    [House Hearing, 109 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    STOPPING THE METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC: LESSONS FROM OREGON'S EXPERIENCE

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
                        DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                               GOVERNMENT REFORM

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 14, 2005

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 109-144

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

      Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
                                   index.html
                          http://www.house.gov/reform

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    27-723 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2006
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
    DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax:  (202) 512-2250. Mail:  Stop SSOP,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                         COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

                         TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  TOM LANTOS, California
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
    JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
    GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota             CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
    TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       DIANE E. WATSON, California
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
    GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida           C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
    JON C. PORTER, Nevada                BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    KENNY MARCHANT, Texas                ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia            Columbia
    PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina               ------
    CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania        BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina            (Independent)
    ------ ------

                        Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
           David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
                   Rob Borden, Parliamentarian/Senior Counsel
                           Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
              Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

       Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources

                       MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman
    PATRICK T. McHenry, North Carolina   ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota             DIANE E. WATSON, California
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
    CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
    GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida           ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina            Columbia

                                   Ex Officio

    TOM DAVIS, Virginia                  HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
                           Marc Wheat, Staff Director
                    Nick Coleman, Professional Staff Member
                   Mark Pfundstein, Professional Staff Member
                               Malia Holst, Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on October 14, 2005.................................     1
    Statement of:
        Benson, Rodney, Special Agent in Charge, Seattle Field
          Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Chuck Karl,
          Oregon HIDTA; and Dave Rodriguez, Northwest HIDTA..........    11
            Benson, Rodney...........................................    11
            Karl, Chuck..............................................    21
            Rodriguez, Dave..........................................    41
        Evinger, Tim, sheriff, Klamath County; Karen Ashbeck, mother
          and grandmother; John Trumbo, sheriff, Umatilla County;
          Rick Jones, Choices Counseling Center; Kathleen Deatherage,
          director of public policy, Oregon Partnership, Governor's
          Meth Task Force; Tammy Baney, Chair, Deschutes County
          Commission on Children and Families; and Shawn Miller,
          Oregon Grocery Association.................................    74
            Ashbeck, Karen...........................................   116
            Baney, Tammy.............................................   135
            Deatherage, Kathleen.....................................   128
            Evinger, Tim.............................................    74
            Jones, Rick..............................................   124
            Miller, Shawn............................................   139
            Trumbo, John.............................................   118
    Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
        Baney, Tammy, Chair, Deschutes County Commission on Children
          and Families, prepared statement of........................   137
        Benson, Rodney, Special Agent in Charge, Seattle Field
          Division, Drug Enforcement Administration, prepared
          statement of...............................................    14
        Deatherage, Kathleen, director of public policy, Oregon
          Partnership, Governor's Meth Task Force, prepared statement
          of.........................................................   131
        Evinger, Tim, sheriff, Klamath County, prepared statement of.    78
        Jones, Rick, Choices Counseling Center, prepared statement of   127
        Karl, Chuck, Oregon HIDTA, prepared statement of.............    24
        Miller, Shawn, Oregon Grocery Association, prepared statement
          of.........................................................   141
        Rodriguez, Dave, Northwest HIDTA, prepared statement of......    43
        Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Indiana, prepared statement of....................     6
        Trumbo, John, sheriff, Umatilla County, prepared statement of   121

    STOPPING THE METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC: LESSONS FROM OREGON'S EXPERIENCE

                                  ----------

                            FRIDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2005

                      House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
                                       Human Resources,
                                Committee on Government Reform,
                                                         Pendleton, OR.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m., at
    the Pendleton City Council Chambers, 500 S.W. Dorion Avenue,
    Pendleton, OR, Hon. Mark E. Souder (chairman of the
    subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Souder and Walden.
        Staff present: Nick Coleman and Mark Pfundstein,
    professional staff members; and Malia Holst, clerk.
        Mr. Souder. Before we formally start the hearing, I'm going
    to yield to Congressman Walden to make some opening comments.
        Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Chairman Souder. We
    appreciate you being here. I want to, first of all, welcome you
    and your staff, and let you know that we're sitting in the same
    room where on March 4th I hosted nearly a 3-hour
    methamphetamine town hall summit with a crowd about this big or
    a little larger.
        It was our seventh in a series. And it took place on a
    Friday night. And we had a big turnout, which I think showed
    the level of concern in this region and this community about
    the problems of methamphetamine.
        I'd certainly like to recognize and thank a number of
    dignitaries who are in the audience today, and start with State
    representative Bob Jensen who is here. Bob, we welcome you and
    the work that you've done back there in the legislature along
    with your colleagues to really put Oregon out in the forefront
    in the battle on methamphetamine.
        I'd like to welcome our Umatilla County commissioners;
    Dennis Doherty, Emile Holeman, and Bill Hansell. And, as you
    know, Bill is chairman of the National Association of Counties
    and has made the fight on methamphetamine his signature issue
    as head of this national organization.
        I know he's going to be in your State tomorrow as part of
    the Indiana Counties Association meeting and will be speaking
    there. I believe Congressman Lamoreau--or, excuse me--
    Commissioner Lamoreau and Commissioner McClure are both here
    from Union County. We welcome them as well.
        I think Judge Tallman from Morrow County will be joining us
    soon, if he's not arrived already. And, obviously, we have a
    lot of local law enforcement officials. I won't go through and
    introduce them all, Mr. Chairman, but you met with most of them
    in our meeting prior to this one.
        And I want to tell you it's this law enforcement
    community--and I've said it before private and public--that
    really put this issue on my agenda because of the passion they
    felt about the problem they faced. And it is from that that's
    led all the way to here and the hearing that you're hosting.
        I'd also like to welcome representatives from my friend and
    colleague Senator Gordon Smith's office, Larry Garthy and Rich
    Cricket I believe are both here, along with the U.S. Attorney's
    Office, U.S. Attorney Karin Immergut.
        And so I'd like to thank our witnesses, I'd like to thank
    the city of Pendleton for opening up this room for us. And for
    those of you who were here in time to see this DVD--and, Mr.
    Chairman, I'll make sure you have a copy of it. It's called
    ``Messed Up.'' This was produced and funded by a company out of
    Klamath Falls called Jeldwin Corp.
        And I don't know what you all thought of it, but I thought
    it was one of the most powerful messages I've seen on this
    issue, and I know that they will make it available to
    organizations and individuals.
        I also want to thank Ken McGee who I know is here in the
    front row. Ken is with the DEA. And I've got to tell you, Mr.
    Chairman, he attended all seven of our methamphetamine summits,
    and that included one at I think 8 a.m. in Grants Pass and one
    here at 7 p.m. So, Kenny, good to see you and thanks for being
    here.
        Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back to you and welcome you here
    to Pendleton, OR.
        Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
        The subcommittee will come to order. Good afternoon, and
    thank you all for being here. This hearing continues our
    subcommittee's work on the growing epidemic of methamphetamine
    trafficking and abuse. I'd like to thank my colleague,
    Congressman Greg Walden, for inviting me to Pendleton today.
        Congressman Walden has been a strong advocate in the House
    for a more effective anti-meth strategy, and I am grateful both
    for his leadership and for the assistance that he and his staff
    provided in setting up this hearing.
        With the exceptions of California and Hawaii, the Pacific
    Northwest has been dealing with meth longer than any other
    region in the country, so I don't have to tell anyone here
    about how powerful, dangerous, and destructive a drug it is. In
    fact, as the title of this hearing indicates, our purpose is to
    learn from you about how your communities have been suffering
    from meth and how you have responded. Congress is currently
    working on several key pieces of anti-meth legislation, and I
    hope the information we gather at this hearing will help us in
    that effort.
        This is actually the 11th hearing focusing on meth held by
    this subcommittee since I became chairman in 2001 and the
    seventh field hearing. In places as diverse as Indiana,
    Arkansas, Hawaii, Minnesota, and Ohio, I have heard gripping
    testimony about how this drug has devastated lives and
    families. This is in addition to meetings in Louisiana,
    Washington State and others, with local law enforcement like we
    had here this morning.
        But I have also learned about the many positive ways that
    communities have fought back, targeting the meth cooks and
    dealers, trying to get addicts into treatment, and working to
    educate young people about the risks of meth abuse.
        At each hearing we try to get a picture of the state of
    meth trafficking and abuse in the local area by asking three
    questions. First, where does the meth in the area come from and
    how do we reduce the supply?
        Second, how do agencies and organizations in the area get
    people into treatment, and how do we try to keep young people
    from starting meth use in the first place?
        And, finally, how is the Federal Government partnering with
    State and local agencies to deal with this problem, and how can
    that partnership be improved?
        The question of meth supply divides into two separate
    issues, because this drug comes from two major sources. The
    most significant source--in terms of the amount produced--comes
    from the so-called super labs, which until recently were mainly
    in California, but are now increasingly located in northern
    Mexico.
        By the end of the 1990's, these superlabs produced over 70
    percent of the Nation's supply of meth, and today it is
    believed that 90 percent or more comes from Mexican superlabs.
    The national trend holds true here in the Pacific Northwest, as
    well; for example, it is estimated that 80 to 90 percent of the
    meth in Portland is brought in by Mexican drug traffickers.
        The second major source of meth comes from small, local
    labs that are generally unaffiliated with major trafficking
    organizations. These labs, often called clandestine or clan
    labs, have proliferated here as they have throughout the
    country, often in rural areas. For example, Oregon reported 352
    such lab seizures, and Washington State 422. These are high
    numbers, although by comparison Indiana reported 587 labs and
    Missouri 1,115 labs during the same year.
        And, by the way, I want to make a note. Any of you who want
    a lab rate on this are fine. Every State is on the report. I
    believe that's probably a third of my district, local law
    enforcement has taken down more than 587 in the whole State.
        But the total amount of meth actually supplied by these
    labs is relatively small; however, the environmental damage and
    health hazard they create--in the form of toxic chemical
    pollution and chemical fires--make them a serious problem for
    local communities, particularly the State and local law
    enforcement agencies forced to uncover and clean them up.
        Children are often found at the meth labs and frequently
    suffer from severe health problems as a result of the hazardous
    chemicals used.
        So how do we reduce the supply? Since meth has no single
    source, no single regulation will be able to control it
    effectively. To deal with the local meth lab problem, many
    States have passed various forms of retail restrictions on meth
    precursor chemicals like pseudoephedrine--used in cold
    medicines. Some States limit the number of packages a customer
    can buy; others have forced cold medicines behind the counter
    in pharmacies.
        Here in Oregon, the State government has gone so far as to
    make pseudoephedrine prescription-only medication. I have some
    concerns about whether the law enforcement benefit of these
    restrictions is significant enough to justify the burden on
    consumers, retailers, and the health care system, but I'm
    looking forward to hearing from our witnesses today about that
    subject.
        However, regardless of which retail sales regulations are
    enacted by the State or Federal Government, they will not
    reduce the large-scale production of meth in Mexico. That
    problem will require either better control of the amount of
    pseudoephedrine going into Mexico, which appears to be on the
    rise, or better control of drug smuggling on our Southwest
    border, or both.
        The Federal Government, in particular the Departments of
    Justice, State, and Homeland Security, will have to take the
    lead if we are to get results.
        The next major question is demand reduction--how do we get
    meth addicts to stop using? How do we get young people not to
    try meth in the first place? I am encouraged by the work of a
    number of programs at the State and local level, with
    assistance from the Federal Government, including Drug Court
    programs--which seek to get meth drug offenders into treatment
    programs in lieu of prison time; the Drug-Free Communities
    Support Program--which assists community anti-drug coalitions
    with drug use prevention; and the President's Access to
    Recovery treatment initiative--which seeks to broaden the
    number of treatment providers.
        But we should not minimize the task ahead; this is one of
    the most addictive drugs, and treatment programs nationwide
    have not had a very good success rate with meth.
        The final question we need to address is how the Federal
    Government can best partner with State and local agencies to
    deal with meth and its consequences. Perhaps the best example
    of this kind of partnership is the High Intensity Drug
    Trafficking Areas [HIDTA] program, which brings together
    Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in
    cooperative, anti-drug operations and intelligence sharing.
        There are HIDTAs in both Oregon and Washington State, and I
    am pleased that the directors of both were able to join us
    today. Other programs designed to help State and local
    communities include the Byrne grants and COPS; Meth Hot Spots
    programs--which help fund anti-meth law enforcement task
    forces; the DEA's fund for meth lab cleanup costs; and the Safe
    and Drug-Free Schools program, which ideally should help
    schools provide anti-meth education.
        However, we will never have enough money, at any level of
    government, to do everything we might want to do with respect
    to meth. That means that Congress and State and local
    policymakers need to make some tough choices about which
    activities and programs to fund, and at what level.
        We also need to strike the appropriate balance between the
    needs of law enforcement and consumers, and between supply
    reduction and demand reduction.
        The House and Senate are currently considering a number of
    different bills concerning meth, and I am hopeful that we will
    be able to take strong, effective action before the end of the
    year. Together with Jim Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House
    Judiciary Committee, Majority Leader Roy Blunt, the four co-
    chairs of the Congressional Meth Caucus, Congressman Walden,
    and over 40 other Members, I recently introduced H.R. 3889, the
    Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act, which would authorize
    new regulations of precursor chemicals, tougher criminal
    penalties for major meth traffickers, and monitoring of the
    international market for precursors.
        We may be able to get that bill to the House floor for a
    vote by next month. But numerous other proposals, including
    classifying pseudoephedrine as a ``Schedule V'' narcotic under
    Federal law, will have to be considered by Congress as well.
        We have an excellent group of witnesses today who will help
    us make sense of these complicated issues. On our first panel,
    which by tradition of this committee is always the Federal
    panel as our first priority as oversight of the Federal
    Government, we are joined by Mr. Rodney Benson, Special Agent
    in Charge of DEA's Seattle Field Division; and Directors Chuck
    Karl of the Oregon HIDTA and Dave Rodriguez of the Northwest
    HIDTA.
        On our second panel, we are pleased to be joined by Karen
    Ashbeck, a mother and grandmother who has spoken out about meth
    abuse within her own family; Sheriff John Trumbo of Umatilla
    County and Sheriff Tim Evinger of Klamath County; Rick Jones of
    Choices Counseling Center; Kathleen Deatherage, Director of
    Public Policy for the Oregon Partnership--Governor's Meth Task
    Force; Tammy Baney--is that right?--Chair of the Deschutes
    County Commission on Children and Families; and Shawn Miller of
    the Oregon Grocery Association.
        We thank each and every one of you for taking the time to
    join us today and look forward to your testimony.
        I yield to Congressman Walden.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.003

        Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank
    you for being here. I also want to recognize the mayor of
    Pendleton, Phil Houk, who is in the back of the room, or was,
    and we appreciate his participation in this as well.
        I'm looking forward today to hearing from our witnesses, so
    I'll keep my remarks brief. But one of the things that I think
    where we've achieved some success is getting the HIDTA
    designation for Umatilla County. And just last week, it's my
    understanding HIDTA has freed up the first $100,000 for
    distribution, so I look forward, Mr. Karl, to hearing your
    comments about what that really means on the ground for the law
    enforcement community.
        There are a number of issues from the Drug Enforcement
    Administration. I met with a group in my office in Washington
    last week to talk about some of these, but I'd be curious to
    hear what you have to say about the drug trafficking issues, as
    well as hopefully we can get back to getting some additional
    help in this part of the region.
        For a while there was a DEA agent that was assigned to help
    in this area. I worked with Asa Hutchinson when he was at DEA,
    trying to get that done, and I continue to hear the request for
    that help. And so I continue to convey that at every level.
        But I also want to hear, too, about the proposal, if you
    know, the pilot program in Kentucky dealing with the cleanup
    efforts in rural areas, the Container Program. I'd be curious
    to hear what Oregon has to say about that as well. Because,
    again, one of the issues I hear about in the rural areas is the
    high cost of the cleanup. Not the cleanup itself necessarily,
    but having to assign officers to watch over one of these sites
    until the cleanup crew can arrive.
        And I guess Kentucky has experimented with some Container
    Programs that can--my understanding is cost per lab cleanup
    there is down to $290, where nationwide it's $1.940. I know
    there are some other issues associated with that, but we
    welcome your comments on that.
        And, finally, Mr. Chairman, I've been after my own
    committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, to also do some
    oversight hearings on the jurisdiction we have on environmental
    issues and health issues. And I'm pleased to announce that
    Chairman Barton has agreed to begin that process I understand
    maybe as early as next week we'll begin to have some hearings
    on the jurisdiction we have in Energy and Commerce on this
    issue.
        Clearly, we're all in this together, whether in the
    Congress, in the city council, or grandparent or parent. This
    is a problem that is tearing apart the fabric of our community,
    our State, and our country. It has international implications
    and it has local implications. And we're here today to hear how
    best we can resolve the problems we face and take what we learn
    here back to Washington and hopefully be a better partner.
        So with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for coming out
    and enjoy the great Northwest and holding this hearing. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Souder. Thank you.
        First, I'd like to do a couple of procedural matters. I'd
    ask that all Members present submit their statements and
    questions into the hearing record. Any written answers to
    questions provided by them will also be included in the record
    without objection. So ordered.
        I'd request that all Members present be permitted to
    participate in the hearing without objection. So ordered.
        Let me just briefly explain what this committee is and how
    we proceed here. First off, what's been unusual about much of
    what we've been doing is it's very bipartisan. My ranking
    member, Elijah Cummings, has been aligned with this. It is not
    the easiest thing in various parts of Congress to be able to
    get clearances to be able to do what I just read there.
        Basically what that means is that in this particular case,
    Mr. Cummings isn't here today, but he's letting the hearing go
    ahead because we don't have a partisan position on this issue.
    We also allow Members from the region or the individuals to
    participate in our subcommittee, which is not always true in
    other committees. And so while that sounded technical, it was
    critical and it shows the bipartisan nature of what we're
    doing.
        The second thing is, to briefly explain, in the
    congressional process, an authorizing committee like the
    committee that Mr. Walden was just referring to on Energy and
    Commerce, would pass legislation out of Congress that sets
    parameters on how the law works. The appropriations committee
    then can fund inside the limits in the policies that are set by
    the authorizing committee.
        The Government Reform Committee then has jurisdiction to
    review those policies to see if they're being implemented by
    the executive branch in the way that Congress intended.
        Actually, the oversight committee preceded the authorizing
    committee. It used to just be oversight and appropriations, and
    the authorizers came in later.
        And we have a wide scope, probably the best, while our
    committee did lapse on the oversight over the last
    administration's adventures, probably the best thing we're
    known for right now is Mark McGwire basically said he didn't
    want to talk about the past.
        You'll see each of the witnesses has to be sworn in, as an
    oversight committee, and Rafael Palmeiro is learning what it
    means to violate that oath. And the only question was, was he
    on steroids while he testified or not. If he was, he's going to
    go to jail for perjury. So we don't take it lightly.
        We also, as an oversight committee, have a right to
    subpoena any records, e-mails, phone calls, as we did in the
    travel office questions, as we did in other things with the
    administration.
        Now, what's a little unusual about this subcommittee is
    we're also an authorizing subcommittee on ONDCP. So Nick
    Coleman, the counsel of this subcommittee, has already met most
    of the HIDTAs around the country as we drafted the bill that
    passed through the committee and is pending coming to the House
    floor, mostly held up right now with the steroids fight, who
    has jurisdiction over the steroids legislation, but defines the
    parameters of what the HIDTAs do, how many HIDTAs we're going
    to need, how much money goes into the HIDTAs, as well as the
    National Ad Campaign and other things.
        So we're both an authorizing and oversight committee. But I
    wanted to give you that idea of what this committee is and how
    it differs from a lot of the other committees that you see.
        We usually do our hearings in Washington, but in my
    subcommittee, we've been trying to get out in the field more
    because we can hear a little more diversity and it costs a lot
    less than everybody coming to Washington.
        Now, our first panel is composed, as I said, of Rodney
    Benson, Special Agent in charge of the Seattle Field Division
    of DEA; Chuck Karl, Director of the Oregon High Intensity Drug
    Trafficking Area; and Dave Rodriguez, Director of the Northwest
    High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area.
        I mentioned that we have to swear you all in, so if you'll
    each stand and raise your right hands.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Souder. Let the record show that each responded in the
    affirmative.
        We have a little light here that basically is 5 minutes;
    theoretically, the yellow comes on at 4. In a field hearing
    we're a little more generous with that, but that enables us to
    have time for questioning that will also be inserted in the
    record. And I look forward to your testimony. Mr. Benson.

     STATEMENTS OF RODNEY BENSON, SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, SEATTLE
     FIELD DIVISION, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; CHUCK KARL,
           OREGON HIDTA; AND DAVE RODRIGUEZ, NORTHWEST HIDTA

                       STATEMENT OF RODNEY BENSON

        Mr. Benson. Chairman Souder, Congressman Walden, thank you
    very much. My name is Rodney Benson. I'm the Special Agent in
    charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration's Seattle Field
    Division which encompasses the States of Washington, Oregon,
    Idaho, and Alaska.
        On behalf of DEA's Administrator, Karen Tandy, I appreciate
    your invitation today regarding DEA's efforts in the Pacific
    Northwest to combat methamphetamine.
        Unlike some regions of the country, for the Pacific
    Northwest methamphetamine is not a new phenomenon. Law
    enforcement in the Pacific Northwest for well over 20 years has
    been dealing firsthand with the devastating effects of this
    drug, which has spread eastward and is now impacting
    communities across the Nation.
        In the Pacific Northwest and across the Nation, we have
    initiated and led successful enforcement efforts focusing on
    methamphetamine and its precursor chemicals, and have worked
    jointly with our Federal, State, and local law enforcement
    partners to combat this drug.
        Methamphetamines found in the United States originates from
    two general sources controlled by two distinct groups. Most of
    the methamphetamines found in the United States is produced by
    Mexico-based and California-based Mexican traffickers whose
    organizations control superlabs and produce the majority of
    methamphetamine available throughout the country. Current data
    suggests that roughly two-thirds of the methamphetamine
    consumed in the United States comes from larger labs
    increasingly in Mexico.
        The second source for methamphetamines in this country
    comes from small toxic labs which produce relatively small
    amounts of methamphetamine and are not generally affiliated
    with major trafficking organizations. A precise breakdown is
    not available, but it is estimated that these labs are
    responsible for approximately one-third of the methamphetamine
    consumed in this country.
        Methamphetamine is very significant, it is a very
    significant illicit drug threat that faces the Seattle field
    Division. Demand, availability, and abuse of methamphetamine
    remain high in all areas of the Pacific Northwest. The market
    for methamphetamine both in powder and crystal form in Oregon
    and Washington is dominated by Mexican drug trafficking
    organizations.
        Small toxic labs producing anywhere from a few grams to
    several ounces of methamphetamine operate within each State.
    These labs present unique problems to law enforcement and
    communities of all facets. The DEA both nationally and in the
    Seattle Field Division focuses its overall enforcement
    operations on the large regional, national, and international
    drug trafficking organizations responsible for the majority of
    the illicit drug supply in the United States.
        The Seattle Field Division's enforcement efforts are led by
    DEA special agents and task force officers from the State and
    local agencies who, along with our diversion investigators and
    intelligence research specialists, work to combat drug threats
    facing Oregon and Washington.
        During the last 4 years, the efforts of our offices in
    Oregon and Washington have resulted in approximately 1,600
    methamphetamine-related arrests, many of which occurred as part
    of investigations conducted under the Organized Crime Drug
    Enforcement Task Force Program and the Priority Target
    Organizations Investigations Program.
        The DEA feels that training is vital to all officers
    involved in these hazardous situations, and since 1998, our
    office of training has provided training to over 9,300 officers
    from across the country. Within the Seattle Field Division,
    since fiscal year 2002 the DEA's office of training has
    provided clandestine laboratory training to more than 320
    officers from Oregon and Washington.
        In 1990, the DEA established a hazardous waste cleanup
    program to address environmental concerns from the seizure of
    clandestine drug laboratories. This program promotes the safety
    of law enforcement personnel and the public by using qualified
    companies with specialized training and equipment to remove
    hazardous waste.
        The DEA's Hazardous Waste Program, with the assistance of
    grants from State and local law enforcement, supports and funds
    the cleanup of the majority of laboratories seized in the
    United States.
        In fiscal year 2004, the cost of administering these
    cleanups was approximately $17.8 million. Through our Hazardous
    Waste Program, since fiscal year 2002 the DEA has administered
    nearly 1,400 laboratory cleanups in Oregon and Washington at a
    cost of over $2.9 million.
        The DEA is keenly aware that we must continue our fight
    against methamphetamine. Nationally and within the Seattle
    Field Division we continue to fight methamphetamine on multiple
    fronts. Our enforcement efforts are focused against
    methamphetamine trafficking organizations and those who provide
    the precursors necessary to manufacture this drug. We are also
    providing vital training and lab cleanups to our State and
    local partners as they combat methamphetamine.
        Law enforcement has experienced some success in this fight,
    though much work needs to be done. Thank you for your
    recognition of this important issue and the opportunity to
    testify here today.
        I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Souder. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Benson follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.010

        Mr. Souder. Mr. Karl.

