U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

43–149 PDF 2009

ONLINE PHARMACIES AND THE PROBLEM OF 

INTERNET DRUG ABUSE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 24, 2008 

Serial No. 110–186 

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 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 24, 2008 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

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

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................... 2 

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

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 3 

The Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative in Congress from the 

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

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 5 

The Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Ohio, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 

Security ................................................................................................................. 6 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Adminstration (DEA), U.S. Department 

of Justice, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10 

Ms. Christine N. Jones, General Counsel, GoDaddy.COM, Scottsdale, AZ 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 20 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 22 

Mr. William T. Winsley, Executive Director, Ohio State Board of Pharmacy, 

Columbus, OH 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 29 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 31 

Mr. Patrick J. Egan, Attorney-at-Law, Fox Rothschild, LLP, Philadelphia, 

PA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 55 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 57 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on 

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 4 

(1) 

ONLINE PHARMACIES AND THE PROBLEM OF 

INTERNET DRUG ABUSE 

TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2008 

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

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:32 a.m., in 

room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert 

C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Conyers, Scott, Smith, Gohmert, 

Forbes, Sensenbrenner, Coble, Chabot, and Lungren. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Subcommittee will now come to order. 

And I am pleased to welcome you today to the hearing before the 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on 

‘‘Online Pharmacies and the Problem of Internet Drug Abuse.’’ 

We have a growing problem where dangerous and addictive prescription drugs can too easily be bought over the Internet by anyone, including children. All they need to get relievers, tranquilizers, 

stimulants and sedatives is access to a computer and a credit card. 

None of the proper constraints, such as local doctors and pharmacists, exist in the Internet context. In most cases, there is no 

identifying information on the Web site with respect to where the 

actual pharmacy is located or who operates the Web site. 

A questionnaire is filled out by the customer without meaningful 

interaction between the doctor and the patient. And you could have 

a situation where a pharmacy in one State fills a prescription written by a doctor in another State for a patient in yet another State. 

The illegitimate practice is growing and will continue to thrive. 

In fact, from 2006 to 2007, there has been a 70 percent increase 

in the number of Web sites advertising or selling controlled prescriptive drugs over the Internet. The 2006 National Survey on 

Drug Use and Health indicates that almost 7 million people currently misuse prescription drugs. 

I hope at this hearing we will be able to find answers to the following questions: What is the cause and nature of the problem? To 

the extent the problem originates from Web sites outside the 

United States, how do we crack down on it? How do we fight rogue 

Internet sites without overreaching on the legitimate ones? And are 

the existing laws adequate to address the problem? 

With respect to the second point, I look forward to hearing about 

the ways the private sector can assist in combating online sales 

2 

from foreign countries. We need to address the international aspect 

of this problem, and strengthening the public-private-sector collaboration can help provide an effective solution. 

Third point, I would like to stress that any legislation on this 

issue is no substitute for educational treatment and prevention programs. 

In addition, before enacting legislation, we need to consult with 

legitimate pharmacies who have online Web sites for their customers so that we do not tread on Americans’ ability to obtain easy 

access and convenience in seeking their prescriptions. 

And finally, we need to examine whether current laws are sufficient to address the problem. While a mechanism currently exists 

for certifying Internet pharmacies with the National Association of 

Boards of Pharmacy, this process is purely voluntary. 

To mandate a registration system for Internet sites, a bill has 

been introduced in the Senate, S. 980, the Ryan Haight Online 

Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act, and I understand that a 

House companion bill on this legislation will be introduced shortly. 

The bill will require businesses who distribute controlled substances using the Internet to register with the Drug Enforcement 

Administration and to report on the nature of their Web sites. The 

bill would also prohibit the sale of controlled substances that are 

sold over the Internet without prescriptions and would require doctors to have at least one in-person consultation with patients for 

whom they prescribe controlled medication. 

In addition, the bill creates a new crime that makes it unlawful 

for any person to knowingly or intentionally deliver, distribute or 

dispense a controlled substance over the Internet except as authorized by the bill. Penalties would also be in accordance with those 

offered under the Controlled Substances Act. 

Finally, the bill increases penalties for all illegal distribution of 

controlled substances classified as Schedule 3, 4 or 5 drugs. It also 

adds a mandatory minimum sentence for trafficking a certain daterape drug called ‘‘roofies.’’ 

Before passing any legislation, we need to examine these provisions further, as they are not directly linked to Internet sales and 

address drug trafficking generally. If that is the case, they should 

be dealt with in another bill. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and hope the hearing will identify the nature and problem of how we can effectively 

deal with illegitimate online sales while protecting the convenience 

of the legitimate ones. 

That said, it is my pleasure to recognize the former Ranking 

Member of this Subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia, my 

colleague, Randy Forbes, for his opening statement. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always a pleasure 

to be with you, and it is great to be back on this Subcommittee. 

And I, too, want to thank all of our witnesses for being here 

today. We appreciate your time. 

Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the Ranking Member of the Committee. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, are you yielding me time, or is the Ranking Member yielding me time? 

3 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, you have got the time either way. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SMITH. I don’t want to take up the Ranking Member’s time. 

Mr. Chairman, America is no stranger to illegal drugs and drug 

addiction. For decades, Congress has fought to curb the use of 

drugs such as heroin, cocaine and marijuana. Today America is facing a new threat: prescription drug abuse. 

According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, prescription drugs now rank second, only behind marijuana, as America’s 

drug of choice. The Drug Enforcement Administration estimates 

that as many as 7 million Americans are addicted to prescription 

drugs. Today, prescription painkillers cause a higher number of 

overdose-related deaths than cocaine and heroin combined. 

And large quantities of these drugs are just a few mouse-clicks 

away. Hundreds of online pharmacies peddle these highly addictive 

painkillers to adults and teenagers without a valid prescription. 

The most popular of these drugs is hydrocodone, more commonly 

known as Vicodin. 

These rogue Web sites can link a patient from Texas with a doctor in Florida. Based on little more than an online questionnaire, 

the doctor writes a prescription, which is then filled by a pharmacist in a different State. 

Teenagers are fast becoming addicted to prescription painkillers 

in large part because of their availability on the Internet. And, 

sadly, some of them are dying. 

On February 12, 2001, Ryan Haight died of an overdose of 

Vicodin. He was just 18. An investigation into his death revealed 

that Ryan ordered the drug from a doctor he had never seen and 

who had never examined him. The drugs were shipped directly to 

his home by an online pharmacy. 

Congress can and must put a stop to this. And today I join Congressman Bart Stupak and Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack in introducing the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection 

Act of 2008. 

This legislation amends the Controlled Substances Act to address 

the growing sale of prescription drugs by these so-called online 

pharmacies. The bill prohibits the sale or distribution of all controlled substances by the Internet without a valid prescription. It 

requires online pharmacies to display information identifying the 

business and any pharmacy and doctor associated with the Web 

site. The bill also provides tough penalties for the illegal sale of 

prescription drugs. 

Identical legislation sponsored by Senator Feinstein and Senator 

Sessions unanimously passed the Senate in April, and it is past 

time for the House to do the same. 

I welcome our witnesses today. 

And, Ranking Member Forbes, I yield back the balance of my 

time. Thank you for yielding. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman from Michigan, the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Scott. 

Does Mr. Forbes have an additional comment? I would yield to 

him if he does. 

4 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I do, but I would be glad to defer 

to you and go after that, Mr. Chairman, if you are so inclined. 

Mr. CONYERS. Oh, okay. 

Well, I thought this was going to be a very simple hearing here. 

And then I find out two things. 

One, we have got mandatory penalties all over the place. Now, 

maybe there is somebody on the panel that thinks that imprisoning 

addicts for as long as we can write the numbers in is a good idea. 

I think we will have to talk about that. 

And, of course, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Committee, he and I are in ongoing discussions on every subject before 

the Judiciary Committee, so we will just add that one to the list. 

But, you know, doubling—we imprison more people than anybody 

on Earth, and here we are dealing with a unanimously passed Senate product that says, ‘‘Hey, let’s go for more.’’ Schedule 3, from 5 

years, plus 2 years, new penalty, 10 years. A schedule 3, bodily use, 

10 years, 20 years. Date rape, oh, gosh, that is 20 years, easy. And 

so we go on down the line. 

I mean, what is this? Why? What possible salutary effect can it 

have? And what kind of deterrent do you think it is going to have 

on anybody that may be thinking about doing it? 

So I will be talking to my dear friend and colleague, Bart Stupak, 

and of course Ms. Bono about this. We need a new bill, Chairman 

Scott. I don’t want to be fooling around trying to amend this in the 

full Committee. And besides, we have got to be careful how we stop 

these illegal Internet pharmacy sites without getting it confused 

with the legitimate ones. 

And so I will put the rest of my statement in the record, and look 

forward to the testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY

In 2007, more than 500 internet sites advertised or sold controlled prescription 

drugs, such as Vicadin, Oxycontin, Valium, and Ritalin, and nearly 85 percent of 

these sites did not require an actual prescription. 

Online pharmacies present enormous implications for the health and safety of our 

communities and our children. In most instances, all that a person needs to buy 

these drugs is access to a computer and a credit card. As a result of the absence 

of any meaningful controls, even children can purchase prescription drugs online. 

Earlier this year, the Senate passed S. 980, dealing with online pharmacies. While 

a good start, the measure may have unintended consequences and impact individuals other than illegal drug dealers. 

It is my hope that any bill considered in the Judiciary Committee satisfies three 

principal goals. 

First, the legislation should not burden our already struggling health care system. 

Currently, there are 47 million uninsured Americans and another 50 million Americans who are under-insured. While some people buy drugs from these rogue internet 

sites for illegal purposes, others purchase them for legitimate medical reasons. We 

must carefully evaluate the impact of any measure on the cost of health care and 

prescription drugs for these millions of struggling Americans. 

