was a dramatic statistic. It threatened the future of our young people in every community in America. Groups came together to educate, to try to reverse that trend. As a part of that, those experts 

told us law enforcement, effective prosecution, arrest of drug dealers, as well as an effort to create a climate of hostility to drugs 

were all part of the goal. And within 10 years, the percentage of 

high school students using illegal drugs had dropped below 25 percent. That was a tremendous achievement. 

The murder rate in 1980 per 100,000 was over 10; whereas, it 

dropped to under 5 today. And we have seen a continual drop. I 

think that even violence, would you not agree, is often connected 

to drug use and drug abuse? 

Administrator LEONHART. You are absolutely correct. I think that 

there is a correlation between the fact that we did approach the 

drug issue not only from enforcement but also from a demand reduction and messaging point. I think there is a correlation there. 

A 35-percent reduction in overall drug use since 1979, the same 

with high school seniors, and we see that same drop in violent 

crime. So I do see a connection. 

Senator SESSIONS. And you are seeing it edge upward now in recent years in drug use among young people? 

Administrator LEONHART. We were doing very good, we were 

doing very good until the messaging changed, and we started to 

see—we had an exploding prescription drug problem, and that has 

now become a heroin problem as well. But all the other numbers 

were dropping. Like I mentioned in my opening statement, we have 

seen cocaine use drop to all-time lows in this country. We have 
14 

seen meth use drop by almost a third. So I believe that it is the 

holistic approach, you know, prevention on the front end, treatment, and enforcement, because a lot of people are not going to 

treatment without that nudge from law enforcement. It is important. 

Senator SESSIONS. Without that nudge from law enforcement. 

That is what the treatment people and the experts I dealt with 

said, some of the best. You have to be able to arrest people, and 

then you are intervening in their destructive habit, and you have 

a chance then to change their lives many times. And I have seen 

that with drug courts and other type ideas. 

But I have got to tell you, you said the messaging changed, and 

I think some people are irresponsible in what we are hearing about 

particularly marijuana. I thank you and some of your officials in 

DEA for speaking out and telling the truth about the dangers of 

marijuana. This is not a non-dangerous drug. And I got to tell you, 

in terms of messaging, the President’s statement to me, I spent 12 

years working with grassroots citizen groups to change the approach to drugs and the climate of drugs and to make it a hostile 

climate for drugs and explain the dangers of drug use. 

For 1 year, we met every single week—the mayor, the chief of 

police, the head of mental health—and we discussed these issues. 

This is why it is so painful to me and to every person who has 

dedicated themselves and given time, effort, and money to reversing drugs, for the President of the United States to say, ‘‘As has 

been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid. And I view it as a 

bad habit and a vice, not very different from cigarettes that I 

smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. 

I do not think it is more dangerous than alcohol.’’ 

That is the President of the United States gratuitously making 

a statement of extraordinary importance. It has the potential to 

eviscerate the work of thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands really, to try to explain the dangers of drugs. 

So let me ask you, did the President consult with you before he 

made that statement? 

Administrator LEONHART. I have not talked to the President 

about that interview. 

Senator SESSIONS. Do you know if he talked to the drug czar, the 

Office of National Narcotics and Drug—— 

Administrator LEONHART. I do not know who he talked to. 

Senator SESSIONS. I do not think he talked with medical experts 

either, who tell us repeatedly of the dangers particularly to young 

people from marijuana use, much less others. 

Isn’t it true that you do go through trends where we have seen 

a move from prescription drugs to heroin? 

My time is up. I will stop there, but maybe I will submit a written question. We need to find out more about the abuse and growth 

of heroin. In Alabama, we have seen a 400-percent increase in 

deaths in Birmingham from heroin use, from 14 in 1910 to the 

upper 70s last year. That is a dramatic increase in deaths from 

heroin in Birmingham, Alabama. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
15 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Sessions. And we all 

appreciate the experience that Senator Sessions brings to this 

equation as the former U.S. Attorney for his State. 

Senator SESSIONS. As the Chairman has been himself. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I now recognize Senator Klobuchar, and 

before we start her clock, let me express my appreciation to her for 

the work that she has done, I think really leading this Committee, 

on synthetic drugs, bath salts, and so forth, and trying to improve 

the scheduling response to that. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

and thank you for holding that all-day meeting yesterday with Senator Portman about addiction and the work that needs to be done. 

I was pleased to take part in that. 

And we welcome you, Administrator Leonhart. You spent many 

years in Minnesota—how many years? 