                        STATEMENT OF CHUCK KARL

        Mr. Karl. Chairman Souder, distinguished members of the
    council, Congressman Walden, I'd like to begin my testimony by
    expressing my sincere appreciation for the opportunity to
    address you today and for your efforts to seek out the nature
    of the methamphetamine threat and epidemic in the Northwest and
    the rest of our country and seek solutions to that.
        Oregon, as has been testified, has had an escalating meth
    problem for many years. So what's new? The methamphetamine
    threat in Oregon and the rest of the Nation is clearly a threat
    to our children, families, natural environment, government
    services, business communities, and neighborhood livability.
        In the last 2 years, from my perspective, with the HIDTA
    programing and through HIDTA intelligence working with task
    forces, the available methamphetamine in Oregon has changed
    from predominantly the powder form of methamphetamine to the
    smokeable and nearly pure crystal form of methamphetamine. In
    my opinion, the crystal form of methamphetamine is the single
    most addictive and damaging drug to come along in my law
    enforcement experience.
        Its initial use is said to provide an intense and
    unforgettable pleasure which can cause an immediate addiction.
    This can also immediately cause----
        Mr. Souder. Could you hold for a second? Is there a way to
    adjust the mic?
        Mr. Walden. Maybe put that back away from you just a little
    bit.
        Mr. Karl. With a very little amount of methamphetamine
    abuse, numerous wards of the community are created and may
    continue to be wards of the community for a lifetime. These
    include drug-affected babies and children, abused and neglected
    children, learning disabled children, family, friends, the
    crippled addicts themselves, not to mention the often innocent
    victims of their drug related crimes.
        A recent study conducted in Marion County by the District
    Attorney's Office during August of this year found that five
    meth affected babies were born in 1 week. That's almost one a
    day. A treatment provider advised me this week that 90 percent
    of women in treatment in Oregon are involved with meth. In Lane
    County, State and child welfare programs hit a lamentable
    milestone, more than 1,000 children living in foster homes.
        Workers and job applicants in Oregon are failing drug tests
    this year at a 30 percent higher rate than last year. In my
    opinion, Oregon and the Nation are looking into the face of
    another call to action to secure our homeland from those who
    will harm us personally, socially, and economically by
    poisoning us with a tasty piece of crystal candy called
    methamphetamine. These predators are no less than narco-
    terrorists.
        Concerning Oregon's solutions, the single most effective
    solution in Oregon today responsible for stopping the
    escalating of meth labs being discovered by law enforcement has
    been the recent State regulations and legislation intended to
    control the primary precursor chemical ingredient of ephedrine
    and pseudoephedrine.
        The Oregon Department of Justice HIDTA Intelligence Center
    has seen a 60 percent reduction in reported meth labs during
    2005, as compared to the period of 2004. And by the way, in
    Umatilla County, there was one meth lab for every 800 residents
    in 2004. And that's probably underreported.
        Please refer to my written testimony for some other
    solutions already implemented in Oregon. I'd like to spend the
    remaining time addressing some remarks toward other potential
    solutions that relate to how the Federal Government can assist
    State and local communities.
        First and foremost--and I know you're aware of this--
    illegal immigration enforcement and border access still needs
    to be addressed at the Federal level. This is by far the
    greatest threat to homeland security and safety from drug
    terrorism, as well as traditional terrorism.
        The response to this issue involves numerous components
    such as personal identification controls and requirements for
    obtaining work permits, credit cards, Social Security cards,
    and driver's licenses across the country.
        Identity theft is a major crime in Oregon and a regional
    task force has been established. Currently, a case being
    currently prosecuted in Washington County, OR, is one of the
    largest fraudulent schemes for obtaining driver's licenses in
    the United States.
        Over 70,000 fraudulent Oregon driver's licenses were
    issued. People were flying in from other States to obtain a
    fraudulent Oregon driver's license for identification. The
    potential threat and impact of this case as it relates to
    traditional terrorism and drug trafficking is clear.
        Additionally, the investigation and enforcement of
    immigration violations is not coordinated and standardized
    across the country. In Oregon, this represents a huge
    communication and cooperation barrier between Federal, State,
    and local law enforcement agencies working to ensure homeland
    security and conduct drug investigations.
        For example, State and local law enforcement officers in
    Oregon cannot inquire about or investigate the immigration
    status of anyone due to current State law. Further, they cannot
    take enforcement action against an illegal immigrant based
    solely on their status, nor can they use any State and local
    resources to assist any Federal agency with immigration due to
    the State law.
        My final remarks are meant to bring some perspective to our
    Nation's drug problem as it relates to the issue of homeland
    security. The threats from the drug problems facing our country
    are as great as those facing our country from traditional
    terrorism. Be assured I do not wish to diminish the threat from
    September 11th-type terrorism and the pain it has caused our
    country.
        However, I do wish to state that this country has suffered
    far more pain and loss of life and human potential, as well as
    the damage to our economy and infrastructure, from the gorilla
    drug terrorism being waged quietly and not so quietly in our
    cities and neighborhoods by these drug predators.
        SAMHSA data, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
    Administration, in just 34 metro areas of various sizes in 2002
    reported 10,087 people died from drug-related deaths, not
    including alcohol, leading drug treatment professionals to
    liken it to cancer on a planet.
        And I thank you for the opportunity and would be happy to
    answer questions about the HIDTA program.
        Mr. Souder. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Karl follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.027

        Mr. Souder. Mr. Rodriguez, good to see you again.
        Mr. Rodriguez. You as well, Chairman.

                      STATEMENT OF DAVE RODRIGUEZ

        Mr. Rodriguez. Chairman Souder, Congressman Walden, members
    of the community, my name is Dave Rodriguez, and I've been the
    HIDTA director since 1997. I want to thank the committee for
    giving me the opportunity to testify today.
        Mr. Walden. Can you hear him in the back? Yours might need
    to be moved closer.
        Mr. Rodriguez. The Northwest HIDTA fosters partnerships
    between law enforcement agencies. At last count, we had the
    participation of 392 task force officers and support staff
    representing 96 law enforcement agencies Statewide. We
    emphasize information sharing, case support, deconfliction
    practices, and training.
        As indicated in the 2005 HIDTA Threat Assessment,
    methamphetamine abuse, availability, and production continues
    to pose a significant threat to Washington State. The data from
    the National Drug Intelligence Center indicates that 91.1
    percent of the State and local law enforcement agencies in
    Washington described methamphetamine as the greatest drug
    threat in the area.
        The number of reported meth labs in Washington began to
    decrease in 2002, when the State ranked third nationally with
    1,445 lab-related seizures as reported by the El Paso
    Intelligence Center. Washington then dropped to sixth in the
    Nation in 2003 with 928 seizures, and again ranked sixth in
    2004 with 935.
        Production creates and introduces toxic and hazardous waste
    in the environment that endangers law enforcement personnel and
    emergency response teams, as well as adults and children
    visiting or residing in or near the homes of methamphetamine
    producers.
        The dangers associated with meth production are not limited
    to chemical toxicities. Oftentimes individuals addicted to this
    drug are extremely violent. On March 17, 2005, DEA task force
    agents and officers of Yakima, WA, working in a HIDTA-supported
    investigation, conducted an undercover operation to buy 1 pound
    of methamphetamine ice from a male and female suspected of
    being drug traffickers.
        During the course of the arrest, agency task force officers
    were fired upon and were involved in a high speed pursuit of
    the subject. The male subject jumped out of the vehicle in
    front of a convenience store where he had taken a female
    hostage and held her at gunpoint for about 2 hours before he
    surrendered.
        Pseudoephedrine and ephedrine are the most commonly
    diverted precursor chemicals used in illicit drug production in
    Washington State. An increasingly popular method of acquiring
    precursor chemicals in Washington is through Internet sales.
    Although moving pseudoephedrine from Canada to the United
    States has decreased, increasing quantities of ephedrine are
    being smuggled across the U.S.-Canada border.
        Data reported from the western sector in Washington of the
    U.S.-Canada border indicates that 1,462 pounds of ephedrine has
    been seized in calendar year 2005, representing a 48 percent
    increase from calendar year 2004. There has been no
    pseudoephedrine seizures reported in calendar year 2004 or
    2005.
        In spite of reports of a declining number of meth labs in
    Washington State, the level of methamphetamine abuse remains
    high. Data from the Treatment Episode Data Set indicates a
    significant increase in amphetamine-related treatment
    admissions in 2004--9,356--, ending the previous downward trend
    from a peak in 2001--8,260.
        High purity, low-cost methamphetamine is readily available
    throughout the State. The National Drug Survey shows that 98
    percent of State and local law enforcement agencies in
    Washington described meth availability as high or moderate in
    their jurisdictions. The availability and demand for crystal
    methamphetamine is also increasing throughout the State.
        Most of meth available in Washington is produced in large-
    scale superlabs primarily located in Mexico and California. The
    Federal-wide Drug Seizure System data indicates that Washington
    ranked sixth in the Nation, based on weight, for Federal
    seizures of methamphetamine in calendar year 2004, down from
    fourth in calendar year 2003.
        Although the use of meth itself is a crime, there are
    several other crimes that have been increasing because of the
    prolific use of the drug. There is a strong correlation within
    areas with high levels of meth abuse with increased levels of
    identity theft, auto theft, burglary, assaults, and domestic
    violence.
        As the meth threat from clan labs has declined, the
    transportation of meth from other States has increased. On
    February 13, 2005, 24 suspects were arrested for conspiracy and
    possession with intent to distribute meth and cocaine
    throughout the Northwest.
        This was the result of a 2\1/2\ year multi-agency
    cooperative investigation of a significant drug trafficking
    organization involved in bringing large quantities of meth and
    cocaine from Mexico through the Tri-Cities to the greater
    Spokane area, and then distributing these drugs to customers
    throughout the Northwest, including the States of Idaho and
    Montana.
        Agents and officers obtained 10 Federal search warrants for
    residences in Spokane and Franklin County of Tri-Cities, as
    well as Kootenai County in Idaho. During the investigation and
    execution of search warrants and other enforcement operations,
    agents and officers seized 10 pounds of methamphetamine, 8
    pounds of cocaine, one semi-automatic handgun, 10 vehicles, and
    approximately $60,000 in currency.
        Also, agents and officers were able to establish a direct
    link between this criminal organization and the drug
    traffickers operating out of Mexico.
        In 2004, the Northwest HIDTA provided over 53,000 pieces of
    print and electronic meth education material, as well as
    provided information with the HIDTA Web site M-Files, which
    received over 2,000,000 hits and 80,000 visitors.
        To conclude, I would like to thank you for the opportunity
    to testify today regarding the methamphetamine epidemic, and at
    this time if you have any questions, I'd be pleased to answer
    them.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.041