For example, my bill, H.R. 676, would establish a universal health insurance program with single-payer financing that would cover all medically necessary services, 

including prescription drugs. This program would significantly reduce, if not eliminate, these rogue sites. At the very least, my program would make it much easier 

to identify illegal conduct from legal conduct. In the meantime, though, we need to 

consider whether there is more focused legislation that we can implement with respect to rogue internet pharmacies. 

5 

Second, the legislation must address the problem of illegal internet drug dealers. 

There are many legitimate pharmacies that use the internet to serve their customers. In addition, many insurance companies work with legitimate internet pharmacies to provide prescription drugs to patients, often at a reduced rate and increased convenience of the patient. The legislation should recognize the value of 

these pharmacies, and seek to stop the illegal internet pharmacy sites without substantially burdening the legitimate ones. 

Third, we need to recognize that the answer to substance abuse problems is not 

longer sentences in prison. The current penalties for controlled substance crimes— 

whether committed on the street or through the internet—are sufficiently harsh. 

Instead of imprisoning drug addicts for even longer periods of time, we should address the underlying problem of substance abuse. To that end, we should support 

educational programs that teach our children about the dangers of drug use and encourage providing community activities for our teenagers so that they don’t turn to 

drugs out of boredom. And, we should support meaningful drug treatment programs. 

I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today and hope they will provide us with a better understanding of the problem and possible solutions. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. And I thank the Chairman for his comments. 

The gentleman from Virginia? 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, again, we just want to point out that somewhere in America 

right now, a person is purchasing highly addictive painkillers from 

an Internet Web site. That Web site operator has no medical training. He is not licensed by the DEA of the State to dispense prescription drugs. The doctor has never examined this person, but he 

writes the prescription anyway, not for 10 pills or 20, but for 100. 

The dangers posed by illegal online pharmacies are real. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse reports a 542 percent increase in the abuse of prescription opiates among 12 to 17 

year olds between 1992 and 2000. 

These Web sites dispense large amounts of controlled substances, 

many characterized as Schedule 3 or Schedule 4 drugs under the 

Controlled Substances Act. 

The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy operates the 

Verified Internet Pharmacy Practices Sites accreditation process. 

To receive a VIPPS accreditation, a pharmacy must comply with 

the licensing requirements of its State and each State in which it 

dispenses medication. However, this accreditation process is merely 

voluntary, as the Chairman mentioned earlier. 

Internet pharmacies are not only a source for obtaining prescription pain medication, a good number of the drugs purchased from 

these illegal Web sites are counterfeit. Most counterfeit drugs come 

from overseas and are imported to the United States with false 

documentation. These drugs are often expired, diluted or mixed 

with other toxic substances. 

Patients purchasing drugs from these Web sites have no guarantees as to the drug’s safety. Moreover, they may experience a dangerous drug interaction or side effect from ingesting drugs without 

proper medical supervision. 

More than 80 percent of packages intercepted and examined at 

U.S. mail facilities have contained either unapproved foreign drugs, 

controlled substances or counterfeit drugs. According to the Food 

and Drug Administration, the number of fraudulent prescription 

drugs intercepted by customs officials nearly doubled between 2004 

and 2005. 

6 

Last year, the FDA was alerted that drugs such as Ambien, 

Xanax, Lexapro and Ativan ordered online were found to contain 

a powerful antipsychotic drug. The antipsychotic drug compound 

was haloperidol and is used in medications prescribed for schizophrenia. 

Also last year, the FDA issued a warning against the purchase 

of the weight-loss drug Xenical from online pharmacists. Tests 

showed that capsules purchased off the Internet did not contain 

orlistat, Xenical’s active ingredient. Some contained only talc or 

starch. Others included sibutramine, the active ingredient in another weight-loss drug, Meridia. 

Although Xenical and its active ingredient, orlistat, are not listed 

on the schedule under the Controlled Substances Act, sibutramine 

is listed as a Schedule 4 controlled substance. 

It is clear from these few examples that illegal online pharmacies 

pose a serious threat not only to those who have used narcotics but 

also to unsuspecting consumers. 

I commend Mr. Smith, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary 

Committee, for his leadership on this issue. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this hearing. 

And I thank all of our witnesses for their time and expertise, and 

I look forward to their comments. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

I would ask unanimous consent that other Members’ opening 

statements be made—— 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. SCOTT [continuing]. Part of the record at this point. 

The gentleman from Ohio. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous 

consent to make an opening statement, and I will keep it to about 

a minute, if I could? 

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I, again, want to thank you and the Ranking 

Member for holding this hearing. And I also want to welcome one 

of the witnesses that we have here, who is from the great State of 

Ohio, Mr. Winsley, executive director of the Ohio State Board of 

Pharmacy. 

The problem of prescription drug abuse is real and it is growing. 

With more than 7 million prescription drug abusers in this country, 

according to the DEA, rogue Internet pharmacies and Web sites 

only compound the drug problem, giving criminals new avenues to 

prey on the vulnerable. 

While passage of the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer 

Protection Act would be a positive first step, in my view, effective 

communication between State and Federal law enforcement and 

the private sector, including the pharmacies, manufacturers and 

distributors, is, I believe, key to staying ahead of the criminals and 

using technology to our advantage. 

Again, I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for holding this hearing. And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

7 

Without objection, other Members’ opening statements will be 

made part of the record at this point. 

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses here today to help 

us consider the important issues currently before us. 

Our first witness is Joseph Rannazzisi, who began his career 

with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in 1986. In 2006, 

he was appointed to the position of deputy assistant administrator 

for the Office of Diversion Control. In this position, he is responsible for overseeing and coordinating major diversion investigations, drafting and promulgating of regulations, establishing drug 

production quotas, and conducting liaison with various State and 

Federal agencies. He holds a B.S. degree in pharmacy from Butler 

University and a J.D. from Detroit College of Law at Michigan 

State University. 

Our next witness will be Christine Jones, general counsel of the 

Go Daddy Group. As general counsel, she is responsible for all legal 

affairs at the Go Daddy Group, as well as the Domain Services, 

Network Abuse, Compliance, and Legal departments. Her previous 

legal practice focused on complex commercial litigation. She worked 

for the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office prior to entering private practice. She holds a bachelor of science degree in accounting 

from Auburn University and a J.D. from Whittier Law School. 

The next witness will be William T. Winsley, who is executive director of the Ohio State Board of Pharmacy. He has been with the 

Board of Pharmacy since 1988, starting as a pharmacist investigator, moving to assistant executive director in 1991, and has been 

serving as executive director since 1998. Prior to employment with 

the board, he was a practicing pharmacist and pharmacy administrator with three different hospital pharmacies for a total of 14 

years. He holds a B.S. in pharmacy and an M.S. in hospital pharmacy management from Ohio State University. 

And our final witness will be Patrick J. Egan, who is a partner 

at the Fox Rothschild Attorneys at Law, where he is chairman of 

the white-collar practice group. He has nearly 20 years of experience in representing businesses, executives, professionals and other 

individuals in Federal white-collar criminal defense matters. His 

experience includes defending an Internet pharmacy site in the 

Federal grand jury investigation. He graduated from Pennsylvania 

State University and received his J.D. from Temple University 

School of Law in 1986. 

We begin with Mr. Rannazzisi. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH T. RANNAZZISI, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF DIVERSION CONTROL, DRUG 

ENFORCEMENT ADMINSTRATION (DEA), U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Good morning, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Forbes, Chairman Conyers, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. 

On behalf of Acting Administrator Michele Leonhart and the 

men and women of the Drug Enforcement Administration, I want 

to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the problem of prescription drug abuse and, in particular, the illegal distribution of controlled pharmaceuticals via the Internet. 

8 

As you may know, nonmedical use of addictive prescription drugs 

has been increasing throughout the United States at alarming 

rates. According to the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and 

Health, 7 million Americans used psychotherapeutic drugs nonmedically, with 5.2 million reportedly abusing pain relievers. Nationally, the misuse of prescription drugs remained second, only to 

marijuana. 

While forged prescriptions, doctor shopping and simple theft from 

medicine cabinets are all means by which highly addictive pharmaceutical controlled substances are diverted, the Internet has become an increasingly common method of diverting these drugs via 

rogue Internet pharmacies. 

The sheer volume of controlled substances being dispensed anonymously by rogue Internet pharmacies contributes significantly to 

the downstream methods of diversion. Illicit Internet sales of controlled sales of controlled substances commonly involve 100 or more 

pills per transaction. These sales occur hundreds of times per day. 

For example, in 2006, DEA identified 34 known or suspected 

rogue Internet pharmacies that dispensed over 98 million dosage 

units of hydrocodone-combination products. To put this into perspective, the average legitimate pharmacy in the U.S. dispenses approximately 88,000 dosage units of hydrocodone-combo products 

per year. 

DEA investigations of these Internet traffickers have found that 

the vast majority are linked to DEA-registered pharmacies and 

DEA-registered doctors. It should be noted that there are legitimate pharmacies that provide controlled substances—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Excuse me. Did you say they are or are not? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. They, for the most part, are related to DEA 

pharmacies that are registered DEA pharmacies and doctors. 

It should be noted that there are legitimate pharmacies that provide controlled substances via the Internet and operate daily within the boundaries of the law. 

However, as a point of clarification, there are many Web sites on 

the Internet that merely offer to sell controlled substances illegally. 

A Google keyword search such as ‘‘hydrocodone no prescription 

needed’’ reveals thousands upon thousands of hits. 

While the drug-seeker may go through several portal sites offering controlled substances, eventually the individual will be linked 

to the anchor Web site, or what we term the ‘‘Internet facilitation 

center.’’ These facilitation centers are the linchpin in the criminal 

scheme. They link drug-seekers to rogue doctors and rogue brickand-mortar pharmacies or illicit Internet pharmacies in exchange 

for huge profits. 