Administrator LEONHART. Most of my childhood. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes, well, we are proud to have you in this 

job. As you and I talked about last week, I recently led a delegation 

to Mexico a few weeks ago on the topic of sex trafficking as well 

as heroin, and I think we asked every single official there, including the Attorney General of Mexico and the head of the Federal police, about what was going on with heroin. I was there with Senator Heitkamp and Cindy McCain, wife of Senator John McCain. 

And as you know, about 50 percent of the heroin is grown in Mexico and 60 percent of the heroin that we have come into the U.S. 

is either grown or distributed through Mexico. 

Just as Senator Sessions was talking about, we have seen a lot 

of overdoses in Minnesota. In the first half of 2013 alone—this is 

the first half—91 people died of opiate-related overdoses in Hennepin and Ramsey County alone. It was a significant increase. Hospital visits for heroin nearly tripled from 2004 to 2011. And in the 

7,000-person community of St. Francis, Minnesota, three young 

people have died of opiate overdoses since May, just to give you a 

sense of why this was important to me, why it was one of the reasons I went down to Mexico. And the things we learned there was, 

as you know—and you and I talked about the prosecutors there 

and the police working with our law enforcement and DEA are 

really ramping it up on the cartels. They were able to capture— 

Mexican police captured El Chapo in Mexico, long-time boss of the 

powerful Sinaloa drug cartel, which dealt in heroin. And talking to 

them, it appears there are still many issues with some of this now, 

with taking on some of the leadership of the cartels, we now have 

smaller gangs dealing in some of these drugs. We have lower-level 

kidnappings, express kidnappings for a day, and talking to the 

Mexican authorities, three things: one, that they are trying to beef 

up their southern border as they are seeing that pure heroin coming up from other countries down there, something we do not always think about; second, we pushed on the eradication issue, 

which has been successful in parts of Colombia, as we are starting 

to see not just the black tar heroin coming out of Mexico but some 

of their own white powder heroin; and then, of course, the third is 

the continuing coordination with our own DEA and law enforcement in going after these cartels. 
16 

This comes at a time where Mexico is so eager to partner with 

not just the United States but Canada as part of the New Day in 

North America, and there is so much potential for our economies 

to work together. And I actually see some potential in a major way 

for us for exporting things down there if they can grow a middle 

class and take care of some of this violence which has really prohibited them from getting—reaching their full potential. 

So if you could talk a little bit about your efforts with Mexico. 

Administrator LEONHART. Thank you, Senator, for sharing what 

you discussed on your trip, and thank you for the interest, especially bringing up the heroin issue on your trip. 

The relationship between officials in Mexico and the DEA and 

the greater U.S. Government law enforcement community is still at 

an all-time high, very, very good collaboration, and that is why we 

have the success of being able to, you know, take into custody 

Chapo Guzman and how that impacts drug trafficking around the 

world, because he was such a big figure. 

We have a number of operations and a number of initiatives that 

we are working jointly with our Mexican counterparts and the 

other Government agencies, and this is starting to pay off in dividends, not just with El Chapo’s arrest but also the arrest of other 

leaders and mid-level leaders of Los Zetas, of the Gulf cartel, of the 

Beltran-Leyva organization, and all of these organizations that 

really are responsible for most of the cocaine, most of the heroin, 

most of the drugs—meth—that are landing in our communities. 

So when Senators take an interest in pushing for good relationships with our Mexican partners, we need to thank you for that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Another issue which you and I have discussed at length is the bill—and this does relate to heroin, since 

four out of five heroin users now got their start with prescription 

drugs and got addicted to prescription drugs and then turned to 

heroin when they cannot find the prescription drugs, and oftentimes end up dead or addicted for life. One of the things that we 

passed 4 years ago, Senator Cornyn and I, passed out of this Committee and was signed into law, was the Secure and Responsible 

Drug Disposal Act. The idea here is to change some of the rules 

to make it easier for drug takebacks, not just have them once every 

3 months in communities where we know they are collecting tons, 

but try to find more permanent arrangements in long-term care facilities as well as potentially pharmacies if the pharmacy is giving 

them the opportunity, not required but to take back these drugs, 

how easy that would be as we no longer want to tell people to flush 

these drugs down the toilet because of the water supply or my favorite, grind them up with coffee grinds and put them in the garbage, because I do not have a lot of coffee grinds in my house. 

So I think that is not realistic for busy families, and I am hopeful 

that we can get these done. You know, we have been frustrated by 

how long it took, and I heard a little rumor that maybe you got 

some comments back from the Office of Management and Budget 

this week, and that that means it is then back in your court, if that 

were to happen, how long do you think it will take to get these 

rules out? 