        Mr. Souder. Lots of questions. First, I just need to--we
    may provide a most likely series of some written questions
    because there's no way to try and get all these.
        I want to ask some basic factual questions. You've all
    provided great specific data which is really helpful. Because
    as we went into this hearing process a couple years ago, the
    data was not as specific and often we'd just have kind of
    general national information. And this is real interesting.
        Audience member. We can't hear.
        Mr. Souder. When did Washington State----
        Audience member. Can't hear.
        Mr. Souder. When did Washington State pass a precursor
    chemical--is it behind the counter? Is it a ``Schedule V''.
        Mr. Rodriguez. The latest rendition of the Washington State
    law limits the access of pseudoephedrine. It is behind the
    counter or is locked up. It also has an age requirement of 18
    years or older. It also maintains a law where you have to show
    ID, and you're limited to two packs of pseudoephedrine in a 2-
    hour period.
        Mr. Souder. When did that law take affect.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Took effect in July.
        Mr. Souder. So bottom line is there were already 3 years of
    decline in Washington prior to the law.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Yes, but we had already subjected
    pseudoephedrine to other controls not as strict as these, but
    there were regulations passed including increasing penalties on
    meth cooks, as well as penalties for drugs endangering children
    from the meth labs.
        Mr. Souder. Part of the difficulty of looking at what's
    having what impact, I was trying to sort out, based on the
    data, because Washington still has a lot of labs. When did Meth
    Watch get implemented?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Meth Watch is approximately 3 years in our
    State. It started in Spokane and it spread from there. It's in
    approximately 29 of 39 counties.
        Mr. Souder. And when did the initial--in other words, when
    you hit your peak in 2001 and 2002, Meth Watch was the first
    reaction with increased law enforcement also prior to that.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Meth Watch was implemented around that same
    period, but I would suspect that the results of our State drop
    had to do with our State summit and the fact that we formed
    meth action teams in each of our counties. Each of our counties
    has an interdisciplinary meth action team of law enforcement,
    prosecutors, treatment prevention, education professionals. And
    that's when we started getting our hands around the meth
    issues.
        Mr. Souder. Because you had a 33 percent decline in the
    number of meth labs, even though it's still high, and that's
    before any control law, which is interesting because what we're
    finding is this is a pretty typical pattern, that any action
    has an impact. And it's one of the methods, and often it's
    implied that it's the only method.
        In Oregon, it looked like the data was up and down a little
    bit more. Mr. Karl, why do you----
        Mr. Karl. Well, I think our Meth Watch program started
    about 3 years ago and kind of got really implemented about 2
    years ago Statewide. And we did have from 2001 a slow decline
    in the number of reported meth labs. I attribute that primarily
    to the economic downturn in the lack of law enforcement
    resources.
        There were over 100 State police officers laid off, and
    there just wasn't the number of police officers, even in small
    jurisdictions, that were able to investigate or respond to
    leads about meth labs and underreporting because of that. Only
    in November of last year did precursor controls in the form of
    putting pseudoephedrine behind the counter, mandated by--that
    was November of last year--they put it behind the counter by
    the Medical Board in Oregon, and since then we've seen a huge
    drop.
        Now, the State legislature enacted a bill that will take
    effect in 2006 that will make it actually a prescription
    requirement here to obtain pseudoephedrine products. And so we,
    like I said, have seen a 60 percent drop during the same period
    in the number of reported labs.
        Counties like Umatilla that are on State borders, and even
    Portland which is on the State border, although in Eastern
    Oregon there's several borders that they state where
    pseudoephedrine controls are not as strict as in Washington or
    Oregon, and so there's still some, a lot of pseudoephedrine
    being brought in from other States and there's some being
    smuggled in as well from Canada and Mexico.
        But primarily what I see in Oregon is the shift, and I
    talked to a treatment provider this week who said we haven't
    seen a reduction in the demand of treatment because of the
    pseudo control laws because the addiction caused from it is
    still being fed, but now it's being fed by this crystal meth
    coming in from Mexico, and coming in in large quantities.
        One pound in Portland can be bought at any time for $9,000,
    which is about 1,800 individual uses and a profit of over
    $20,000, so----
        Mr. Souder. Mr. Benson and Mr. Rodriguez, we talked a
    second about the Canadian border. I understood Mr. Rodriguez's
    statement where you have HIDTA teams and a very aggressive
    watch on hydroponic marijuana and swapping for cocaine and guns
    and heroin at that border.
        In Detroit, the DEA's sting took down looked like 40
    percent of the entire pseudoephedrine market in the United
    States at that time. It's interesting, because I believe Mr.
    Rodriguez's testimony says there was a drop in the
    pseudoephedrine, but moving to ephedrine, which you believe is
    moving to California.
        You had in your written testimony, Mr. Benson, an example
    of where you took down a superlab in Salem. Are you convinced--
    could you explain a little bit what you mean by the difference
    between pseudoephedrine and ephedrine? Why couldn't ephedrine
    also be broken in and become a source of supply to the mom and
    pop and what we would call the slightly larger than mom and pop
    operations? Is that likely to be a variation response to it
    going behind the counter?
        Mr. Benson. Mr. Chairman, they very well could bring in
    ephedrine into those smaller labs as well. What we saw at that
    superlab outside of Salem was obviously members of a Mexican
    criminal organization where they chose to just really deploy
    some of their workers up, and they felt that they were
    comfortable in that particular location and created a massive
    lab that was taken down.
        But we have seen an increase just over the last--it's not a
    lot of seizures. It was three seizures that totaled a little
    over 500 kilograms of ephedrine that have come across from
    Canada this year.
        Mr. Souder. Do you have any comments on that, Mr.
    Rodriguez, on how you think this--do you think the ephedrine
    will get into what used to be the mom and pop labs, as far as
    Canada? And let me ask you another question, both of those, and
    Mr. Karl as well, both of you, I know in my district, which
    isn't on the Canada border, but there's a huge business in
    seniors' prescriptions.
        The question is, when is this going to move to the mom and
    pop lab just to go on the Internet and get it shipped in, which
    will be much harder to find than the Meth Watch programs going
    through pharmacies and grocery stores. Have you seen any of
    that?
        Do we have any monitoring efforts to see whether it's
    coming in, any friendly working relationships with UPS and Fed-
    Ex, trying to figure out what's happening here? Hydroponic
    marijuana plants are being shipped across. We track that to
    some degree.
        Mr. Benson. Mr. Chairman, we do track with our Canadian
    colleagues and we have a close working relationship with the
    RCMP on looking at ephedrine moving through Canada. And we have
    seen, you know, this year an increase mainly in three seizures
    coming in.
        And it's clearly--our intelligence indicated it was going
    down into California to be manufactured in the superlab
    operations.
        Mr. Souder. Anything on the Internet.
        Mr. Benson. We have seen a couple of examples of
    pseudoephedrine being sold on the Internet here in this State.
        Mr. Souder. Let me make this comment to you. Most things
    people think they are buying from Canada are actually fronts
    coming up from Mexico. For seniors who think they're buying
    Canadian drugs, those are often fronts--and we're learning this
    increasingly--because Canada doesn't have, whatever drug it is,
    the amount that's coming into the United States right now.
        Often those are based, you can see when you go to the
    Mexican border, drug stores all along the lines that are
    shipping in as pharmacies. So just because it's coming in
    theoretically from Canada on the Internet doesn't even mean
    it's coming from Canada.
        But I'm wondering whether, in the HIDTAs, have you looked
    at this or heard stories on the street? Clearly there's going
    to be a reaction to move to crystal meth, and some of it will
    be try to find alternative sources for--
        Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Chairman, as far as the Internet, there
    is anecdotal information that we have. I talked to one of the
    officers-in-charge of the Pierce County Special Investigation
    Unit.
        Pierce County is the county in Washington where we have the
    most meth labs. There were over 500 reported in just that one
    county. It's always led Washington State, and at one time it
    was No. 3 in the West Coast behind San Bernardino and Riverside
    Counties.
        The officer-in-charge told me that when they raided this
    one lab in the county, after they had entered the lab, secured
    the suspects, that there was a delivery of pseudoephedrine
    through UPS that had arrived at the residence. And the
    pseudoephedrine, they found out, was ordered over the Internet.
    It came out of India.
        And it was contained in--there were 10 jars in the box.
    Each jar had about I believe it was 500 tablets of 30 or 60
    milligrams of pseudoephedrine. And he had been ordering
    numerous amounts of this pseudoephedrine over the Internet, not
    only from India but also from New Zealand.
        And so that, I can report that's one of the issues that we
    have, as well.
        Mr. Souder. I mean, this is really troubling, because it
    means it will be harder than if we monitored it wholesale going
    into local--because one of your big sting operations you have
    written in here, too, and you all refer to is working with the
    wholesalers and taking down some of the wholesalers because you
    can see where it went to a retail pharmacy or grocery store
    because they all have to buy from the wholesale.
        So we have methods of tracking that. What we don't have is
    methods of tracking it over the Internet coming from India.
        Mr. Walden. Mr. Chairman, I actually have legislation that
    will help deal with that. Congressman Jim Davis, a Democrat out
    of Florida and I put in last session and have it in this
    session that deals with this whole issue of Internet drug sales
    by requiring a standard which the National Boards of Pharmacy
    have agreed to and you would label the site.
        Now, you say you could counterfeit the site, but we link
    back to the control mechanism being the credit card companies,
    that they can't process a transaction on the Internet that
    isn't from a certified site. Then you would know that the drugs
    you were purchasing on the Internet were as safe and secure as
    the drugs you purchase down the street at your local pharmacy.
        As you can imagine, the credit card companies don't like
    any piece of this because they don't want to be in that part of
    the business. But if you can't track the money, I don't know
    any way to track the Internet sales. And you're absolutely
    right, this thing is going to get ahead of us in that respect.
        Mr. Karl, I want to followup on some of your testimony
    involving Oregon and the issuance of 70,000 Oregon driver's
    licenses that were issued fraudulently.
        Mr. Karl. That's conservative. It's up toward the top end,
    toward 80,000 is what I understand. I do not have access to the
    exact details, but I know it's currently in prosecution by the
    Oregon Department of Justice in Washington County, and that's
    phenomenal.
        Mr. Walden. And was it, just on the legal side, wasn't
    Oregon one of the States that had no requirement to prove
    citizenship to get a driver's license.
        Mr. Karl. At the time, I believe that is correct. The
    process that was followed was a citizen of the United States, a
    Hispanic citizen of the United States, was running a business
    to provide false identification to the Department of Motor
    Vehicles in order for people to prove that they were a resident
    and could get a valid Oregon driver's license.
        That process has been tightened up, obviously, as a result
    of this case, but it's a--I bring it up as an example of how a
    lot of the identification processes need to be tightened
    nationwide.
        Mr. Walden. Well, as you know, we passed the Real ID Act to
    do precisely that, or at least to try to drive it federally,
    which you kind of hate to do as a States' rights guy. But at
    some point we have a disintegration problem, this national ID
    problem.
        And we know from the 9/11 Commission report some of the
    highjackers had gotten driver's licenses from I believe
    Virginia and some other State that they were getting ID cards
    that they were using to board the plane that they used to drive
    into the Pentagon, as well as the Twin Towers. So hopefully we
    can tighten up, as we have on the Federal level, the ID
    process.
        I'd like to know more, now that Umatilla County has been
    declared a HIDTA, what you're seeing and what's flowing this
    way and what can be expected on the ground here and how it will
    affect the whole region out here.
        Mr. Karl. Well, clearly, Mexican drug trafficking
    organizations are operating, have been operating for several
    years in Umatilla County, in Eastern Oregon, and most rural
    parts of Eastern Oregon. As recently as last month, over 20,000
    plants in six separate groves were taken off that was run by a
    drug trafficking organization.
        The response--and some of these are in Umatilla County and
    neighboring counties. The response, thanks to HIDTA funding
    basically, is not to just cut the plants and arrest whoever
    might be there at the time, but to conduct a thorough
    investigation before those plants are cut, when it's first
    discovered, and subsequently.
        And so currently we have an OCDETF case going that impacts
    the whole region where law enforcement agencies that are
    participating, like the Blue Mountain Narcotics Enforcement
    Team and other narcotics investigators in Eastern Oregon, are
    participating with the DEA and the other agencies involved in
    the OCDETF to do an investigation that will result in
    dismantling of these drug trafficking organizations.
        So the HIDTA funding brings resources to target the
    organizations to disrupt the supply that provides resources to
    do that.
        Mr. Walden. OK. Mr. Benson, I want to followup on the
    question I posed in my opening remarks about the continued
    requests I get from this area for more, greater DEA presence on
    the ground here.
        What's the likelihood of that potentiality?
        Mr. Benson. Right now, how we respond to the region is
    through--there are a couple different ways. One is through our
    Portland office, which is obviously a distance away. And then
    we have our office in Tri-Cities. We have two agents that have
    been deployed there since around 1995, 1996, or so. That's how
    we've responded.
        Clearly, there's a continuing threat here and there needs
    to be more response. One thing that we've done nationwide is
    we've begun deploying our mobile enforcement teams to focus on
    methamphetamine. We just did that in Idaho. That is deploy
    based on the request from a sheriff or police chief in a
    particular area. I would encourage that for here.
        It's a team of nine agents that, based on a request from a
    sheriff, an assessment will come in, we'll conduct that, and
    then they get deployed anywhere from 90, 120 days, 6 months,
    working side by side with our State, local counter- parts to
    deal with the specific drug threat in that region.
        Mr. Walden. Do you think that 60 or 90-day assignments is
    going to do the job here.
        Mr. Benson. We would go in looking with the mind-set of
    looking at the targets that the local law enforcement
    authorities have identified that are the most significant, and
    we would attempt to do as much as we could in that timeframe.
    Now, when that meth team would leave, again that would pick up
    more responsibility on the part of our Tri-Cities office and
    our agency report.
        Mr. Walden. And you've got, what, two agents in Tri-Cities.
        Mr. Benson. That's correct.
        Mr. Walden. And then how many do you have this side of the
    Cascades, Eastern Oregon.
        Mr. Benson. We have offices in Oregon: Portland, Salem,
    Eugene, Medford. And then in Washington on the east side, we
    have an office in Yakima, Tri-Cities, and Spokane.
        Mr. Walden. All right. So nothing east of Bend, then.
        Mr. Benson. No, we don't.
        Mr. Walden. Does the office you have in Idaho cross back
    over on the Ontario side.
        Mr. Benson. We have one office in Idaho, and that's in
    Boise.
        Mr. Walden. OK. Well, I just know it's a continuing issue
    here. Consider it popularity, I guess. Everybody wants you.
    Well, except the bad guys. But clearly that's an ongoing issue.
    I know when, as I said, Asa Hutchinson was head of the DEA, I
    talked directly with him about it, and we got some help for a
    while.
        And I continue to hear that. And I hope as you're
    evaluating your resources, you'll take a look at Northeast
    Oregon as a place where there's certainly demand for additional
    assistance. And I know you're constricted on budgets, too.
        Mr. Benson. Yeah. I will give you my word we'll do our best
    to help our partners in law enforcement out here.
        Mr. Walden. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Souder. Let me do some additional questions here. Mr.
    Benson, if you can't answer these today, if you'll respond in
    writing--how much assistance in dollars is DEA providing to
    State and local law enforcement agencies in Oregon and
    Washington in finding and cleaning up meth labs, including