Under current law, however, these Internet facilitation centers 

are not required to register with DEA. And the Controlled Substances Act did not take into account the technological advances 

that have taken place since the CSA was established. The anonymity afforded by the Internet poses numerous challenges to law enforcement. 

Despite the challenges, DEA has identified, disrupted and dismantled several illegal operations involved in this growing threat. 

When we are able to identify these individuals and businesses, we 

9 

investigate and shut down those that operate outside the boundaries of the Controlled Substances Act. 

DEA is also targeting the source of supply for many rogue Internet pharmacies. The DEA registered wholesalers and distributors. 

DEA has initiated an education program for wholesalers and distributors to explain how these rogue schemes operate and reinforce 

what their requirements are under the CSA. 

When appropriate, DEA has taken legal action against the 

wholesalers and distributors who are not complying with their statutory obligations and providing rogue Internet pharmacies with 

huge quantities of controlled substance pharmaceuticals. 

In addition to working with DEA registrants, DEA has also developed a productive relationship with other businesses that are affected or inadvertently used to facilitate the Internet distribution. 

Finally, we continue to build upon solid, interagency partnerships with FDA, FBI, CBP, ICE, as well as the individual State 

boards of pharmacy and medicine. With that, it should be noted 

that interagency engagement on this topic has been ongoing for 

years. 

These discussions culminated with the Administration’s formal 

endorsement of the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008. This bill updates the CSA to set both permissible and impermissible conduct for Internet Web site operators, 

medical practitioners, and pharmacists involved in Internet distribution of controlled substances. This bill will provide law enforcement with additional tools to identify and shut down these illegal operations, thereby helping protect the American people. 

Chairman Scott, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, 

drug traffickers continue to exploit the Internet and threaten the 

health and safety of Americans. Nonetheless, the men and women 

of the Drug Enforcement Administration remain committed to 

bringing to bear all of the resources at our disposal to fight this 

growing problem while simultaneously ensuring an uninterrupted 

supply of controlled substances for legitimate demands. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this vital issue, and I 

would welcome any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rannazzisi follows:] 

10 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH T. RANNAZZISI


DEA-1.eps
11 


DEA-2.eps
12 


DEA-3.eps
13 


DEA-4.eps
14 


DEA-5.eps
15 


DEA-6.eps
16 


DEA-7.eps
17 


DEA-8.eps
18 


DEA-9.eps
19 


DEA-10.eps
20 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you very much. I failed to advise 

you of the lights before you that indicate the 5 minutes. You did 

well and came in right under. 

The green light will stay on for 4 minutes, the yellow light for 

1 minute. We would ask you to summarize your testimony in 5 

minutes, as best as you possibly can. 

Ms. Jones? 

TESTIMONY OF CHRISTINE N. JONES, GENERAL COUNSEL, 

GODADDY.COM, SCOTTSDALE, AZ 

Ms. JONES. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. 

First, thank you for the invitation to be here today. We are 

grateful for this Committee’s attention to this problem and for recognizing that online drug sales are a problem that must end. 

The purpose of my testimony is to describe the scope of the problem we all face and how Go Daddy specifically responds to those 

challenges. 

Go Daddy is interested in this issue because we often get requests from the DEA, for example, or other law enforcement agencies to disable online drug sites, and, as of today, there is no law 

we can rely on to help them. And we believe there should be such 

a law. 

So we are committed to taking whatever steps are necessary and 

feasible to assist in ending this practice. And we would also challenge our counterparts on the Internet to do the same. 

A domain name registrar serves as, sort of, the point of entry to 

the Internet. So, for example, if you wanted to become 

ChairmanScott.com, you could go to GoDaddy.com and get that 

name. Well, you can’t, because I registered that name in anticipation of this hearing, but if I hadn’t done that, you could. I will be 

happy to help your staff get that afterwards. [Laughter.] No, I won’t sell it. It only cost $9.99. 

A domain name registrar is different from an ISP like AOL or 

MSN or EarthLink in that the ISP provides access to the Internet; 

the registrar provides the registration service for a dot-com name 

and the like. 

Once you have ChairmanScott.com, you would have to build a 

Web site, and then you would have to find a place to actually put 

the files for your Web site. Again, you could go to GoDaddy.com for 

that service. And we call that ‘‘hosting’’ service. 

A hosting provider differs from an ISP in that the hosting provider provides space on a computer; the ISP provides access to the 

computer that has the data on it. 

The Go Daddy Group devotes considerable time and resources to 

working with law enforcement on preserving the integrity and security of the Internet by quickly closing down Web sites and domain names engaged in illegal activities. 

We work with law enforcement agencies at all levels—Federal, 

State and local—and routinely assist in a wide variety of criminal 

and civil investigations. We also work with groups like the AntiPhishing Working Group, Digital Phish Net, and so on. 

We have made it a high priority to use our position as the 

world’s largest registrar to try to make the Internet a better and 

safer place. 

21 

Often we end up investigating sites involving online drug sales. 

They come in many forms and degrees of severity. And they include 

things like sites with invalid contact data; sites depicting counterfeit or copycat drugs purporting to be drugs produced by major 

pharmaceutical companies, and you alluded to those in your opening statement; sites selling advertising advocating or promoting the 

use of drugs by minors; sites which admit to filling orders without 

a prescription. 

Our investigations also uncovered sites containing offers to provide controlled substances via prescription provided by a ‘‘doctor’’ 

employed by the Web site operator. These sites typically don’t 

verify age, medical history or medical necessity. The result is that 

any 14-year-old can go on the Internet and have a supply of recreational drugs sent to their home via overnight courier with no 

questions asked. 

We take each instance of this seriously and devote high-priority 

attention to ensuring full cooperation with law enforcement in their 

attempts to remove such Web sites from our network. 

We have nearly 30 million domain names. In fact, tomorrow we 

are going to go across the threshold of 30 million domain names 

under management. We can’t look at all of them. But what we can 

do is work with law enforcement to try to address this problem. 

Within the first 6 months of 2008, we have shut down or suspended over 6,000—6,000—online pharmacy domain names, in the 

first two quarters of 2008. When I say ‘‘shut down,’’ that means if 

it were a brick-and-mortar store, it would be like putting a lock on 

the door so you can’t do business with those people anymore. 

Six thousand in 6 months—we think that is a lot. And the trend 

is growing. For all of 2007, we had 1,300. So the problem is getting 

big, and the scale is huge. 

And, you know, this isn’t just about people trying to save money 

on prescription drugs by unknowingly buying counterfeit brandname pills. This is about young kids who use their parent’s credit 

card, they tell them they are buying music or a videogame or some 

legitimate purchase; instead, they are able to stock the weekly 

party with enough ecstasy for them and all their friends. It is very, 

very serious. 

The good news about having—well, what we have discovered is 

that there is a small core of vendors who run a very large number 

of Web sites. And I think Mr. Rannazzisi alluded to that. The good 

news is that, for the most part, if you can get to them and get them 

to stop, you have a large benefit on the other end. The bad news 

is that one company’s actions—for example, Go Daddy—regardless 

of how much we may help, isn’t enough. 

So effective legislation in this area, we think, may help overcome 

this problem. If we can either convince the illegitimate pharmacy 

sites that it is not going to be in their best interest to continue the 

same practices or if we can standardize the level and type of responses from providers—for example, our counterparts—we may all 

be able to see success for the Internet, much like we have seen 

within Go Daddy as we have responded to these. 

Again—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Can you wrap up? 

22 

Ms. JONES. Yes. I just want to say thank you for the opportunity 

to be here and to be heard on these issues. And I will be happy 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jones follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE N. JONES


Jones-1.eps
23 


Jones-2.eps
24 


Jones-3.eps
25 


Jones-4.eps
26 


Jones-5.eps
27 


Jones-6.eps
28 


Jones-7.eps
29 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Winsley? 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM T. WINSLEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

OHIO STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY, COLUMBUS, OH 

Mr. WINSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the 

honor of presenting oral and written testimony before you today. 

I am here primarily to describe the limited progress that the 

States have made in dealing with the overwhelming problems presented by the ready access of drugs via the Internet, with my primary focus of course being on what Ohio has done in this regard. 

I would first like to say that, in my opinion, the people that I 

talk about here today are not accurately described by the term 

‘‘Internet pharmacies.’’ To me, an Internet pharmacy is one that is 

properly licensed to fill legitimate prescriptions written by a doctor 

who is practicing in a valid doctor-patient relationship and they 

comply with all the laws, rules and regulations that are necessary, 

just like most of the brick-and-mortar pharmacies do. In other 

words, my concern today is not with those sites like 

Walgreens.com, CVS.com, Medco.com or the many other legitimate 

pharmacies that are out there doing business on the Internet. 

The Web sites I have problems with are those that I describe as 

Internet drug dealers or, more appropriately, Internet drug traffickers. These sites are responsible for pouring millions of doses of 

prescription drugs, controlled substances, into the hands of consumers with little or no regard to the possible harm they could be 

doing. 

If that description makes them sound like street-corner drug 

dealers, then I have accomplished my purpose here today. In many 

cases, there is more similarity to street-corner drug dealing than 

there is to legitimate medical care. The advantage to using the 

Internet, as Mr. Rannazzisi pointed out, is that it is easier for the 

principals to hide. 

My written testimony contains brief descriptions of four investigations that we have conducted in Ohio since 1998. The methods 

used by the Internet drug dealers are constantly changing to counteract the enforcement processes of local, State and Federal agencies. And it is getting a lot harder to track them down and even 

harder to convict them. 

Federal help is needed to help slow down this flood of illicit drug 

sales. 