Administrator LEONHART. Well, I can tell you that we did get 

them back, and we have already taken care of a couple of the con-
17 

cerns. There is still a concern that we need to address, but we are 

hoping that we can do that very quickly. We remain optimistic, because I know we have all been waiting a very long time to have 

these regulations in place so that people can have kind of a 24/7 

way to dispose of the medications that have for year languished in 

their medicine cabinet. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, I appreciate that, because every time 

I see one of the public service ads, which I think are very good, 

showing someone open the medical cabinet and then seeing their 

kid’s face because their kid is taking the drugs that should not be 

in there anymore, I always think, ‘‘Okay, this is great. We are 

doing this. It is going to stop people from getting addicted and then 

moving on to heroin.’’ But if they do not know what to do with the 

drugs and they have no real place to put them, we have a problem. 

So I appreciate that and urge you to get these rules done as soon 

as possible. 

Thank you very much, Administrator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. 

Now we turn to Senator Hatch who, among other things, is the 

lead on the Designer Anabolic Steroid Control Act with me. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you. It is certainly a pleasure always to work with you and other Members of this Committee. I appreciate the effort you put forward. 

Welcome, Ms. Leonhart. We are so grateful to have you here. I 

first want to raise the problem of marijuana cultivation on land in 

my home State of Utah that the Federal Government currently 

owns. The Federal Government owns a majority of land in only five 

of the 50 States, and that figure is actually around 70 percent of 

my home State of Utah. 

Now, people in most of the country do not know what that 

means, but Utahans certainly do. It means that the Federal Government has the responsibility to address issues and problems related to the Federal land itself. And this is not the first time I have 

addressed the Federal Government’s failure to live up to that responsibility. 

Last year, for example, I offered an amendment to the immigration bill that would enhance penalties for marijuana cultivation on 

Federal land. Now, this Committee adopted my amendment by 

unanimous consent. These activities pose a direct threat to public 

safety in and around our communities. 

Do you agree that this is a serious problem and that it is the 

Federal Government’s responsibility to solve it? 

Administrator LEONHART. I do, Senator, and, you know, we have 

worked with our State and local counterparts in Utah and have 

done a number of cases, just as you have mentioned, that have 

been on public lands. 

Senator HATCH. I appreciate that. 

Administrator LEONHART. It seems that we each year are seizing 

more and more plants until recently. We have almost seen a shift 

off of public lands, though, to indoor grows, but the importance of 

continuing to go after the growing on public lands is, number one, 

it is an enforcement priority for the Government because that is 

Government property; growing on public lands, there is a lot of concern because we see Mexican trafficking groups take hold on a 
18 

number of those grows. We also are concerned because of the dangers, you know, someone hiking through the woods coming across 

a grow. There have been instances, not just in Utah but instances 

in other States, where there have been booby traps, and it is dangerous. 

So we have continued our efforts. We continue to run an eradication-suppression program. We continue to fund State and local 

authorities who pledge to go and take enforcement on public lands. 

And we will continue to do so, and I know you have been very supportive in our efforts, and I want to thank you for that. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you. The problem I just described is 

getting worse for two related reasons: 

First, with the second-highest percentage of Federal land ownership in my home State, Utah sits next to Colorado, which now has 

legalized marijuana. The international drug cartels that already 

had been invading Federal land to cultivate illegal drugs will inevitably work to increase supply to meet the increased demand. 

And, second, even though your prepared statement says that the 

administration ‘‘continues to steadfastly oppose marijuana legalization,’’ the Justice Department announced that it will not challenge 

the legalization of marijuana in either Colorado or Washington. In 

addition, the administration says it wants to lower sentences for 

drug offenders and even invites those now in prison to apply for 

clemency. 

Now, to me, those are not welcome developments in a State like 

Utah where the Federal Government should be doing more to prevent its land from being used to fuel the problem. 

Now, do you agree that legalization of marijuana will increase 

the demand for marijuana and possibly other drugs as well? 

Administrator LEONHART. Senator, the administration opposes legalization of marijuana, and I believe one of the reasons it does oppose it is we know that where we see marijuana legalized, you 

should expect more use. 

Senator HATCH. Okay. Your prepared statement details some of 

the evidence that marijuana is, in fact, harmful to a person’s physical and intellectual development and may very well impair their 

quality of life. Now, research also shows, however, that whether a 

person will use drugs depends very much on whether that person 

believes that the drug is harmful. 

According to the Monitoring the Future Study, the perception of 

harm for regular marijuana use among 12th graders has steadily 

declined. Young people increasingly see marijuana as legal and medicinal rather than harmful. And now we see innocent-looking 

edibles such as what appear to be cookies or even candy that ABC 

News has reported can be exponentially more potent than when 

marijuana itself is smoked. 