    smaller labs?
        In other words, one of the things we're trying to sort
    through is because our Federal agencies are basically
    structured to take down bigger trafficking organizations, it's
    clear--and I think it was just yesterday in a memo from
    Director Tandy's office that we had requested at an earlier
    hearing of what some of the national DEA efforts are, and what
    I think that they're learning at the Federal level is because
    of market demand in the different regions, DEA has actually
    been doing more on the ground with meth than they realized even
    at the Washington level.
        But do you know off the top of your head what you've spent
    on meth labs in this zone?
        Mr. Benson. I have a figure here, Mr. Chairman, in Oregon
    in 2004, $516,000.
        Mr. Souder. And do you have a trend line on that.
        Mr. Benson. No, but I can get that for you. And then in
    Washington, $44,230.
        Mr. Souder. At the end of your written statement, you had a
    cumulative figure. If you could break that down for us by year
    in the followup.
        Mr. Benson. Sure.
        Mr. Souder. Also, if you could give us a dollar value of
    the meth-related training provided to State and local law
    enforcement in Oregon and Washington, so we could have that for
    the record.
        And to any of you who know the answer to this question, in
    addition to the HIDTAs for Oregon and Washington, do you know
    how many drug task forces are funded by Byrne grants here? Do
    you have any idea? Is DEA a participant in drug task forces as
    well as in the HIDTAs?
        Mr. Benson. Pretty much every office we have in my
    division, Mr. Chairman, is a task force component. So we have
    that merger of DEA agents and State local officers. I couldn't
    give you the number on Byrne grant task forces.
        Mr. Souder. And, generally speaking, around the country do
    you know of any case where it isn't a Meth Hot Spots proposal
    or, in other words, a drug task force usually has to have some
    kind of funding base with which it gets funded.
        Could you--we'll ask--individual sheriffs may know here,
    too, but could you do a quick check of those different offices
    and ask them, in the drug task forces they're participating in,
    how many of those came through a COPS, Meth Hot Spots grant and
    how many of those came from a Byrne grant? And if they didn't
    come from either the Byrne grant or Meth Hot Spots, where did
    they get the money?
        Because I don't think DEA generally funds the task force
    directly. I think you provide the agents to a task force that
    is usually funded.
        Mr. Benson. Or our task force operations would be funded
    from within our agency budget.
        Mr. Souder. So some of your agents may be participating in
    those kind of task forces.
        Mr. Benson. Yes.
        Mr. Souder. If you could break that out so we can get a
    picture because Byrne grant money is used in multiple different
    ways. The COPS grants are used in certain ways. But certain
    members have designated their COPS money to be used for meth
    hot spots. And in other cases they use COPS money for meth and
    it isn't designated a hot spot, but that's how they fund the
    task force. And we're trying to figure out, when we do certain
    funding shifts, how that works.
        How many meth cases in Oregon and Washington State are
    funded by OCDETF? Do you know how many currently are being
    funded?
        Mr. Benson. We have several OCDETF cases ongoing at any
    given time. I could get you the exact number. It's probably--
    our priority target investigations are usually OCDETF and we're
    usually around 50 or so at any given time that are open and
    active.
        Mr. Souder. Would you off the top of your head, and you
    could also then give us the backup info, do you have any idea
    of how many of those are meth cases? 10 percent? 30 percent? 50
    percent?
        Mr. Benson. I would say probably in my division, overall
    case-wise, probably 30 or 40 percent are methamphetamine cases.
        Mr. Souder. The first time I heard that statistic was at a
    closed briefing in Washington just a few weeks ago. And that
    fits what we heard from national DEA. But what I'm trying to
    get a handle on here is that if 30 to 40 percent of the meth
    use--the OCDETF cases are meth, then where are we getting this
    8 percent figure in usage.
        In other words, there's some kind of disconnect here that
    I'm trying to sort through. Because we're constantly being told
    by ONDCP and others that meth is 8 percent. And nowhere,
    including the previous hearings and now you today in a formal
    hearing, you're saying that this zone has been hit a little
    harder, but if 30 to 40 percent of your cases, you know, you've
    got this 25 to 50 range, that's a significant percentage of the
    organized crime cases.
        This isn't mom and pop where they're cooking for three
    people, because you wouldn't deal with somebody who's cooking
    for three people in an OCDETF case. These would be a higher
    level case.
        Mr. Benson. Right.
        Mr. Souder. One other thing we've been having trouble
    getting data on is where we come up with the 70 percent or 30
    percent figure or two-thirds, one-third. Is that partly where
    this is coming from, that your OCDETF cases are suggesting that
    they're so large?
        Let me ask you another question before you answer that one.
    How many of the cases are kind of major distribution ephedrine
    and pseudophedrine, how many of those, roughly, you can break
    it out in more detail, I'm just trying to get at is it half, is
    it a quarter, is it 10 percent, how many of them are going to
    superlabs and how many of these are this medium type lab that
    you did in Salem, you know, where you have--it's not a mom and
    pop cooking for three people? There it was cooking for a large
    number of people, maybe eight houses strung together, something
    like that.
        Mr. Walden. And before you do all that, can you, for the
    audience, define OCDETF? We're using the acronym.
        Mr. Benson. Sure. That's the Organized Crime Drug
    Enforcement Task Force Program that's managed by the Department
    of Justice.
        Mr. Souder. Thank you.
        Mr. Benson. Mr. Chairman, that laboratory south of Salem
    had 80-pound production capability. So it was--I believe it's
    the largest lab we've ever seized in this State.
        Percentage-wise, most of our OCDETF cases targeting
    methamphetamine trafficking organizations are, again, targeting
    the major distributors. They're moving multiple pounds of
    crystallized methamphetamine. And we trace it, as Mr. Rodriguez
    mentioned that one case that was tied to Spokane to Tri-Cities
    to Los Angeles to Phoenix all the way down into Mexico.
        And our goal on every case is to take out that biggest
    piece of the organization as possible. But most of our cases,
    to answer your question, are focusing on those larger
    methamphetamine traffickers. We do have some that are looking
    at those responsible for chemical supply, but the number is
    lower. But I could get the exact.
        Mr. Karl. I think a key component here is also that these
    are polyrung organizations and so likely many of them--and my
    knowledge of Oregon's OCDETF cases involve polydrugs. So
    organizations taking the B.C. bud from Canada to San Diego and
    picking up the cocaine and bringing it back and distributing it
    every place along the way, as well as bringing in marijuana
    with methamphetamine with pseudoephedrine together so that it--
    they're diversified clearly. And so those organizations are the
    bigger organizations that are doing that in large quantities.
        Mr. Souder. Two more questions, and then we may ask some
    followup, see if Congressman Walden has any more. One of the
    tricks in this lab reporting is how much of this--it's been a
    constant question in law enforcement and drug enforcement in
    general. And that is that if you're successful in arresting
    people, it looks like drug abuse went up.
        And then people say we've been spending all this money and
    the problem went up, but it may just be that law enforcement
    got aggressive. And then on the other hand, if you cut back
    that law enforcement, then it looks like you're making progress
    when, in fact, it just means you're not arresting.
        One of the questions here is--and the interesting thing
    about the Washington State decline is that if there wasn't
    any--Oregon becomes more complicated because you threw a
    variable in, that there were fewer people to do the arresting,
    therefore the decline might not have been a decline.
        Is that true in Washington, or do you believe there have
    been changes in the numbers? Or do you believe that, in fact,
    to some degree, as we increase awareness, we get a bump up in
    labs, and then how can we, as policymakers, look at an area?
    It's almost like when the area becomes aware, the number of
    labs go up. And then we see the turn a couple years later. It's
    very hard for us to figure out when you're trying--unlike other
    drugs, you can chart this across the country.
        And you can see it around national forest areas in Arkansas
    and Missouri and other areas, and then it's in the rural areas,
    and then it goes into some suburban and eventually it hits
    Omaha, Minneapolis, Portland.
        The chart you have there for Washington State, it's like
    this is happening in every State in the county. Now, it's in
    Titusville, PA; Western North Carolina; hopping into some of
    upstate New York. Just marching east. Same pattern. It doesn't
    just go into the city. It goes out.
        And mom and pop superlabs move in, and it's like how many
    years of watching this do we have to see the pattern here? But
    part of this is trying to figure out early warning signs in
    areas that haven't been hit yet, is how do we account for the
    numbers, and the awareness leads to more arrests, more people
    understanding the smell next to them, watching the impact of
    peopling coming into the pharmacies, teachers reporting kids,
    exposure.
        Mr. Rodriguez. I think it is a paradox. Clearly, there is
    going to be a short-term bump up as you increase community
    awareness through different means, whether it's prevention,
    whether it's education, or whether it's just law enforcement.
    So we've seen a bump up.
        However, going back to my example with Pierce County, which
    again leads Washington State in the number of labs, we probably
    have most of our resources in that county. We probably have the
    most aggressive type of campaign in that county, and yet we've
    been able to drive those numbers down a little bit, but not
    much.
        And talking to the task force managers is that they have a
    very aggressive street program with the community, with the
    various partners to make sure that this meth awareness issue is
    rampant throughout the community. And they say that's what's
    keeping their numbers up, because they keep getting more and
    more information from the community regarding meth labs and
    meth dump sites, etc.
        So would we have the same reaction in other counties if
    they were as aggressive? We don't know. We do feel, though, as
    far as the national numbers just like you mentioned, they are
    being underreported. Because if we look at the numbers from the
    Department of Ecology, those numbers are considerably higher
    than the EPIC numbers would be.
        That's because they count everything, whereas EPIC numbers
    you only count those where you have law enforcement present.
    But that's due to the reporting.
        Mr. Souder. My last question is, one of the unique
    challenges we have with this, just let me briefly say, for
    example, the EPA, who isn't here today, one of the things that
    they aren't used to dealing with is the size of the small lab
    type things. They're used to dealing with hazardous waste
    sites.
        But particularly if you look at where many mom and pop labs
    are, they're in rural areas, often around watersheds. And it's
    a little like when you go down to Columbia, you fly over, there
    were lots of different labs flowing into the Amazon Basin, and
    it accumulates on the Amazon, even if no single lab was there.
        But that's not the way we're used to looking at EPA
    questions. Similar in how DEA, historically, HIDTAs have been
    set up. They were looking at the major drug traffickers; take
    down the majors, and local law enforcement would get the
    smaller mom and pop. Now we have an epidemic that's in the
    rural areas where we historically have not structured our
    Federal response to deal with that.
        We also have local communities that don't have big drug
    task forces. Their treatment programs aren't as big. The
    prevention programs, they may have gotten $2,500 at the
    schools, not $15,000 at the school. May have gotten $6,000.
    They can afford part of the payment for one speaker to come in
    or a few pencils. It's a different challenge for us.
        What do you think we could do at the Federal level that
    takes into account the leg of this? I personally believe we're
    going to be able to tackle the crystal meth much like we tackle
    other types of national things. It means we'll be fairly
    ineffective, but we'll work at it hard and get some of the big
    guys.
        But we really don't have a Federal clearcut strategy of how
    to deal with these scattered multiple addicts who maybe go into
    the county jail for a brief period and then they come right
    back out and startup again.
        Do you have any suggestions of what we can do in the HIDTA
    program? Should there be a subpart of the HIDTA program that we
    designate to underfunded rural areas? How do we do this?
    Because clearly the cost is disproportionate to the population.
    The cost is disproportionate to the number of users.
        We're dealing with a low number of addicts, low number of
    users, but it's a huge impact on areas that don't have
    resources, much like some urban centers where they don't have
    as many cash resources.
        Mr. Rodriguez. My suggestion would be to, first of all,
    gather good documentation, good data on the rural areas. And
    then possibly devise a national program through the HIDTA
    program, possibly using a certain amount of funding to do that,
    to address that issue. But, again, I think we have to know what
    we're looking at before we can decide what we want to do on it.
        Mr. Souder. Why do you think that isn't being done?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Well, I think it is being done in a sporadic
    manner. I don't think it's being done by all reporting entities
    in a systemic or uniform manner. And there might be something
    that----
        Mr. Souder. Have you ever heard of anybody, without
    endangering yourselves, have you ever had anybody from
    Washington ask you that question, from ONDCP or anybody? Does
    there appear to be any kind of national awareness of it?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Not from ONDCP.
        Mr. Souder. Anybody else?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Well, we get, just like you, we get the
    concerns from the rural community. And, again, they're saying
    they're being stretched, they have limited resources, and they
    are petitioning the State to be more proactive.
        And we're fortunate in that we have a State agency, the
    Washington State Patrol, that is able to re-allocate resources
    within the State to meet this. They have, matter of fact, we
    have them as a HIDTA initiative. It's called Washington State
    Proactive Meth Team. And that's all they do is work on meth-
    related issues, whether it's clan lab or whether it's
    trafficking issues.
        And they'll go as a fly away team to any part of the State
    that they need to be at. That's currently in place right now.
    And they do address in a certain manner rural areas with that
    problem.
        Mr. Souder. If members--and you have this kind of now in
    your HIDTAs. If rural areas came to you and said, we would like
    to get the information on what other rural communities are
    doing across the country to try to address this, like the
    Kentucky Cleanup Program, like the Montana Prevention Program,
    like this program here in Oregon, like the Partnership for a
    Drug-Free America, is there a clearinghouse?
        Has anybody suggested there's a clearinghouse? Where would
    you send people to get any national info?
        Mr. Karl. I don't have an answer to that. I know that this
    is a serious issue. Because as I stated a moment ago, clearly
    the cartels are taking advantage of rural America and are
    taking advantage of rural Eastern Oregon. And we know that. I
    know that sitting in Salem. We know that in downtown Portland,
    where a lot of resources are to investigate those.
        Now, with the National Marijuana Initiative, Oregon
    received $250,000 to assist in investigating these
    organizations operating in rural Oregon. And so we have begun a
    process of providing resources to those who are stakeholders in
    that investigation.
        And we have linked with, through the HIDTA model, Federal,
    State, and local together onto that task. That deals with the
    upper echelon, the organizational level.
        But to respond to your question about the small folks, I
    don't know how the locals--and that's the rub, is how do the
    locals do both? How do they help participate with the big
    investigations, still take care of the neighborhood issues,
    livability issues that they have with mom and pop labs, from
    the crimes related to drug addiction, and so forth? That's a
    difficult one.
        It's a resource issue, and resources are short. So the
    beauty of the HIDTA structure is that it leverages Federal,
    State, and local. For example, in some recent cases, we brought
    together most of the Federal agencies and local agencies to do
    some major cases in Eastern Oregon. Hundreds of officers.
        And that will take care of some things, but it won't take
    care of the day to day. Those are the once or twice a year big
    cases that come along. So at the lower level, they need more
    resources. They clearly need more resources.
        Mr. Souder. The DEA has done, I presume, lots of drug lab
    training in this zone, as well as they have around the country.
    That's one program. But what I find in Indiana is the training
    of how to clean it up isn't the big problem. It's having the
    labs in which to clean it up and the resources to do that,
    which is why DEA has been raising a fuss about the Kentucky
    model and trying to find a better way to do this.
        I have not understood in the CTAC program--is the CTAC