To demonstrate what I mean by using the word ‘‘flood,’’ let me 

just talk about the last two cases that we have done in Ohio. They 

are described in more detail in my written testimony. 

But each case involved a small, independent pharmacy who filled 

illegal prescriptions from the Internet for only 4 months each, only 

4 months for each of the pharmacies. And yet, together, they managed to fill over 14,000 illegal prescriptions and dispense over 1.2 

million doses of hydrocodone products to people all over the United 

States. Four months, two small, independent pharmacies, 1.2 million doses of hydrocodone products. They also shipped other drugs, 

but hydrocodone was the major one. 

Now, both of the pharmacists involved had their licenses revoked 

by the Board of Pharmacy in Ohio, but the principals in the scheme 

30 

were safely tucked away in another State, where we had no jurisdiction and little ability to get to them. 

These cases involved only two pharmacies in Ohio, one in Columbus and one in Nelsonville, Ohio, which is a small town about an 

hour southeast of Columbus. I know there are more pharmacies in 

Ohio doing this. We have multiple investigations going on even as 

we speak. 

From talking to my colleagues around the country, I know that 

Ohio is not unique and every State is facing problems like this. 

Every State has small, independent pharmacies that are shipping 

millions of doses out via illegal Internet prescriptions. It just boggles my mind to imagine how much hydrocodone is hitting the 

streets. 

There are some activities going on that will help deal with this 

problem. As an addendum to my written report, I have provided 

some information about VIPPS, which you have already heard 

about, and a new program that NABP has started, known as the 

Internet Drug Outlet Identification program. 

A review of this report on the Internet drug outlet program will 

identify for the Committee a lot more problems than I have time 

to talk about today. There are about 139 Internet drug outlets that 

NABP has identified as problem sites. Many of them appear to be 

linked to one common network. Many of them are foreign. And 

most of them do not require a valid prescription. 

The States and the Federal agencies charged with dealing with 

this problem need some help. I would suggest to you that Senate 

980 appears to provide some of that help for controlled substances. 

I would encourage the Committee to carefully review this bill and 

move it along so it could become law. With the addition of the language contained in this bill, Federal and State agencies will have 

a lot greater ability to deal with the people causing all these problems. 

Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to discussing the issue with 

you further when it is time for questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Winsley follows:] 

31 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM T. WINSLEY


WTW-1.eps
32 


WTW-2.eps
33 


WTW-3.eps
34 


WTW-4.eps
35 


WTW-5.eps
36 


WTW-6.eps
37 


WTW-7.eps
38 


WTW-8.eps
39 


WTW-9.eps
40 


WTW-10.eps
41 


WTW-11.eps
42 


WTW-12.eps
43 


WTW-13.eps
44 


WTW-14.eps
45 


WTW-15.eps
46 


WTW-16.eps
47 


WTW-17.eps
48 


WTW-18.eps
49 


WTW-19.eps
50 


WTW-20.eps
51 


WTW-21.eps
52 


WTW-22.eps
53 


WTW-23.eps
54 


WTW-24.eps
55 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

I want to recognize the fact that the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, and the gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, 

have joined us. 

Mr. Egan? 

TESTIMONY OF PATRICK J. EGAN, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW, 

FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP, PHILADELPHIA, PA 

Mr. EGAN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

Committee Members. Thank you very much for the opportunity to 

present this testimony. It is with great honor that I do this, and 

I appreciate the invitation very much. 

I would like to note that the views that I am expressing are my 

personal views and not those of the firm that I practice with. 

I am here to discuss the big picture of the Internet pharmacy and 

how it works into the overall health-care issues that this country 

faces. Because, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. We have all been taught that since we were children. And 

the fact of the matter is that the Committee and Congress has focused, I believe, and certainly the bill in the Senate focuses on one 

area of the issue without looking at the bigger picture. 

At this particular time, what we really need to address is whether the Internet pharmacy system, as it presently exists, is one 

which is benefiting only those who wish to abuse controlled substances and those who wish to deal drugs to them, or whether it 

is also benefiting the larger public who has health-care issues that 

need to be addressed. 

And I believe that there has not been any type of empirical research done which would indicate that the majority of people who 

purchase prescription drugs via the Internet are doing so to abuse 

them or whether they are individuals who could not otherwise avail 

themselves to access to those prescription drugs. 

For instance, in this country there are many people who live in 

rural areas where it is a long way to go to get to a doctor. In this 

country, as we know all too well, there are many uninsured and 

underinsured individuals who do not have access to go to a doctor 

and obtain a visit when they need to get prescription drugs. 

We have two major problems in this country on the health-care 

level. One of them is obesity, and another is pain. Many, many 

thousands of people die from obesity every year. What Congress appears to be doing here is focusing on the issue of drug abuse and 

those individuals who suffer from drug abuse, which is indeed a 

tragedy, without considering what the actions that might be taken, 

what effect they may have on the ability of others to obtain health 

care. 

An additional concern that I believe should be addressed is 

whether, by passing legislation which criminalizes this type of behavior, what you are really doing is forcing those who would obtain 

prescription drugs and controlled substances illicitly through the 

Internet away from sites that are run by legitimate, licensed pharmacies in the United States to sites that are run offshore, where 

we have no control, where all of the evidence indicates that the majority of the drugs are often counterfeit. 

56 

And, indeed, if you look at the particular bill that was passed by 

the Senate, essentially what it does is it asks the DEA to go and 

take a look at what happens with regard to these offshore Web 

sites. 

But there is no means for any control over them, because they 

are offshore. What you are going to do is take the model that is 

presently taking place in this country and you are going to take 

that model away, which is going to drive people who either need 

pain medication or diet medication to these offshore sites and away 

from sites that are presently operated in what might not appear to 

be traditionally the way that it would have been done but, with the 

issues that are facing this country and the technological advances, 

may well turn out to be a model that might work for the future. 

There are presently Internet pharmacies operating in this country where you are able to obtain a prescription drug without a faceto-face visit with a doctor. The DEA has termed that not a valid 

prescription. The question is whether you want to codify that in the 

law. And that is what is being suggested to you by some of the 

other distinguished people on this panel. 

I would suggest that when you look at the best approach that it 

would be to regulate further those pharmacies, rather than to criminalize their behavior. For instance, there are computer programs 

whereby pharmacies can have a check on addresses and make sure 

that they are not sending back to the same address any sooner 

than they should within the period that those drugs would be used. 

So if an individual at this address orders a drug on day 1 and tries 

to come back and order on day 3, they are refused. 

There are pharmacies that are run by licensed pharmacists and 

there are doctors who are licensed doctors reviewing these questionnaires, and they are not being paid more to grant every single 

description. They are being paid by the review. If you have that in 

place, you have licensing authorities who can exercise control over 

these people. But if you criminalize that behavior, that particular 

section of the industry will disappear, and, instead, what you will 

have is only offshore pharmacies. 

Moreover, I would like to echo the statements that were made at 

the start of this by some of the distinguished Members of Congress. 

For decades, Congress has fought to curb drug abuse. I would suggest that, for decades, Congress has fought to curb drug abuse 

through the imposition of more serious penalties and mandatory 

minimum sentences. And I would suggest that the empirical evidence is that, for decades, that has failed. 

The time has come to look at appropriate regulations that can actually handle these problems without locking up millions, thousands, whatever the numbers are, of people. And the mandatory 

minimum that is attached to this bill has nothing to do with Internet pharmacies. And, to me, the legislation smacks of the 1980’s, 

not of 2008, when we need to take an intelligent approach to these 

problems. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Egan follows:] 

57 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. EGAN


Egan-1.eps
58 


Egan-2.eps
59 


Egan-3.eps
60 


Egan-4.eps
61 


Egan-5.eps
62 


Egan-6.eps
63 


Egan-7.eps
64 


Egan-8.eps
65 


Egan-9.eps
66 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

We have a vote pending, and we will recess—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. CONYERS. Could I get two cents in before we go? 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes for the 

purpose of questioning. 

Mr. CONYERS. We have been doing a little talking and thinking 

here. The problem that we have got the hearing on is 1 percent of 

the total drug problem. The picture that, globally, trafficking globally in drugs is $300 billion; the U.S., it is $65 billion. We spend 

about $45 billion—I think that includes DEA, as well—in the U.S. 

fighting it. 

And we incarcerate—this year, incarcerated for drug law offenses 

is 5,233 people so far. About 25 percent of our inmates are serving 

sentences for drug law violations. 

Now, here is why we have a legislative branch: for you to keep 

doing the same thing over and over and wondering why we are 

going to get about that many, even if we did it correctly. 

Why is this problem so intractable? 

These are annual figures, by the way, these billions that I am 

talking about. 

What is it about fighting drugs at the Federal level and at the 

State level and at the global level? What is happening here? Does 

Big Daddy know yet? Or does Little Daddy even know? What is 

going on, folks? 

Because the first thing we know, we have got to write a new bill. 

I am not buying—you know, I was so happy when I came here this 

morning, Chairman Scott. I said, ‘‘Finally, the Senate got ahead of 

us on something.’’ Well, they did, and they got it wrong. And now 

we have got to—unanimously wrong. I mean, it wasn’t a close question. 

So what is happening? You are the experts. We brought you here 

to tell us. 

All right, I am going to pick somebody if you don’t volunteer. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I will jump in. 

Where can I begin? The fact is that the drugs that are—I don’t 

know your figures, I don’t know where the 1 percent came from. 

So I am really in the dark as far as where the figures are and how 

you got them. 

However, what I can tell you is that the drugs that are illegally 

distributed through Internet pharmacies are just as dangerous as 

any of the other drugs that are distributed on the street. 