I have here in my hand an Alert Bulletin from the Colorado Information Analysis Center dated March 19, 2014. It says that there 

has been an increased amount of marijuana-infused products sold 

to the public and that these products include fruit chews, cupcakes, 

and even butter and banana bread—in fact, more than that. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask consent to place this bulletin in the record 

at this point. 
19 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Without objection, it shall be included in 

the record. 

[The bulletin appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Now, Ms. Leonhart, I think the inevitable result of this trend 

will be increased use, abuse, and addiction. Do you share my concerns on this? 

Administrator LEONHART. You have a right to be concerned, and 

as law enforcement officers, we are very concerned about that, especially when we see some of these edibles—the people who are 

making them and selling them are calling them ‘‘adult gummy 

bears,’’ but you cannot even tell the difference between, you know, 

kids’ gummy bears and those laced with marijuana. 

So we are very concerned, and it is one of the reasons why the 

Department of Justice in the August 29th memo with the eight factors—and they have, you know, factors in there related to kids, 

selling to kids. It is another reason why they put that memo out 

in anticipation that the States that pass legalization will put in 

place aggressive—not just on paper but real aggressive oversight, 

regulatory systems to take care of that. And we are very concerned 

about those edibles and about the high concentration. You know, 

a person you heard about, the young student who jumped out a 

window after eating the cookie, which was, you know, seven or 

eight servings, not just one. We are concerned about all of that. 

The marketing, when these packages look like they are marketed 

for kids, they look like candy bar wrappers. We share your concern. 

Senator HATCH. Well, I appreciate it. 

Mr. Chairman, can I ask one other question? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Of course. It is just the two of us. Please 

proceed. Take the time you need. 

Senator HATCH. See what a great Chairman he is? 

I mentioned earlier what I consider to be the administration’s 

misguided invitation for Federal prisoners to seek clemency in 

these cases. Now, the President has the authority to grant clemency in individual cases, and I would be the first to stand up for 

that right, and I think it should be exercised from time to time, 

and I decried some of the former Presidents not exercising clemency a little more than they do. 

But I cannot remember a President using that authority to 

change sentences for an entire category of Federal prisoners simply 

because he does not think that they should be in prison. 

Now, Congress alone has authority to determine sentencing policy, but I do not think the President appears to understand that. 

He is, in effect, trying to set sentencing policy on his own. 

Now, I do not expect you to comment on the President’s decision, 

but I did want to state for the record that I think he is going too 

far, that he is misuing his authority. And I will help him on clemency because I think sometimes we do not use that power enough 

as President. But I think he should work with us in Congress rather than against Congress, and I think that I would just recommend 

that to the President as part of this hearing. 

But States choosing to legalize marijuana will in some way regulate that to commercial activity. But as you know, the same criminal organizations that profit from selling marijuana deal also in 
20 

drugs such as heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, as well as engaging in human trafficking and other drug-related crimes. 

Now, law-abiding citizens and legislators may distinguish between such things, but traffickers and other criminals do not distinguish between them. They simply follow the money. 

What is the DEA doing to ensure that stores and dispensaries 

that legally sell marijuana do not act as fronts for illegal activities? 

And, further, how are you monitoring that marijuana being sold in 

these dispensaries is not obtained from criminals? 

Administrator LEONHART. Senator, we are concerned about that. 

On the first part, we have continued—where we see in Colorado or 

Washington, where we see these dispensaries that are impacting 

the eight factors in the August 29th memo, we are taking action. 

Just the action—and I am not sure if you were here, but I mentioned earlier about an action that we took in Colorado on Friday. 

Concerns for us were that the money that went into this business 

came from Colombia and Colombian nationals. So we took action 

and we will continue to take action where we see violations of those 

eight Federal priorities. 

Senator HATCH. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you giving me this extra time. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am delighted to do it. 

Senator HATCH. Thank you, Madam. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The topic of the mandatory minimums has 

come up on several occasions, and I just wanted to close with a 

comment on that. I have been the U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island, 

and I have been the Attorney General of Rhode Island, and clearly 

from a law enforcement perspective, there is enormous value to 

mandatory minimums. But as I think both courts and prosecutors 

agree, they also represent a shift of power from the court to make 

sentencing decisions to the prosecutors and to law enforcement to 

have sentencing decisions implicitly made through charging decisions. And the power that gives prosecutors can be very helpful. I 

have used it myself, because the threat of how you charge a case 

can turn a defendant in to a cooperator, and a cooperator can turn 

into a valuable witness against an even more dangerous defendant. 