    program run separate at a regional level from the HIDTAs? Do
    you have any input into that? Or is that just one of the
    separate divisions of the ONDCP?
        Mr. Karl. The technology program.
        Mr. Souder. Yeah, where local law enforcement can----
        Mr. Karl [continuing]. Access technology? Yeah. Eastern
    Oregon has taken advantage of that program.
        Mr. Souder. Do you determine what products are that they're
    eligible for, or is that done out of Washington?
        Mr. Karl. No. I can help them access the program. Some have
    accessed the program independently of the HIDTA program, and
    the HIDTA program has also referred agencies. Because I can't
    apply for the agency. The agency has to apply. And some have
    gotten very technical equipment.
        Mr. Souder. What I've seen in my district is that a lot of
    times this is basically everything from listening to goggles to
    all this type of thing to better work at organizational.
        But I haven't heard of anything, partly because they're a
    bigger costly item, but have you ever looked at or is anybody
    looking at possibly making the mobile cleanup labs and things
    part of the technology that a region could apply for if several
    counties went together so it wouldn't be so far away?
        Because I know in Indiana, often they're sitting there for
    6 hours. And these vehicles cost $250,000. But isn't that one
    way we could kind of look at how to help local law enforcement,
    and have you heard in CTAC, particularly, looking at things
    that could be helping local law enforcement in meth mom and pop
    lab cases, as opposed to the traditional way we've provided
    equipment?
        Mr. Karl. I had a call this last week on the very issue
    from another legislator, and it was, what do you think of the
    idea of pooling chemicals in a particular place and then have
    them picked up, you know, when the supply gets large?
        There are a lot of issues involved. And it implies that the
    police officers doing the investigation will actually collect
    those chemicals, haul them to this site, and that's not going
    to happen. I don't know many law enforcement chiefs and
    sheriffs that want their officers, who aren't trained, to do
    that pickup.
        So it falls then back to the fire department. OK. Is the
    fire department going to pick that up? They're trained in
    HAZMAT and how to deal with them and put them into a pool
    resource. That's the way we did it in the old days, and we
    found we were in danger of exploding the place because we were
    mixing chemicals.
        So we then went to a different hazmat response. So a mobile
    lab or mobile cleanup lab is still going to be faced with those
    issues.
        Mr. Souder. That's what they're supposed to be training
    them to do.
        Mr. Karl. No, but you're still going to have costs related
    to the cleanup. And I think you're trying to cut those costs by
    designing some mechanism to cut those costs. And so I'm not
    sure--I'm more than willing to explore any ways, and I'm sure
    the sheriffs and chiefs, they don't want their people tied up
    on cleanups. They want them doing the investigations.
        But I'm not sure that there's an easy way to cut those
    costs because of the hazards involved in dealing with the
    chemicals. And there very well may be. And I think you need to
    explore those solutions. And there's been a tremendous amount
    of training in Oregon by DEA and through the HIDTA program as
    well, separately from DEA, on certification of officers for
    entry and cleanup.
        But still, bottom line, we have to call a contractor who's
    going to take possession of those after we've done the initial
    evidence gathering and cleanup, and that contractor costs
    money. And we used to take it down to the police property room
    in the old days, and we had all these chemicals laying around,
    and pretty soon somebody said, hey--the fire department comes
    in and says, you're condemned.
        And so there's got to be some way to cut our costs because,
    I agree, they are very high, too high. I'm not sure how to get
    there. There are many issues--and that's my point--there are
    many issues involved in that solution.
        Mr. Walden. I just have a couple of brief questions. I want
    to followup on this issue of the contractor. Right now, where
    does the contractor come from to do clean up, let's say, in
    this county or Union County?
        Mr. Benson. Congressman Walden, in my region there are
    several contract companies that we have contracts with. There
    is a company based out here in this region that has responded
    and asked--we have actually six in Oregon, six companies.
        Mr. Walden. And so there is one out--when you say ``out
    here,'' is that here in Pendleton.
        Mr. Benson. I believe it's here in Pendleton.
        Mr. Walden. OK. So no longer does the--I'm getting the
    shaking of the head from the sheriff, but--can you name that
    contractor? Maybe that would--name that contractor?
        Mr. Benson. I can get the name of the company.
        Mr. Walden. Well, Sheriff, you're going to be up next. This
    has been--and I'm sure you're acutely aware of it, an issue
    that gets raised with me is the lag time between--my
    understanding is there is a Statewide contract, and people had
    to come from the Portland area out to cleanup.
        Mr. Benson. It's on rotational basis. So they end up
    rotating the companies. So there might be one in Pendleton, and
    that company, that would be their turn, so they would respond.
        Mr. Walden. So like every 6th lab or 10th lab.
        Mr. Benson. That's something we're trying to work out with
    our contracting folks. The best way would be for the lab seized
    in Pendleton, that the company----
        Mr. Walden. Maybe we could do that fighting fires, and
    every sixth fire in Portland, we could send in the fire engine
    from Pendleton. Do you think that would be very effective?
        I don't mean to make fun of it, but, you know, when you
    represent a district like this, you've got to jump up and down
    a little harder because of the distances. And that's why I'm
    jumping up and down on the lack of a DEA agent, other than the
    Tri-Cities, but my understanding is they don't get across the
    river very often.
        And everything is up and down the I-5 corridor. And I
    understand that's where 80 percent of the population is, but in
    this case, I think a lot of the meth problems are out here and
    a lot of the delay means costs for agencies that are
    understaffed and underbudgeted.
        Mr. Benson. I agree there's a significant methamphetamine
    problem here. And we will continue to, through Tri-Cities,
    Portland, and then I, again, strongly offer that, the
    assistance of our mobile enforcement to go into the region, to
    help address the problem.
        Mr. Walden. All right. Appreciate that. Just one final
    question for each of you. What's the one thing that Congressman
    Souder and I could do to change Federal law, Federal action,
    Federal something, that would be the most helpful in this
    fight? What can we do? What would be the most effective thing
    we could do?
        You can always say more money, and we'll just give that as
    a given. But what is the most effective way--what most needs to
    be done by the Federal Government to help you do what you all
    do so well?
        Mr. Benson. Congressman Walden, I think this hearing is
    raising the issue of what's happening, the threat that
    methamphetamine poses to this country, is a very positive----
        Mr. Walden. So public awareness. But statutorily there's
    nothing you want to lay on the table.
        Mr. Benson. The criminal penalties in the Federal system
    are, I believe, fairly significant.
        Mr. Walden. OK. Mr. Karl.
        Mr. Karl. Well, my sense is that you're aware of the
    extreme epidemic that Hawaii has gone through in prior years.
    That's hit the West Coast in the last 2 to 3 years, and it's
    just starting.
        And as you travel around and take testimony and get a sense
    of the methamphetamine problem on the East Coast, it's not
    there yet. A thousand kids in Lane County in foster homes is a
    good indicator. Track those kids, and you will track the spread
    of meth.
        Its addictive power is extreme and its physical damage to
    people is extreme, which creates those wards of the community
    that I referred to. And that will destroy our infrastructure as
    it moves along. And I'm not sure, Chairman Souder, that we can
    show the destructive nature satisfactorily by showing the
    pictures to kids of what happens.
        Because if they try it, it is extremely pleasurable to
    start with, and that addiction is what scares me the most. It
    is so much more powerful than even crack. And I saw crack hit
    Portland in the 1980's, and we thought that was so addictive.
    This makes that look like kids' play.
        This is really a damaging thing. And I talked to a
    treatment provider this last week who said that one of the
    dilemmas that they have is that under the State law regarding
    removing children from homes, or Federal law, I believe,
    Federal act, Child Protective Act, that if you remove some
    child from a home and it's more than 15 months to 22 months,
    I'm not exactly certain because I didn't have a chance to read
    it, then they become a ward of the State.
        And what they--automatically, I guess, if you fail to get
    them returned because the parent, the mother or something is in
    treatment, they're not able to make those time lines. They are
    not able to get some of these meth moms, these families, to a
    point where they can take their kids back.
        So I was talking to somebody earlier, are we looking at the
    old orphanage system? I mean 1,000 kids in one county. Are we
    talking now about creating an orphanage for just meth-affected
    children? I don't want to see that happening. But I'm telling
    you, look at what happened in Hawaii, look at what's happening
    along the West Coast.
        And it's heading east. And it's not going to stop because
    these people are giving it away in Chicago to create an
    addiction base.
        Mr. Walden. Mr. Rodriguez, is there anything we can do to
    help.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Yeah, I have two things. No. 1, we need to
    have a stronger engagement with both Mexico and Canada on
    precursor control. And No. 2, I think we need to do much better
    in our education system at the grammar school level on our
    prevention message on drugs. I know teachers say they're
    overburdened with curriculum as it is, but I think this is so
    important that we need to keep stressing it at that level.
        Those are the two things that would make a big difference.
        Mr. Walden. Thank you. Mr. Karl, just to followup on your
    comment about the children in Lane County, I participated in a
    court-appointed special advocate fundraiser in the Dalles a
    couple weeks ago on a Friday night. And they told me there they
    had 110 children who lacked a CASA volunteer to help them. And
    the administrator there told me that virtually every one of
    those was related to some sort of meth problem.
        And that wasn't the total number of kids that have CASA
    volunteers, but that was the number that didn't have one. And I
    think what you've said is really an eye opener, that it's bad
    and it's getting worse. And so I appreciate your testimony.
        Mr. Karl. Drug courts are very effective, enhanced
    treatment clearly, and any educational component. We've got to
    do all of it. But I'm telling you, this is a very dangerous
    drug.
        Mr. Walden. I want to thank all of you for participating in
    the hearing. We really appreciate not only your testimony, but
    for this Member of Congress, the work that you're doing in the
    field. It is tremendously important and very much appreciated.
        Mr. Souder. And I want to share that, too. The agents
    working in the HIDTAs, which the good news about all the
    pressure that happened during the HIDTA debate is now Members
    of Congress know what HIDTAs do and more people understand what
    HIDTAs do than ever before. Because it leveraged dollars, and
    people didn't understand it was leveraged dollars.
        Last week we had our annual U.S.-Canada parliamentary
    group, and I co-chair the border subgroup. And it's real
    interesting, because methamphetamine has hit western Canada.
    And there are legislators in particular, as well as B.C. buzz
    dominating the non-Vancouver-city-legislators' minds, they've
    had problems with corruption in their system in Vancouver
    because of marijuana now being their biggest export product.
        But now they're seeing methamphetamine kind of even compete
    with that hydroponic marijuana and even over in Toronto,
    eastern Canada. So the good thing about working with Canada is
    you don't have to worry about the law enforcement shooting at
    you like DEAs have a problem sometimes at the south border.
        And Vincente Fox has improved things on the south border,
    but let's just say the south border and north border are
    different law enforcement challenges with the IMET teams and
    different things that you have.
        And Canada understands, and we had pretty strong language
    on trying to tighten the reporting, trying to deal with this.
    They're obviously making a lot of money right now in Canadian
    pharmacies, and we're trying to make sure those pharmacies stay
    legitimate, don't become drug laundering vis-a-vis Mexico. They
    had not realized the penetration of Mexican pharmaceutical
    companies coming in and claiming to be Canadian. So we're
    working on that border.
        The south border, I was just shocked to hear you say we
    have to control it. I'm kidding. For the record, that was a
    joke.
        In addition to the methamphetamine legislation that we're
    working on over the next few weeks, we are trying to develop a
    border control strategy by the end of the year, which will not
    control the border, but which will make some steps. There are
    some scattered attempts.
        The public policy committee has been tasked by the speaker,
    and we've been having unity dinners to try to figure out a
    solution to a realistic immigration work force strategy with a
    border strategy. You cannot control the border when you're, in
    effect, bringing in a million workers.
        And we have to somehow separate the illegals, illegal
    criminals, from people who are violating immigration law, and
    work that thing out, or it will not work. And yet that's what
    we've learned is our unity dinners have broken up, in not much
    unity right now.
        But we will have some efforts which should help in some of
    these. And then if our bill can get better reporting on the
    international--part of the question is how much of this is
    going to be DEA, FDA? Who's going to enforce what parts of this
    law? How do we do international tracking with the State
    Department?
        But, clearly, the southwest border remains a thorny
    problem. Even if we could start to address the local labs, then
    we move into a whole other arena where we've already
    established we basically have no control. So we're working at
    it. And it will be a tough process.
        And I hope we can effect demand reduction as well as supply
    reduction. Because if we can't effect demand reduction, it's
    just very hard. What I hope is that by putting the pressure on
    the supply side, you're working with fewer numbers of people on
    the demand side. If we give up on the demand side, we'll never
    stop this in treatment. So we have to somehow keep all prongs
    of this going.
        Thank you again for your testimony. We're going to take, at
    maximum, a 3-minute break, but if the next panel could come
    forward so we're all ready to go.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Souder. The subcommittee will come back to order. I'd
    now like to yield to Congressman Walden.
        Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to
    introduce a couple of other folks who have joined us or who've
    been in the audience and I missed them early on. First of all,
    representing U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, Kathleen Gaffey is here.
    Kathleen, do you want to stand up in the back, please? Thank
    you for joining us today.
        We also have State Senator Jason Atkinson, who is also a
    Republican candidate for Governor. And Alice Nelson, wife of
    Senator Dave Nelson, is here as well. So we appreciate all of
    you being here. Thank you for your participation.
        Do you want me to introduce the panel?
        Mr. Souder. Yeah. If you want to name the panel and who
    each person is, and I'll have you each stand and we'll swear
    you in.
        Mr. Walden. First of all, Karen Ashbeck, who is the mother
    and grandmother of recovering methamphetamine addicts and a
    lady I spoke to last time I was here in Umatilla County and
    offered to tell her story, and we're glad you came to do that.
        Sheriff John Trumbo, Umatilla County Sheriff's Office.
    Probably nobody has been more effective in influencing me on
    this issue than Sheriff Trumbo. Sheriffs have a way of having--
    well, anyway.
        Also, Sheriff Tim Evinger, Klamath County Sheriff's Office.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I meant to tell you this before, but he's
    fighting a time line. He flew himself up here, and he's
    fighting weather and lightening to get back. So if there's any
    way he can go first and be excused----
        Mr. Souder. We could do that.
        Mr. Walden. He's got across the State to go.
        Mr. Souder. Is that where all the water stuff is.
        Mr. Walden. That's where we--yeah.
        Mr. Souder. I sat next to Congressman Walden on the
    Resources Committee, and I used to hear about the water all the
    time.
        Mr. Walden. Yeah, or lack of water.
        Mr. Souder. We don't have that problem in Indiana, so it's
    new to me.
        Mr. Walden. Rick Jones, Choices Counseling Center. Good to
    see you.
        Kaleen Deatherage, director of public policy, Oregon
    Partnership, and member of the Governor's Meth Task Force.
        Tammy Baney, Chair of Deschutes County Commission on
    Children and Families.
        And Shawn Miller, who represents the Oregon Grocery
    Association.
        Mr. Chairman, that's your second panel.
        Mr. Souder. He did that so I didn't have to say Umatilla
    (mispronounced) instead of Umatilla. Please stand and raise
    your right hands.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Souder. Let the record show that all the witnesses
    responded in the affirmative. And we're going to start with
    Sheriff Evinger.