Hydrocodone is a very potent narcotic. It will hurt you just as 

much as heroin will if taken unsupervised—— 

Mr. CONYERS. No, I am not questioning the potency of these illegal drugs and legal drugs being pursued commercially illegally. I 

mean, what is it about the nature of drugs in our culture that 

make this—I mean, we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars 

locking up people. We come here with a dozen mandatory sentences 

to lock up people more and longer. We are already incarcerating 

more people than anybody on Earth, including China, Russia and 

anybody else. 

67 

That is the problem I want—I don’t want an explanation about 

how potent the drug is. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I—— 

Mr. CONYERS. All right, I am calling on somebody else. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, I just, if I could respond—— 

Mr. CONYERS. That is a good try. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I—— 

Mr. CONYERS. All right, Daddy, Big Daddy, what have you got 

to say? Go Daddy. 

Ms. JONES. Thank you. 

I don’t know why people like to do drugs. It has never been my 

thing. 

I do think that if you are spending $300 billion a year to fight 

the problem, we are not educating people enough about the dangers 

of it. Right? So if you give me a tool—all I need is a database that 

says either you are authorized or you are not authorized to sell 

drugs online. That is all I need. 

I will have to defer to my distinguished colleagues on drug sentencing and whether or not 5 years or 10 years is appropriate for 

a guy who sells oxycodone to a 12-year-old, okay, but—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, look, I know about your law enforcement 

background. You are an ex-prosecutor yourself. So don’t blame the 

gentleman to your right. 

Ms. JONES. Well, I can tell you when I was a prosecutor, a vast, 

vast majority of the cases that I tried, drug cases, right? I tried 

cases in Compton. You may have heard of it before. It is outside 

Los Angeles. Lots of drug users. You know what? We always had 

a theory that if we didn’t get the guy the first time, that was okay 

because he was going to be back. So it is a big problem—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, that should have reflected—you got awards 

for that, I presume. 

Ms. JONES. I didn’t get any awards. And neither did we seek any 

awards. That is not why we did it. 

But I do think if you are going to take $300 billion a year and 

spend on this problem, you might take a little bit of it and try educating people about the dangers of using drugs. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, how about prosecuting effectively, as opposed 

to getting longer and longer sentences? And I agree with you, education is part of it. 

Okay, I will give you another chance. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. If we could go back to S. 980 a second, I am 

kind of confused you suggested that there were minimum 

mandatories in S. 980. The way I understand S. 980 to be is that 

they are raising the caps for Schedule 3, 4 and 5 drugs, just raising 

the cap. 

If you look at the guidelines for these drugs, if you are looking 

at a Schedule 3 drug, if I am not mistaken, I think a level 20 in 

the guideline runs about 40,000 tablets that you have to be connected to, the distribution of 40,000 tablets—— 

Mr. CONYERS. So you don’t think doubling the sentences is mandatory? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I think that doubling the sentences is a deterrent, yeah, because right now under the current guidelines—— 

68 

Mr. CONYERS. I am sure those guys out there look up the statutory sentencing—— 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I beg to differ, but I think they do. These are 

white-collar criminals. These are people who are doing this knowingly and intentionally, using their licenses, their medical licenses—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Yeah, right, that is who she was locking up out in 

Compton. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. It is a facade for a medical process that doesn’t 

exist. They are exploiting—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. And I am sure the white-collar criminals 

here are very worried about whether there is a mandatory or not. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I think they—I believe they do. 

Mr. CONYERS. So that is why the drug problem is getting worse 

and worse. 

Mr. SCOTT. If you could hold your point, we have got 21⁄2 minutes 

to get to the floor, and you will be the first—you will get to answer 

as soon as we get back. 

The Committee is in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. SCOTT. The Committee will come to order. 

Mr. Winsley, you were about to say something when I cut you 

off. 

Mr. WINSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just was going to 

comment on the purpose of the bill in dealing with the drug problem. 

The drug problem in the United States is made up primarily of 

two factors: One is the people that are abusing the drugs, and one 

is the people that are providing the drugs to them. 

The purpose of this bill is to deal with the people that are providing the drugs to them. That is the job of DEA, that is my job, 

to enforce the laws. We certainly are not opposed to the treatment 

programs, but we are not part of the treatment programs. 

This bill, the criminal penalties that are in it, unless I misread 

the Federal law, they deal with the trafficking section, not with the 

abusing section. This bill does nothing to the users. This bill only 

addresses those that are trafficking. That section of law that is referred to in this bill deals with those who manufacture, distribute, 

dispense or possess for purposes of manufacturing. 

And so I just would point out that this bill will deal with a small 

part of the problem, but it will deal effectively with the part of the 

problem that is caused by those people who are trafficking in these 

controlled substances. And that is a big issue and becoming even 

bigger. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from California. 

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

I am sorry that the Chairman of the full Committee is not here 

because we have had discussions over the years on our approach 

to drug problems, and one of the complaints that he and others 

have registered is that we don’t go after all drug dealers alike, that 

it is easy for us to go after drug dealers on the street corner in the 

inner-city but we don’t go after them elsewhere. 

69 

It seems to me this bill is an approach to try and deal with another part of the problem, which seems to me we ought to be concerned about, the abuse of prescription drugs, illegally dispensing 

them, illegally making them available outside the construct of the 

law that we have set up over the years. 

Mr. Egan, I am a little confused about your testimony, and that 

is this. If I were to take the arguments that you have made against 

this bill, they would be arguments against the current set of laws 

that we have with respect to drugs. Is that correct? 

Mr. EGAN. I don’t think it is necessarily correct, but I do think 

you could certainly extrapolate that my view is that the war on 

drugs is a failure and that increased sentences and further criminalization of what is essentially a societal problem has been taking 

place for over 25 years. And I think the evidence is fairly clear that 

it is not working and that we, as a society, need to rethink that. 

And, frankly, I am hoping that this body will look at that a 

whole lot more closely and have the courage to maybe try something new. 

Mr. LUNGREN. What would you say about the fact that most recent reports suggest that drug use among young people is down? 

Mr. EGAN. I would say that it has a lot more to do with education. 

For instance, if you take what has been going on in the western 

states with regard to the use of methamphetamines and the advertising program that has been taking place out there, which has 

been largely funded by private dollars, which has indicated that 

the use of methamphetamine has been cut by a great amount 

through that type of education, and if you look at parenting and 

education of young people on these issues, those are successful 

means for attacking the problem. 

The problem with criminalization is—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. So let me ask you this, since you brought up 

methamphetamine. You would not suggest the decriminalization of 

methamphetamine, would you? 

Mr. EGAN. Well, frankly, I think it is off-point, but—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. No, no, but you brought it up. So I am asking you 

a question. Would you think about seriously decriminalizing methamphetamine use and distribution? 

Mr. EGAN. I brought it up as an example of how education and 

advertising and information of that nature is more successful than 

criminalization. 

I don’t know necessarily that I would think that it would be wise 

to decriminalize methamphetamines. I think that we have to make 

intelligent choices and draw certain lines in certain places. 

What I see, however, is a trend for ever-increasing length of sentences, ever-increasing mandatory minimums, ever-increasing ‘‘we 

are going to get tough on this issue’’ and a lot of money spent. And, 

frankly, it has become quite an industry, the prosecution of—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. Okay. I appreciate that. I would take issue with 

you that it has become an industry, as if those involved in the drug 

war from the law enforcement side somehow view it as an industry, 

in the sense that this somehow gives them a means of living and 

so forth. 

Mr. EGAN. I didn’t mean to suggest that—— 

70 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, we ought to be more careful with what we 

say about that, because there are a lot of good men and women 

working in a dedicated way to try and get rid of the scourge of 

drugs because they have seen what the abuse of drugs does to people in this country, particularly young people. Just about every 

family has had an experience with someone not too far from them 

who has been ruined by drugs. And I doubt that anybody is exempt 

from that. 

When you see the devastation that it does to lives, it seems to 

me that we ought to attempt to try and fight it as best we can. We 

can have arguments on the margins, but it just seems to me the 

effort we are making is worth it. 

Mr. Rannazzisi, there has been some criticism of the bill before 

us with respect to the penalties involved. Let me cite a couple of 

sections to you specifically. 

Penalties, section 3(e) imposes mandatory minimum sentences to 

crimes that did not previously have mandatory minimums, or at 

least that is the argument. Specifically, the section changes existing law so that small amounts of flunitrazepam are now subject to 

the same statutory penalties as large amounts. 

First of all, is that correct? And what is the reason for this? And 

how would that be related to the uniqueness of Internet pharmacies? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Let me preface this by saying I am not an expert on sentencing. 

From what I understand of the vision of the bill, the mandatory 

minimum would only trigger when there is death or serious bodily 

harm that results from distribution, known distribution of that 

drug, Rohypnol. 

I am not very comfortable answering that question because that 

is just not my area of expertise, as far as Rohypnol. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Okay. Well, the reason I ask that is it is my understanding that this section that it refers to, 21 USC 841(b)(1)(C), 

as currently written, and with reference through this bill, would 

impose the mandatory minimum where the prosecution has proven 

that ‘‘death or serious bodily injury resulted from the use of the 

substance that was unlawfully manufactured or distributed.’’ 

So, as I understand it—and I just wanted to know if this was 

your understanding—if death or serious bodily injury does not result from the unlawful manufacture or distribution of this specific 

substance, the effect of the bill would not be to have a mandatory 

minimum. Is that your understanding too? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. That is my understanding, that the mandatory 

minimum is not triggered. That is—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. So all I am saying is that we can talk about and 

argue about mandatory minimums—and I have said that on other 

statutes I would be willing to look at mandatory minimums, see 

whether they are appropriate, those that are already in law. But 

I just wanted to make clear that, in this instance, as I understand 

this bill, the mandatory minimum only comes into effect where you 

have death or serious bodily injury resulting from the illegal substance referred to. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, sir. 