So as we approach this issue, I think we have to recognize that 

this was an important tool in the hands of law enforcement. But 

at the same time, I think we also have to recognize that, from a 

cost-benefit equation, some people who ended up in prison for very 

lengthy terms for relatively minor offenses were not—the effort 

was not serving the public, was not serving the public safety, and 

it was not serving the taxpayer. 

And so we are clearly in a conversation on that right now, particularly in the Judiciary Committee, as it relates to the DurbinLee Smart Sentencing Act. I think that is a conversation that is 

well worth having, and I think there is room for progress there. 

There are clearly two sides to the equation, but I wanted to make 

sure that the record of this hearing recognized the other side of the 

equation, which is that, from a public safety and effectiveness point 

of view, these mandatory minimums have their downsides as well 

as their upsides. 

I also wanted to express concern with something, Madam Administrator, that you said to Chairman Leahy with regard to a pro-
21 

gram that has been of interest to Members of this Committee. You 

indicated, if I wrote it down correctly, that you all have briefed 

Members of the Committee. I do not believe that has actually taken 

place. I think what has taken place is that Members of the Committee asked to be briefed, and we were told that that was not possible because of an ongoing agency review. And then when we 

pressed, we were allowed a law enforcement-sensitive staff briefing, 

which consisted of the staff being told that they could not be 

briefed on this because there were not Members present. 

So I think that was a not entirely satisfactory turn of events 

given that Members had been excluded from the meeting. The only 

thing that was offered was a staff briefing at that point. 

So we are working our way through that, and I think we are 

going to get our briefing, but I do want to do two things: one is a 

question for the record to the Drug Enforcement Administration for 

whatever constitutional basis you think there is for a claim that 

congressional oversight is limited by ongoing agency review. To me 

that is a constitutional proposition that has no support and no substance. It appears to have been the basis for delaying the member 

briefing, and so perhaps you are aware or your general counsel is 

aware of constitutional principles I am not aware of, and I would 

like to have them put on record as a response to a question for the 

record in this hearing how they would answer that question. 

Pushing for that briefing has been kind of a challenging experience. Pushing to try to get the e-prescribing rules changed, which 

took 3 years, was a challenging experience. Senator Grassley and 

I helped referee the battle between DEA and GAO over GAO’s inquiries into drug shortages. That was kind of a challenging experience. And as I look at the e-prescribing connection to prescription 

drug monitoring programs, once again it seems that we see challenges. I do not know if that is representative of a larger, ongoing 

bureaucratic culture of non-cooperation at DEA, but as these individual events begin to stack up, episodes begin to look like a pattern. And perhaps in response to a question for the record, you 

could explain DEA’s position with regard to those different instances, because I do not think that the agency wants to develop 

a reputation as an agency that does not cooperate and does not 

work well with others. 

Administrator LEONHART. You are absolutely right. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I assume that you have no concern with 

first responders getting access to naloxone for overdoses when—— 

Administrator LEONHART. We are very supportive of that, in fact, 

helped raise that with the International Association of Chiefs of Police who passed a resolution so that their members were aware 

that that is a very good way for police departments and first responders to attack the heroin and opiate overdose problem. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Good. And I think we all applaud Attorney 

General Holder for having made the statement that he did and 

pushed this issue forward from local first responders, whether law 

enforcement or EMT or Fire, to be prepared for the circumstances 

as we are presented with them more and more. I had a hearing— 

I should not say a hearing—a conference yesterday, Senator 
22 

Portman and I did, on addiction and recovery, and one of the statistics that emerged from that is that 105 Americans die every day 

from overdoses. And to the extent we can stem that toll of death 

and tragedy by having our first responders properly prepared, that 

seems like a good thing to do. 

So I thank you for appearing before the Committee. I thank the 

DEA for their courage and their vigilance in executing their law 

enforcement responsibilities. You and I have a friend in common 

who is a DEA agent whose career includes a particular instance of 

very great bravery, done for a very important purpose, and I think 

of DEA in those terms very often. So we wish you well in the work 

that you do, and we look forward to continuing a healthy and robust relationship between this Committee and your agency. 

The record of this hearing will remain open for one additional 

week if anybody wishes to add anything, and subject to that, the 

hearing is closed. 

Administrator LEONHART. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 
(23) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. MICHELE M. LEONHART BY SENATOR BLUMENTHAL
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. MICHELE M. LEONHART BY SENATOR HATCH
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. MICHELE M. LEONHART BY SENATOR FLAKE
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 

Æ