       STATEMENTS OF TIM EVINGER, SHERIFF, KLAMATH COUNTY; KAREN
    ASHBECK, MOTHER AND GRANDMOTHER; JOHN TRUMBO, SHERIFF, UMATILLA
        COUNTY; RICK JONES, CHOICES COUNSELING CENTER; KATHLEEN
      DEATHERAGE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY, OREGON PARTNERSHIP,
       GOVERNOR'S METH TASK FORCE; TAMMY BANEY, CHAIR, DESCHUTES
     COUNTY COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES; AND SHAWN MILLER,
                       OREGON GROCERY ASSOCIATION

                        STATEMENT OF TIM EVINGER

        Mr. Evinger. Thank you, Chairman Souder. Thank you,
    Congressman. My name is Tim Evinger. I am the sheriff of
    Klamath County, OR. I've been in law enforcement for the past
    17 years. I've personally witnessed the increased use of
    methamphetamine in Klamath County during that time, and I've
    been fortunate enough to be involved in model programs that
    have worked well.
        Oregon has certainly led the way in the battle against
    methamphetamine. With the help of the Federal Government, I
    believe that we can actually win this battle, although we'd
    have to stay on the main target.
        Leaders in Oregon have the misfortune of being on the
    forefront of the Nation's methamphetamine epidemic. We now have
    many years of failures and successes in an attempt to address
    this problem. Methamphetamine is rapidly eroding our society's
    values and is threatening future generations as the cycle of
    addiction continues. The methamphetamine epidemic has spread
    across our Nation and must be addressed as a nationwide
    problem.
        Unlike other drugs that are produced by growing marijuana,
    poppy, or coca, methamphetamine is a completely synthetic drug.
    And as a result, we have the power to curtail the supply of
    ephedrine, the primary ingredient used to manufacture
    methamphetamine.
        Significant results could be gained by the Federal
    Government enacting legislation, which we've already talked
    about earlier today, to deal with the ephedrine production.
    Many suggest our government should address the commercial
    manufacture and sale of ephedrine, at least as aggressively as
    it has with the cultivation of poppy in the Mid-East and the
    growing of coca in South America.
        Our government should impose sanctions to countries who
    refuse to submit to a standardized reporting and production
    procedure.
        The Federal Government should more strictly control the
    sale of products using ephedrine as an ingredient. Oregon's
    model has worked quite well, as we have seen a marked decline
    in methamphetamine labs since over-the-counter cold medicines
    containing ephedrine have been restricted. There are now
    substitutes available also for cold medicines that do not
    contain ephedrine.
        Perhaps medicines containing ephedrine should be listed in
    the Controlled Substance Act. Drug manufacturers might be given
    incentives to produce cold medicines with other ingredients.
        Again, while I come from a law enforcement background, it
    has become obvious that, while law enforcement is a critical
    component, we cannot adequately address the methamphetamine
    epidemic, as it is a social problem as well. Western States
    have now had several years to analyze the consequence of this
    drug. We have learned valuable lessons.
        Oregon has the single highest methamphetamine addiction
    documented in the Nation. More than half of Oregon's foster
    children placement involves methamphetamine abuse in the home.
    Oregon has seen a 17 percent--and we can't forget these victims
    of collateral damage--17 percent increase in reports of child
    abuse and neglect in 2001 to 2003.
        Clearly, a loving family is the best place for our kids,
    but when it's clear that the kids are being put in a dangerous
    situation because of their parents' meth habit, they need
    protection. Research shows that almost 4 out of 10 of the
    children who are re-abused or neglected, rather than being put
    in safe foster homes, will become violent criminals.
        It's important we have an appropriate place to put these
    kids. And when no safe foster home is available, how does the
    risk of further abuse and neglect, how high does that risk have
    to be before I or DHS has to remove a child from a home?
    Innocent lives hang in the balance.
        Methamphetamine use has spread disproportionately to
    suburban and rural areas, and its use is on the rise across the
    Nation. This phenomenon has placed a particular burden on rural
    law enforcement agencies that cannot afford to address the
    issue. In Klamath County alone, drug enforcement officers also
    face another danger. They seized 140 firearms in the last
    calendar year.
        Oregon's medical examiner reported 78 methamphetamine-
    related deaths in 2003, a 20 percent increase from the year
    prior and a 56 percent increase from 2001. This is truly an
    epidemic.
        Methamphetamine is an inexpensive drug that is readily
    accessible and its effects last as much as 10 times longer than
    other drugs. In Klamath County last year, meth-related arrests
    outnumbered other drug arrests five to one. According to the
    most recent national data, 607,000 people are current users of
    methamphetamine, having used the drug within the last 30 days.
        Over the past year, 1.3 million people have admitted to
    methamphetamine use. Nearly one-half of those supervised in
    Klamath County by a probation officer are on supervision for
    meth-related crimes.
        Organizations must tear down the walls and work together in
    order to succeed in this endeavor. The problem has spread so
    rapidly from the Western United States across the Nation that,
    in my opinion, it has become a national problem.
        To summarize what the Federal Government can do to help,
    the stable funding to the State for foster care is critical.
    The Federal Government certainly should not institute the
    proposed funding cap to States for foster care, in the
    President's budget.
        States regularly see double digit increases in foster care
    needs, mostly due to methamphetamine abuse, and they cannot
    fund these increases without help from the Federal Government.
    Without sufficient funding, our children and future generations
    will suffer the effects of this drug.
        Local law enforcement across the West have suffered funding
    reductions to the point that we can barely respond to some of
    the basic calls for service from our citizens that we are
    supposed to protect. Dedicated funding, without long-term
    obligation from the hiring authority or excessive bureaucratic
    red tape, for drug enforcement is a key component to the
    problem.
        This is an especially troubling component because
    methamphetamine addiction has spread through areas that can
    least afford to address the problem.
        In closing, I'd like to talk about the model that we have
    taken on in Klamath County on a local task force level. We have
    taken a multi-disciplinary approach, and Klamath County
    District Attorney put together a local methamphetamine task
    force of which there were six components: Law enforcement,
    health, business, treatment, youth, and faith- based.
        Law enforcement--we need the help of the Federal Government
    to fight the battle. COPS grants, fund grants have been waning,
    and as we look at our local funding streams, we can barely keep
    our jails open.
        State government can make an impact. Narcotics detectives
    already report an increase in labs that are being dumped or
    abandoned. This is likely due to the cooks not being able to
    easily obtain cold medicine for processing, and they don't want
    to be caught with the lab equipment if they're not using it.
        Now the Federal Government needs to do its part on
    eliminating access to precursors entering the country, as well
    as tightening our borders against the entry of finished
    products.
        In health, from the first draft of the report I've seen
    from the Methamphetamine Task Force in Klamath County, health
    comes to the table suggesting that we take up an aggressive
    education campaign; educating communities, especially children
    and parents, of the dangers and the signs of meth use.
        In the business community--and Jeldwin, that helped produce
    the video that Congressman Walden talked about earlier--sat at
    a table on the Methamphetamine Task Force and became involved,
    not only in the video, but also talking about drug testing
    should be more prevalent in our business community. It should
    be more cost-effective.
        One suggestion that came from the business community is
    that businesses are offered a tax credit for drug testing
    versus writing it off as an expense. Drug testing both private
    and in the public sector needs a thorough legal analysis and
    then simple guidelines provided to employers.
        In the treatment community, we are fortunate in Klamath
    County that treatment, in my opinion, is a valuable partner to
    law enforcement. Again, through a consortium approach,
    recidivism is significantly reduced. Leveraging Federal dollars
    for treatment is imperative, and those funds must be
    coordinated to fund the right treatment and not to pit
    providers against one another.
        Back to our youth. The schools must continue to partner
    with law enforcement working on character education, having
    school resource officers, and making locker and property
    searches expected and commonplace in our schools. That is
    effective prevention. It is necessary for us to have early
    intervention and share information between disciplines to make
    good risk assessments regarding our youth.
        And faith-based. Our churches and religious organizations
    have to be leading their members to be included in these very
    social programs. Mentoring programs are one way for the faith-
    based community to be involved. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Evinger follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.078

        Mr. Souder. Before letting you go, I want to ask you a
    couple of quick questions.
        Mr. Evinger. I understand.
        Mr. Souder. Do you use Byrne money through your office.
        Mr. Evinger. We do not get any Byrne money through our
    office. The city police in our jurisdiction area in Klamath
    Falls gets about $30,000.
        Mr. Souder. Does that go into the community drug task
    force?
        Mr. Evinger. Very interesting. Prior to my administration,
    the city had their own drug team. The State police and the
    sheriff's office had their own drug team. We had two separate
    drug teams working in the same town. We have now combined
    those, and we use those Byrne moneys, is what they are, that
    $30,000, and have combined our efforts.
        And it's very difficult because we're not able to go after
    some of the bigger cases. We're just taking care of the
    neighborhood problem. We can only spend $200, $250, generally,
    on a buy or walk money.
        Mr. Souder. Do you get any COPS grant money?
        Mr. Evinger. We do. We're on our last year of COPS grants,
    and it was Homeland Security based.
        Mr. Souder. That was going to be my next question. The
    administration testified to this committee that they had moved
    some of the money that was Byrne and COPS money over to
    Homeland Security.
        If you had your choice, would you rather have it for
    Homeland Security, or would you rather have it for narcotics,
    or would you like to have the flexibility?
        Mr. Evinger. The flexibility is very good, based on what
    problems we're facing at the time. And I think, I truly think
    that they're interrelated.
        Mr. Walden. You might point out for the chairman the issue
    with Bly.
        Mr. Evinger. The Congressman refers to Bly, OR, which in
    1999 was identified as a place where terrorists were setting up
    a training camp, and several have been indicted and one already
    convicted, and waiting for extradition from London on one of
    them now to face charges on setting up that terrorist training
    camp in eastern Klamath County.
        Mr. Souder. Did you use any of your funds for that, or was
    that predominantly then Federal that came in?
        Mr. Evinger. We got the Homeland Security money in a 3-year
    stepdown that partially funded two deputies. And we have
    addressed critical infrastructure and extra patrols with that
    money at this time.
        Mr. Souder. And do you feel--I mean, this is what we have
    to deal with all the time is a tradeoff. And in the Homeland
    Security Committee there is a big question, in my district and
    elsewhere, as was alluded to in the first panel and as Elijah
    Cummings, our ranking member, says, we're always talking about
    the cost, quite frankly, we had 20,000 people die in the United
    States last year in narcotics, and we've had 60,000, to 80,000
    since September 11th.
        And yet we have diverted funds to address those
    infrastructure needs because of the potential risks of a
    catastrophe. Yet a terrorist camp like that, that's really a
    little bit different than the way you said you used your
    dollars.
        And infrastructure in my cities and they're trying to
    figure out how to address the power plants, how to do this,
    long-term there's no question, we have to work these through.
    But these are the day-to-day tradeoffs we're making right now.
    And if you had that money, would you have used it on meth, or
    would you have used it on infrastructure, if you had that
    flexibility?
        Mr. Evinger. I believe today I would apply it to the meth
    battle. I used to have two representatives on the inter-agency
    drug team, of which I had to pull one back to try to remain
    whole to meet the hiring requirements that were associated with
    the COPS grant to deal with the calls for service, so I'm
    supplanting.
        Mr. Souder. Thanks. Those are tough questions. I appreciate
    you being direct. Anything else you want to add?
        Mr. Walden. (Shook head negatively).
        Mr. Souder. Good luck on getting back.
        Mr. Evinger. Thank you.
        Mr. Souder. We now go to Ms. Ashbeck.