71 

Mr. LUNGREN. Some would ask that if pharmacies and physicians 

are already subject to DEA registration and State licensure, why 

is this bill needed? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Because what this bill does is it forces them— 

the first thing it does is creates a definition for what a valid prescription is. It basically sets out guidelines for what a doctor is responsible for. 

The second thing it does—and this is very important to us—is it 

makes these pharmacies identify themselves on the Web site, so we 

know exactly who is in the pool. If you asked me right now how 

many pharmacies, and who are they, distributing by the Internet, 

I couldn’t tell you. I just don’t know—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. If I were to ask you that question about brick-andmortar pharmacies in a particular State, could you tell me that? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I could tell you exactly how many brick-andmortar pharmacies in each State there are. There are about 66,000 

retail pharmacies across the country, and I could tell you every one 

of them if they are DEA-registered. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Is that true for you, Mr. Winsley, in your State? 

Mr. WINSLEY. Yes, sir. There are a little over 2,000 retail pharmacies—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. So what we have here is, because of the newness 

of technology and its application, we have an ability to create distribution centers which are not regulated in any real sense, compared with the regulation we have developed over years with respect to dispensing authorities—that is, pharmacies. Is that correct? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. That is correct. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Ms. Jones, you have talked about the number of 

online pharmacies that you basically, I guess I would say, closed 

down, but you have done your best to make sure that they are no 

longer operating with the benefit of Go Daddy. 

You had given us some numbers, that, last year, I think it was 

1,300, something like that, that you had closed down. And, this 

year, the first two quarters it has been 6,000? 

Ms. JONES. Six thousand. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Is that because you are more attentive to it, or is 

it because you see an explosion in the numbers, number one? 

And, number two, do you find that there are individuals that set 

up multiple such online pharmacies? 

Ms. JONES. To answer your first question, it is not that we are 

more attentive, because we have had an active, 24-by-7 network 

abuse department that has been responding to these issues for a 

long time now. What we do see is more third parties reporting instances of online pharmacies to us. 

And, by the way, the 6,000 domain names that we disabled in 

the first 6 months of 2008 came to us by way of spam complaints. 

Okay? And that is really our only tool right now, is if we know that 

they are sending out pill spam, the kind of spam that all of us get 

in our e-mail boxes every day that advertises—well, you know what 

they advertise. 

Mr. LUNGREN. So I should report it to you when I get these, is 

that right? [Laughter.] 

Ms. JONES. Yes, absolutely. 

72 

And to answer your second question, we do see—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. I am afraid to even respond to them, afraid they 

will get my name. I just get rid of them right away. 

Ms. JONES. Just a bit of unsolicited advice: Do not respond. Do 

not respond and say, ‘‘Please take my name off your list.’’ It just 

proves to them that you actually are a good, valid e-mail address. 

But to answer your second question, we do see a core of users 

who run multiple, multiple, multiple Web sites. So one violator 

may have 100 Web sites of all varying names and types. They may 

have some that are devoted to Viagra, some that are devoted to 

Propecia, some that are devoted to OxyContin, Vicodin, ecstasy. 

Whatever the name is, they register a domain name that is specifically associated with that particular drug. So we do see repeat, repeat, repeat offenders. 

But today there is nothing that makes the content per se illegal. 

So, like, for example, with child pornography, the National Center 

for Missing and Exploited Children or the FBI or ICE or another 

agency can come to us and say, ‘‘We know that there is a child pornography site operating on your network; could you please take it 

down?’’, and we say, ‘‘Absolutely.’’ No questions, no notice, ‘‘You go 

away, because what you are doing is illegal.’’ 

That is the kind of tool that we are looking for with the online 

pharmacy sites, not to disable the valid 2,000 sites in Ohio, but to 

disable the invalid, counterfeit, no-prescription-needed Web sites. 

If we had that tool, then we could just say, ‘‘Are you on the list? 

If you are not on the list, you have to go away until you get your 

name on the list. It doesn’t matter to me where you are. You can 

be overseas, you can be in any State, could be on the moon, I don’t 

care. Get your name on the list, or you have to go away.’’ 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Let me follow up on that. There is no list right now? 

Ms. JONES. There is no database that we can hit against to say, 

‘‘Are you on the DEA’s list? Are you on the FDA’s list?’’ We don’t 

have that tool. 

Mr. SCOTT. And if there were such a list, you could check it and 

eliminate them from your site? 

Ms. JONES. Correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. What power would the Department of Justice have 

over sites operated in foreign countries? 

Ms. JONES. I don’t know what power they would have, other than 

to say, ‘‘If you are in another country and you want to sell drugs 

via a Web site that is available to U.S. users, you have to get your 

name on this list.’’ 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, and if they don’t, what enforcement power 

would Department of Justice have for someone operating a site 

physically located in, say, Iran? 

Ms. JONES. Only that they could call up the domain-name registrar or the hosting provider and say, ‘‘They are on the list. Could 

you please disable this Web site?’’ Would they have jurisdiction to 

go pursue the offense? Maybe, maybe not. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are there hosting sites outside of the United States? 

Ms. JONES. Absolutely. 

73 

Mr. SCOTT. And so they would have no jurisdiction over a hosting 

site physically located outside of the United States? 

Ms. JONES. Presumably. I mean, I understand that law enforcement does work with cross-jurisdictional agencies from time to 

time. We—— 

Mr. SCOTT. And if it is a country with whom we do not have good 

diplomatic relations—I think Mr. Egan’s point was you would get 

rid of all the domestic sites and you would force people offshore. 

Ms. JONES. Potentially. And we have seen that. 

Although, the availability and the ease of access of, for example, 

not to overuse this, but of child pornography has been effective. It 

is much more difficult for just your everyday, average user to find 

a child porn site, because what we have done here is said that content, itself, is per se illegal. And so it forces the users to have userto-user access, makes it much more difficult for a child, for example, to go find that content. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Winsley, we want to allow the legitimate organizations to flourish and not the illegitimate ones. One of the issues 

is whether or not a face-to-face visit with a prescribing physician 

is necessary. We have heard that some people live in rural areas 

where this may not be feasible. 

Is a face-to-face visit with a licensed physician necessary? 

Mr. WINSLEY. Mr. Chairman, on every occasion, no. However, initially, yes. 

Our point is and our State medical board’s point—I have included their rule in my written testimony, which has been in existence since the 1990’s—our opinion is that there must be an established doctor-patient relationship. That means that the doctor and 

the patient have come together. 

For example, Mr. Chairman, your personal physician, if you are 

out travelling and you come down with a sinus infection, there is 

no problem with you calling your personal physician on the phone, 

saying, ‘‘Here is what my symptoms are,’’ lo and behold, he calls 

in a prescription across State lines to where you are, deals with it. 

But he knows you. He has already done all the indignities to you 

that our doctors do to us. [Laughter.] 

He has evaluated you. And so there is an established relationship. 

Mr. SCOTT. So a requirement that there be at least one face-toface visit and a valid doctor-patient relationship would be not be 

a problem even in rural areas? 

Mr. WINSLEY. It should not be. 

The other issue, Mr. Chairman, is that, in Ohio, we legally define 

prescription drugs—we call them ‘‘dangerous drugs.’’ That is the 

legal term. The reason for that is that they are well-proven—I 

think Mr. Rannazzisi pointed this out too—but these drugs are 

dangerous if they are used inappropriately. 

What I point to you in my written testimony is the drugs that 

the two Internet pharmacies that we most recently dealt with dispensed. And if you look at those hydrocodone products, you will notice that the overwhelming majority of them were the highest 

strength available. 

And yet, I don’t know if anybody on the Committee has had recent surgery; I am not asking because of the HIPAA privacy rules. 

74 

But I will tell you that I did, and I know a lot of people who have. 

And when we came out of surgery, the drug that we were prescribed was Vicodin, five milligrams. And that was perfectly adequate. 

But every drug-trafficking site that we have been involved with 

and, in fact, some of the face-to-face drug-trafficking physicians 

that we have dealt with, the drugs that they have prescribed have 

always been the hydrocodone, 10 milligrams; the OxyContin, higher level milligram doses, not the doses that normal patients use. 

So not only is there not an established doctor-patient relationship, but in many of these cases the patients are using this just 

to access the highest-strength drugs available. 

Mr. SCOTT. If the Internet sites were required to be registered, 

it would be a State board of pharmacy with jurisdiction over each 

one that is registered; is that right? 

Mr. WINSLEY. There would be. 

Mr. SCOTT. And you would be able to have some quality control 

over what is going on. Which is unlike what is going on now. 

Mr. WINSLEY. Mr. Chairman, if we know where they are at, we 

can reach them. 

Mr. SCOTT. So if they are in your State, you would be able to 

oversee for quality control, so consumers would have some confidence in what they are dealing with. We have heard that some 

of these out-of-country sites mail in—you wonder why they even 

bother to mail the drugs. Why don’t they just take the money and 

run? I mean, they close up after 4 months. 

But you would be able to provide quality controls so that the consumer has some confidence that they are getting what was prescribed? 

Mr. WINSLEY. If they were in my State and we knew about them, 

yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. And, Mr. Rannazzisi, if they are registered, the DEA 

could do occasional periodic testing to make sure that they are 

complying with the laws? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes. And they would be identified, and it would 

help us out in the long run. 

Mr. SCOTT. But the consumer could check the list to ascertain 

whether or not the pharmacy they are dealing with online is actually a legitimate pharmacy and not some fly-by-night something 

from who knows where? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. But when the consumer hits the Web site, he is 

going to see exactly who he is dealing with. All that information 

will be on the Web site. So he could check the list, but it is going 

to be on a Web site. 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, but the Web site is also on the list so he knows 

it is not a fraudulent Web site with counterfeit information. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I think the consumer, if he was worried about 

that Web site, could cross-check the Web site with the State board 

of pharmacy, which has that information available. So he would basically be able to know that where he is ordering from is a legitimate pharmacy. 

And that really knocks out a lot of the foreign pharmacies then, 

because if you are hitting a Web site that you know has a DEA regVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:13 Jan 22, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\062408\43149.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43149
75 

istration number and is licensed by the State board of Ohio, he 

could check the board, check with DEA, and then order his drugs. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from California. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Rannazzisi, my question is this. I want to 

make sure we crack down on the illicit distribution of drugs. I want 

to make sure that people in rural areas are not denied access because of additional impediments. 

What is the standard use now for doctors in their prescribing of 

drugs, the relationship with the patient? What does DEA look at, 

if they were to look at whether a doctor was prescribing appropriately or not? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, to issue a valid prescription, the doctor 

has to issue that prescription for a legitimate medical purpose and 

in the usual course of that individual practitioner’s practice. That 

is the standard, that is the standard that was set by the court, 

standard that is set in the regs. 

And there are a lot of ways to look at that. But if you look at 

what the AMA guidelines and the Federation of State Medical 

Boards’ guidelines, they discuss Internet prescribing and particularly what a valid prescription is. They say that, you know, you 

have to do a complete medical history. You should have at least one 

face-to-face, in-person examination. Those are the guidelines from 

the Federation of State Medical Boards and the American Medical 

Association. 

Bill, if you want to jump in, I think that is what Ohio has too, 

doesn’t it? 

Mr. WINSLEY. Well, in my written testimony, at the very end 

there are copies of our medical board’s rule and pharmacy board’s 

rule dealing with this issue. Those rules came into effect after our 

first Internet case back in 1998. And if you read those, they pretty 

much are the basis for what FSMB and AMA have come out with. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, see, my point is, I want to make sure, and 

I don’t think the bill does, that this prospective law does not go beyond what the common practice would be in a relationship of a doctor-patient. 

It is not required, as mentioned by Mr. Winsley, to have a faceto-face every time you get a prescription. You have to have an established relationship with the doctor. And that could be your 

physical, and then after that the doctors establish things. It could 

be that you have a physical every year. It could be that you don’t 

see the doctor for 5 years, but he has your record, he talks with 

you, those sorts of things. 

I don’t want us to be interfering beyond that. But what I would 

want us to do is to make sure that if you are getting a prescription 

from an online pharmacy, you basically are following the same regime, the same custom and practice that you are with a physician 

when you get it from a brick-and-mortar pharmacy. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, sir. And that is outlined in the AMA and 

FSMB, the Federation of State Medical Boards, guidelines. 

Additionally, what the federation says is, treatment, including 

issuing a prescription, based solely on an online questionnaire or 

consultation does not constitute an acceptable standard of care. 

76 

Mr. LUNGREN. Let me ask this. Some might say, ‘‘Hey, look, all 

this is is the brick-and-mortar pharmacies trying to make it difficult for the online pharmacies.’’ You know, that is what their axe 

to grind is in this whole thing. 

And these doctors, including the medical societies, they want to 

make sure that you are not spinning off patients to doctors who 

have embraced the new technology, so that you don’t have to have 

face-to-face, you can actually converse with your doctor over the 

phone or even through the Internet in some sort of way. 

What would you say to that? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I believe we are talking about now S. 980, the 

bill has—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. Correct. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI [continuing]. Provisions that deal with that. 

They have telemedicine provisions. They have provisions that deal 

with certain situations where a doctor may not be able to do a faceto-face. But it is built into the law. 

That bill went through the interagency, and everybody who 

looked at it, you know, looked at it from their point of view. How 

is it going to affect patient care? That is how HHS looked at it, and 

FDA. The Veterans Administration looked at it. When that bill was 

drafted, it had the input of every agency that evenly remotely had 

some kind of contact with patient care. 

The provisions that were put in that bill protect a lot of the people that, for some reason, can’t go to see a doctor. There are provisions built into that bill that will allow for exceptions; and also 

telemedicine, which is an emerging trend. 

Mr. LUNGREN. It is my understanding that the bill has these 

penalties attached to people who are in the process of distributing 

the drugs, as opposed to the person using. Is that correct? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. That is right. The bill addresses, again, distributors of the drug, not ultimate drug users. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Rannazzisi, how does the distributor or the owner of the Web 

site get the drugs, get access to the drugs to begin with? Does the 

manufacturer ship them to a warehouse? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. The owner of the Web site generally does not 

touch the drugs. He is a facilitator. He employs or he recruits doctors and pharmacists. And those doctors and pharmacists run the 

transaction. The facilitator, the Web site facilitator is a generally 

a layman. All he does is bring the doctor and the pharmacy and 

the patient together for one transaction. 

Mr. SCOTT. So they have to get—wherever the drugs land, wherever the warehouse is that the drugs—are they registered? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. The pharmacy that dispenses the ultimate prescription is generally a DEA-registered pharmacy. 

Now, obviously, the question was asked about overseas pharmacies; DEA has no regulatory control over an overseas pharmacy 

or distributor. However, here in the United States, we do. 

And, generally, our pharmacies that dispense the drugs are DEA 

registrants. Doctors that prescribe the medication are also DEA 

registrants. 

77 

Mr. SCOTT. So you already have a list of all of the domestic 

sources for the drugs? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I have a list of all domestic pharmacies that are 

DEA-registered and all doctors that are DEA-registered as well. 

But that list only tells us that they are pharmacies. It doesn’t tell 

us if they are involved in Internet dispensing. It doesn’t say if the 

doctor is involved in Internet prescribing. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is this bill limited to Internet drug sales? Or do the 

penalties relate to general sales in addition to Internet sales? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I believe that the provisions increasing the caps 

relate to all Schedule 3, 4 and 5 drugs, and not just limited to 

Internet sales of Schedule 3, 4 and 5 drugs. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, you have acknowledged that there are mandatory minimums in the bill? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. No. The Rohypnol provision, which is—by the 

way, Rohypnol is not a pharmaceutical controlled substance in the 

United States. It is not a legitimate medication in the U.S. It is 

only used outside of the borders of the United States. 

Mr. SCOTT. And that is the only mandatory minimum that is in 

the bill? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. That I am aware of, yes. And that is, again, if 

there is—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Is that the ‘‘roofie’’? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, Rohypnol, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. But there are mandatory minimums for that drug? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. The way I understand it, again, is that that 

mandatory minimum is triggered if there is death and bodily harm 

attached to the distribution. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Are you aware of any studies that show racial 

bias in the application of mandatory minimums? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Am I aware of any studies? I am aware that 

that subject has been debated in Congress and the Sentencing 

Commission, but, no, I am not aware of any studies, no, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. So if someone were to say that mandatory minimums 

are generally imposed in a racially discriminatory manner, you 

wouldn’t have any evidence to contradict that? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I don’t believe I would be the best person to ask, 

sir. Again, I am not an expert on sentencing for the—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, you are here—well, so, if we drop the mandatory minimums out of the bill, would you object to that? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. That would be up to the Administration to make 

that decision. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are you aware that the Judicial Conference has described mandatory minimums as often violating common sense? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I am sorry, sir. Could you repeat that question? 

Mr. SCOTT. Are you aware that the Judicial Conference has frequently communicated with this Committee describing mandatory 

minimums as frequently violating common sense? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Again, sir, no, I am not aware of that. But, 

again, I don’t follow sentencing—— 

Mr. SCOTT. So you don’t have any evidence on behalf of the Administration to contradict the fact that mandatory minimums often 

violate common sense? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I would rather not respond to that question, sir. 

78 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. The RAND Corporation has studied mandatory 

minimums in drug offenses and concluded that mandatory minimums waste the taxpayers’ money. Do you have any evidence to 

contradict the fact that the imposition of mandatory minimums in 

the bill will waste the taxpayers’ money? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. No, sir, I don’t have any information to give this 

Committee on that topic. 

Mr. SCOTT. Can you explain to us whether or not you have found 

any studies that show that mandatory minimums work? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Again, sir, I don’t know of any studies and I 

wasn’t prepared to come here to discuss the mandatory minimum 

sentences. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, they are in the bill, and, you know—— 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Again, there is no mandatory minimum sentence, other than the imposition of the—— 

Mr. SCOTT. So if you are not here to defend the mandatory minimum, you wouldn’t—or at least it is not your call to support or oppose whether they are removed from the bill. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Again, that would be an Administration decision. 

Mr. SCOTT. Who exactly would we hear from to ascertain whether or not you have given up on a provision that has racially discriminatory qualities to it, violates common sense and wastes the 

taxpayers’ money? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. You could, I am sure, contact the department. 

And I will go back and relay that message to the department. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, you don’t need increased penalties to enhance 

enforcement. I mean, even without the enhanced penalties, if you 

prosecuted someone and got a conviction, you would pretty much 

put them out of business with the present penalties, would you 

not? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Obviously, yes, they would be incarcerated and 

we would remove their registration and, if appropriate, seize their 

assets, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, what do you need to do to enhance enforcement? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Again, the bill helps us by creating a pool of 

Internet pharmacies that are operating. It is a ready pool that we 

could look at and determine who is operating on the Internet and 

who is not. It helps us in our investigations to identify who the 

players are operating on the Internet. 

Mr. SCOTT. And so, once you have that list, you have the tools 

that you need to prosecute those that are operating outside of 

the—— 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, no, there are other things: the establishment of what a valid doctor-patient relationship is, what a valid 

prescription is. That is very important; puts everybody on notice 

that this is what is expected. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay, so you make a list. You have, what, the definition of valid prescriptions? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay, what else do you need to enhance enforcement? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. If you would excuse me 1 second. 

79 

Obviously, definition of what the Internet is, what Internet delivery is; all of the registration requirements that we have asked for, 

which we cannot do by regulation; reporting requirements—that is, 

if you are operating as an Internet pharmacy, you have to make 

certain reports to the attorney general on the quantity of drugs you 

are selling via the Internet. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you necessarily have to be under a State board 

of pharmacy? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Any pharmacy that operates in the United 

States is governed by a State board of pharmacy. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is that right, Mr. Winsley? 

Mr. WINSLEY. Yes, sir. If it is a legitimate pharmacy, it is licensed with the State in which it is located and usually, if it transports drugs across State lines, with the rest of us for shipping. You 

know, in Ohio, for example, anyone who ships drugs into Ohio is 

licensed with us. So we have pharmacies licensed from all over the 

country. 

Mr. SCOTT. So anyone that ships drugs in response to an Internet 

order, if they ship into Ohio, they should be registered in Ohio? 

Mr. WINSLEY. The law is that they be licensed with us, yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. And so, if you have some of these well-known pharmacy Web sites—I have ordered stuff over the Web, not prescriptive drugs. If I were to order a prescriptive drug over the Internet, 

they would have to be licensed in Virginia? 

Mr. WINSLEY. If they were operating legally, which is our concern here. 

The ones we are talking about don’t bother to get licensed. We 

have no ability to get to them. We know that Ohio people got 

drugs, and we know that they had a problem. So when they tell 

us where they got them, the site is not anybody that we have jurisdiction or control over. 

And that is the advantage to this bill: It does give the Federal 

agencies, DEA in particular, the advantage to deal with those that 

are located outside of my State. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. So we get a list, we create the pool, we have 

reporting to the attorney general, we define the Internet, we define 

valid prescriptions. What else is in the bill that helps you? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. The advertising provision. With the bill, this 

prohibits people advertising to sell a pharmaceutical controlled 

substance illegally. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is spam advertising? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I would have to go back and look at the spam, 

but I am—well, yes, I have seen some of those spam messages, absolutely, ‘‘Hydrocodone without a prescription, no doctor visit required,’’ yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Jones, is there any question that spam would be 

advertising? 

Ms. JONES. Absolutely not. It is absolutely—unsolicited commercial e-mail is an advertisement. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is? 

Ms. JONES. Is. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Ms. JONES. And I would add another thing, is that the bill, I 

think, calls for a display of the compliance with the DEA list. That 

80 

would be very helpful, at least from our perspective, and, I think, 

noncontroversial. 

Mr. SCOTT. So if someone received an advertisement without the 

DEA designation, you would know it was illegal. And if it came 

with the DEA logo, you would know where to go to check them out. 

Ms. JONES. I wasn’t even thinking of that, but that would be 

helpful as well. I don’t think the current version of the Senate bill 

calls for that. But it would be an interesting idea, to actually require it in the advertising as well. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman from California? 

Mr. LUNGREN. I am glad to hear that the Chairman is trying to 

beef up the bill. Very good. Parts of it. 

We keep talking about the mandatory minimums. I just want to 

make it clear that, with Rohypnol, what the bill does is drop the 

one-gram requirement that currently is in the law, but it does not 

change the requirement that, for mandatory minimum, one must 

be prosecuted successfully for having death or serious bodily injury 

resulting from the use of the substance that was unlawfully manufactured or distributed. 

And the cross-reference to serious bodily injury is ‘‘an injury 

which involves substantial risk of death, extreme physical pain, 

protracted, obvious disfigurement, protracted loss or impairment of 

the function of a bodily member, organ or mental faculty.’’ That is 

pretty serious stuff. 

So we are not really creating a new mandatory minimum. What 

we are saying is the one-gram requirement is not there with respect to the trafficker, so long as you can show that death or serious bodily injury resulted in that. 

Mr. Rannazzisi, are you aware of any studies that suggest that 

Rohypnol is particularly utilized by one ethnic group or another or 

one racial group or another in the United States? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. No, sir. 

Mr. LUNGREN. It is what is commonly known as the date-rape 

drug, is that correct? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, it is used in facilitation of sexual assault. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And it was in the 1990’s that Congress passed 

laws specifically dealing with this drug for the first time? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, I believe it was in the late 1990’s. The drug 

is not a pharmaceutical in the U.S. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Right. And in 2006, Congress amended the law to 

add a new specific offense prohibiting the use of the Internet to distribute the date-rape drug. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LUNGREN. So this is beyond controlled substances or dangerous drugs. This isn’t on any schedule whatsoever for use, correct, for an FDA-approved use? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. It is not approved to be marketed or dispensed 

in the United States. FDA has not approved it to be marketed or 

dispensed in the United States. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And there has been question about Internet sites 

that are offshore. That is referred to in the bill when it talks about 

making this bill compatible with the already-existing provisions of 

law making it illegal to import controlled substances into the 

United States from foreign countries or territories, correct? 

81 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LUNGREN. In fact, the law says specifically, on the books, ‘‘It 

shall be unlawful to import into the customs territory of the United 

States from any place outside thereof any controlled substances of 

Schedule 1 or Schedule 2, any narcotic drug in Schedule 3, 4 of 5 

of this chapter.’’ 

So it is illegal to import the drugs into the United States, correct? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. As far as controlled substances, I could tell you 

that any quantity of controlled substances that are coming in via 

carrier or mail, unless it is going to a DEA-registered importer, it 

is illegal and it is subject to seizure. 

Mr. LUNGREN. So this law would help you with respect to that, 

in that we would be setting up a schematic in which there would 

be information to the consuming public as to whether or not the 

site was registered with the DEA. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LUNGREN. There would be the ability for them to check that 

against whatever approved list that you have. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LUNGREN. There would be an ability for people then to check 

with the State involved, either the reported sending State or the 

receiving State, as to whether they were registered. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LUNGREN. If, in fact, it failed those tests and it appeared 

that it was coming from outside the United States, that would at 

least give you some indication to start an investigation as to where 

it was coming from, and the act itself would be illegal under the 

terms of current law, correct? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. That is absolutely correct, sir. 

Mr. LUNGREN. So even though we have the problem with those 

that are overseas, this would at least give us more databases and 

more information from which to launch an investigation into what 

may be an illegal site. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. That is correct, sir, yes. 

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

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

I just had a couple of points. 

One, distributing the date-rape drug over the Internet is already 

illegal. What this would do would be to expand that mandatory 

minimum to other sales not over the Internet. Is that right? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I am sorry, sir. I don’t follow you there. 

Mr. SCOTT. In 2006, the Controlled Substances Act was amended 

prohibiting the use of the Internet to distribute a date-rape drug, 

which the Congress defined, included a maximum sentence of 20 

years. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. And another question: One of the problems with the 

mandatory minimums is that you not only get the main perpetrator 

but everybody who is part of the conspiracy. Is that right? 

You know, you bust a warehouse. Everybody is subject to the 

same mandatory minimum sentence, not just the ringleader, but 

the people off on a tangent would also be looking at the same manVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:13 Jan 22, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\062408\43149.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43149
82 

datory minimums, even if it made no sense to impose the penalty 

on someone who is just out there on a tangent. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I believe that would be up to the United States 

attorney where the district is. 

Mr. SCOTT. Wait a minute. But if they were prosecuted and 

found guilty, the judge would have no discretion but to impose the 

draconian mandatory minimum on someone who was just out there 

on a tangent. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Again, sir—— 

Mr. SCOTT. So we will leave it to the discretion of the prosecutor 

to decide—— 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Discretion of the judge. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, unfortunately, with a mandatory minimum, 

that is the problem. If it makes no sense, the judge has to impose 

the mandatory minimum anyway. 

Mr. Egan, did you have something to say about that? 

Mr. EGAN. Yes, sir. What I wanted to speak to was the fact that 

what this does is it takes the discretion to not apply that sentence 

to those individuals who maybe are not the main perpetrator away 

from the court and places it in the hands of the United States attorney, who makes that decision based upon whatever they feel is 

appropriate under the circumstances of the case. 

So that the application is now vested in the executive branch and 

taken away from the judicial branch, where it properly resides. 

Mr. SCOTT. And if someone has just a distant connection with the 

conspiracy and they are brought in and convicted with everybody 

else, how much discretion does the judge have in imposing a mandatory minimum sentence? 

Mr. EGAN. None. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Again, sir, for this particular drug, though, that 

only triggers if there is death or serious bodily harm. 

Mr. SCOTT. And if you were not the ringleader but, say, a lookout, you get the same—what is the mandatory minimum? Twenty 

years or whatever it is? You get 20 years for being the lookout? You 

shouldn’t have been a lookout. 

And if you are the lookout’s assistant, so if you took a message— 

this is where the girlfriends get involved—you took a message for 

somebody, you are part of the conspiracy, you get roped in, you get 

the same mandatory minimum with everybody else? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Sir, again, that is a question that I am more 

than happy to take for the record and respond in writing. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Egan, if somebody takes a message and is part 

of the conspiracy and gets roped in, do they get the same mandatory minimum like everybody else? 

Mr. EGAN. As long as what the mandatory minimum requires to 

have taken place is met by that person’s actions, then they get the 

mandatory minimum, unless the prosecution decides not to pursue 

it. It is totally within their discretion. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from California? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Just for the record, to make it clear, what we are 

talking about is Rohypnol, a date-rape drug—date-rape drug—approved for no purpose in the United States, no medical purpose 

whatsoever—a date-rape drug. And in the distribution of this dateVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:13 Jan 22, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\062408\43149.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43149
83 

rape drug, someone is killed or some victim receives serious bodily 

injury. And under those circumstances, the people who conspired 

together to create that situation will be subject to a mandatory 

minimum. 

Is that correct, Mr. Rannazzisi? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. If there are no further questions, we want to thank 

the witnesses for their testimony. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 1 

week for the submission of additional materials. 

And, again, I thank the witnesses. 

And, without objection, the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