                       STATEMENT OF KAREN ASHBECK

        Ms. Ashbeck. Chairman Souder, Congressman Walden, and the
    rest of the panel, I'm Karen Ashbeck. And I'm here today to
    testify as to how----
        Mr. Walden. Can you hear her in the back? I'm not sure that
    wireless mic really functions unless you're right on it.
        Ms. Ashbeck. Can you hear me now?
        Mr. Walden. There you go.
        Ms. Ashbeck. My name is Karen Ashbeck, and I'm here today--
    I guess I addressed you earlier, so may I do that again.
        Chairman Souder, Congressman Walden, and the rest of the
    panel, I'm here today to testify as to how the blast of meth
    has left a hole in my family. I'm a great grandmother raising
    my great grandson. I gained custodial guardianship of him when
    he was 16 months old.
        His mother--excuse me--my granddaughter, was deep into the
    throes of meth, as well as my daughter. Neither were able to
    care for him and meet his needs. My granddaughter was arrested
    many times, booked and released.
        She refers to meth as the beast. It has a hold on her, and
    she knew the only way that she could get away from it was to be
    locked up. She also knew that with the matrix system, she would
    just be booked and released. Eventually she was jailed several
    months. Getting locked up was the only way she was able to
    escape the hold meth had on her.
        She was sent to Ontario, OR, for drug rehabilitation twice.
    The first time they kicked her out, as she was not ready to be
    serious about her recovery. When she returned, she joined the
    work release program.
        My grown daughter lost everything she owned; her car, her
    furniture, her history, her memorabilia, everything, because of
    her addiction to meth. I drove by her on the street 1 day, and
    she was pulling a little red wagon behind her with all her
    worldly belongings in that wagon. I can tell you, watching her
    broke my heart. All I could do is drive by.
        Tough love is hard. Separating emotional feelings from
    rational reasoning is necessary for emotional survival. Having
    a good support system is crucial. Faith, family, and friends
    sustained me through the hard times.
        My grandson was exposed to alcohol and drugs in vitro and
    some environmental exposure after he was born. We don't know
    yet what the ramifications of that exposure will be on his
    development. So far, aside from his asthma and allergies, my
    grandson is on track developmentally for a 5-year old.
        My daughter and granddaughter, both clean now, continue to
    fight the methamphetamine battle. There are many others who are
    fighting this same battle. Where do they go from here? How do
    they regain what they have lost? They know how to cook meth,
    but do they know how to cook spaghetti? Can they fill out a job
    application? Can they re-enter society without the social
    skills they need to survive? Do they know where to access
    community resources to assist them in their lives? Do we just
    write them off and say, ``You made your choice, now stay the
    hell out of my life?''
        Some in society, including some family and friends, would
    say yes. Meth had a domino effect on their family and their
    friends.
        I asked my granddaughter what she regrets most due to her
    addiction to meth. ``I regret that I abandoned my son and lost
    the maternal bond that a mother should have with her child.''
        What would have made the difference to get you to stop
    using? In her case, she answered, ``getting locked up sooner.''
        My story is not unique when it comes to how methamphetamine
    affects family. There are many stories similar to mine. Most, I
    imagine, are too embarrassed or have feelings of guilt to tell
    their story. I have some case history. I'll hit a couple of
    them. The names are changed.
        Brenda, a 22-year-old mother of two who is raising her two
    younger brothers. She gained custody of them because her mother
    is addicted to meth and cannot care for them. Brenda is
    challenged not only with the responsibility of the boys, but
    also with the responsibility of finding a job and attending
    school. Juggling is not her forte.
        Brenda's mother is 42 years old. She looks 80, due to the
    drug. Brenda's dream is to have a mother-daughter relationship
    some day. She has never known her mother to be clean. Brenda
    has never used drugs. What does Brenda's future look like?
        Julie is a 23-year-old mother of two boys. She was raped
    when she was 12 years old by a family friend and became a
    mother at 13 years old. She adopted her sister's two little
    girls, as her sister and mother were practicing addicts.
        Julie is now caring for her 46-year-old mother since her
    mother suffered a stroke due to excessive drug use. She is
    fighting for custody of the children in a divorce battle. Julie
    does not have a formal education but maintains a fairly good
    job. Her sister is now pregnant with another baby. What does
    Julie's future look like?
        Mary and Frank gained custody of their grandson when he was
    2 years old. He walked on all fours and ate out of a bowl on
    the floor. His mother was hooked on meth and neglected his
    needs because of her need for meth.
        He is 4 years old now, and through hours, days, and years
    of care, is a much healthier child. He occasionally reverts
    back to walking on all fours. What does their future look like?
        Becky is a Native American foster mom caring for a 4-month-
    old meth baby. She has four children of her own. She hopes to
    adopt this child into her family. There's a great need for more
    foster homes in the Native American community. What does the
    future hold for these babies?
        George is a retired Native American grandpa who has his two
    young grandchildren, as their mom is running. This has happened
    several times. Mom has a difficult time staying clean. What
    does the future look like for them?
        These are only a few of the stories of how meth has
    affected families in our area. I applaud the efforts of our
    local, State, and Federal Government for recognizing the
    importance of combating the menace of methamphetamine. I have
    accessed the help of our local city police sheriff and State
    police in waging my own war in fighting this menace.
        I thank them now for their support and continued concern
    for the families that are affected by meth. Thank you.
        Mr. Souder. Thank you.
        Next, Sheriff Trumbo.

                        STATEMENT OF JOHN TRUMBO

        Mr. Trumbo. With your permission, Chairman Souder, I'll
    just hit the high spots of this.
        Mr. Souder. Thank you. And we'll put all of your full
    statements into record.
        Mr. Trumbo. Chairman Souder, Congressman Walden, I'm John
    Trumbo, sheriff of Umatilla County, OR. I have 33 years of law
    enforcement experience, the last 9 years as sheriff. I am
    currently a member of the Governor's Methamphetamine Task Force
    and a board member of the Blue Mountain Enforcement Narcotics
    Team.
        As adults, we recognize things fall into two categories,
    needs and wants. Our wants can be tabled until extra time and
    money are available. Our human needs, the physical, mental, and
    moral necessities of survival cannot wait for available time
    and money. This is why we're here today.
        Our human needs need to be met now. The use and abuse of
    methamphetamine affects more than just the abuser. The indirect
    costs to our citizens are even greater than the direct costs.
    Abusers must burglarize and steal, including identities, to
    support their habits.
        When a citizen becomes a victim, law enforcement steps in
    to investigate the crime. The case may be solved, however many
    times the victims may not get their property returned. In the
    case of identity theft, the victim's good credit rating may
    suffer.
        When the suspect is arrested, they will be lodged in jail.
    Normally the defendant will receive a court appointed attorney.
    The District Attorney's Office will be required to prosecute
    the offender. A trial will be held to determine guilt or
    innocence, and if found guilty, the offender is incarcerated in
    a State-operated correctional facility for a prescribed period
    of time or placed on supervised probation.
        Many offenders have families that require State assistance
    to cover food, housing, and medical costs. A portion of these
    costs associated from the original complaint until such time as
    the offender is released from supervised custody must be
    covered by the original victim. With this scenario, the victim
    becomes an unwilling victim again.
        Insurance companies are also indirect victims of meth
    abuse. When a claimant suffers a loss, the insurance company
    steps in to cover the financial loss. At some point, those
    costs are seen as higher insurance rates. The original victim
    may become a victim for the third time.
        I believe local law enforcement in Oregon needs four things
    from the Federal Government: No. 1, restrictive and enforceable
    laws for meth production and use. This would include, but not
    be limited to, severely restricting the importation of
    pseudoephedrine and pseudoephedrine-based products from outside
    the United States.
        No. 2, financial support in order to carry out our public
    safety mission. HIDTA grants are very much appreciated and will
    certainly go a long ways toward fighting the war or drugs.
    Locally, we also depend heavily on Byrne grant funds. The Byrne
    grant fund program must be renewed as well as serious
    consideration be given to increasing individual awards.
        Additional resources need to be made available for
    treatment services so we can break the cycle of addiction. Law
    enforcement does not have the resources to continually deal
    with the same individuals on the same drug-related issues. In
    many instances, even those individuals who no longer are
    involved in the illegal drug culture suffer from mental
    illnesses brought on by their previous activities.
        No. 3, the Drug Enforcement Administration needs to be
    taking a more active role in the local war on drugs. Illegal
    drug activity has no geographical boundaries, and an occasional
    appearance from a DEA agent is not sufficient to successfully
    track the larger suppliers of methamphetamine. An active DEA
    presence will also allow us to develop cases that will be
    prosecuted in Federal court.
        The U.S. Attorney's Office in Oregon is aggressively
    attacking the meth problem by prosecuting violations of the
    Federal law. Their willingness to prosecute violations of
    Federal drug law, as well as related crimes, is only tempered
    by their inability to do so adequately because of inadequate
    financial support.
        No. 4, Eastern Oregon needs a minimum of a half- time U.S.
    Attorney and preferably a full-time prosecutor. For the most
    part, a violation of Federal law has consequences that are much
    more severe than Oregon provides. Locally, people in the drug
    culture are not naive to our inability to punish violations of
    Oregon law as prescribed by State statute.
        We need to send a clear and convincing message for those
    who continue to proceed with their illegal behaviors; there is
    an end to the road, a Federal prison if you violate a Federal
    law.
        This menace called meth is slowly destroying our quality of
    life. The cure is not cheap or painless. The solutions to the
    problem will no doubt be unpopular with some citizens who are
    not directly affected. We are in a crisis. Our lawmakers in
    Washington, DC, must provide leadership and financial
    assistance. They must pass laws to directly address the issue.
        Officials on all levels must understand that what is
    affecting us in the rural areas is the same plight that is
    affecting the urban areas of the United States.
        As we say in Eastern Oregon, it's time to cowboy up and do
    what's right and do what is necessary. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Trumbo follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.081

        Mr. Souder. Cowboy up. We haven't had that yet in any of
    our hearings.
        Mr. Walden. And then let 'r' buck.
        Mr. Souder. Mr. Jones.

                        STATEMENT OF RICK JONES

        Mr. Jones. Thank you, Chairman Souder, Congressman Walden.
    It's a privilege to be here today. When I was writing this up,
    I've never really written testimony for Congress before. So,
    you know, I have a one-page rule. So I thought I'd hit the
    highlights.
        I've been in the substance abuse treatment arena for over
    30 years, just close to 30 years in Southern Oregon. I grew up
    in Klamath Falls. Spent a decade, actually, using substances
    when Tim was a law enforcement officer. I guess he's only been
    there about 17 years.
        But my stepfather is actually a retired police officer over
    there. And we actually get together and tell war stories every
    once in a while.
        So I think it's real clear, I'd like to make it clear that
    I grew up in Southern Oregon, and I know something about the
    drug culture over the years. In 1975, 1976, I ended up in law
    enforcement's hands as a result of methamphetamine and heroin,
    and was given a prison sentence in lieu of--a suspended prison
    sentence.
        Instead, I got to go to treatment in Portland. And I went
    to a treatment program, residential program, where I spent 18
    months, live-in, at 19 years old. And I'm really pleased to say
    that I'm still clean and sober as a result of that today.
        And I'll be 50 years old here in January also. I'm not
    pleased to say that I have a defibrillator, I've had three
    heart attacks, and my health is not good. I have hepatitis C as
    a result of methamphetamine and heroin addiction. And so my
    discussion really covers a lot of ground.
        One of the reasons I like--the title of my presentation was
    ``A Nudge from the Judge.'' I like to refer to Drug Court as a
    nudge from the judge, because I think in my career, rarely does
    anybody ever walk through the doors and say, ``Gee, I went down
    to McDonald's and had some orange juice and an Egg McMuffin,
    and I just thought I'd get some help for my meth addiction
    today.''
        You know, they come to me because somebody said, ``Get over
    there,'' whether that could be the judge, the DA, the sheriff,
    their mother, somebody brings them through the door. We need
    that leverage with this addiction particularly.
        I also come here highly qualified in that I've raised a
    couple of kids as best I could who still decided to test the
    waters with methamphetamine. My oldest daughter has done two
    terms at Coffee Creek Prison for Women for identity theft.
    Actually, the first time she went was for racketeering because
    she was so involved in the identity theft and checks and those
    kind of things.
        My youngest daughter actually tested positive early in her
    addiction when she was pregnant, and the doctor told her to go
    into residential treatment. She did, and she's still clean. And
    I have a bouncing 3-year-old grandson as a result of that.
        I have a 10-year-old grandson who lives in my home and has
    off and on since he was 6 months old because of his mother's
    addiction. Fortunately, he's just keeping me young.
        I began my career in the treatment business in Klamath
    Falls in long-term residential treatment; long-term meaning 90
    days, and then graduated over the years through--into the
    medical model and into short-term outpatient treatment, and I
    actually started the detox sobering unit in Jackson County back
    in the 1990's.
        I've worked in a lot of different settings. And I think one
    of the things that we have run into when it comes to
    methamphetamine is real bad timing, because treatment has
    changed because of money. We're under the gun to provide
    shorter treatment, less treatment, you know, quicker treatment.
        You know, it's supposed to have a beginning and an end and
    all these things that go on in the treatment arena, and what's
    come out recently--and I thought, actually, Eric Martin was
    going to be here. I heard rumors he was going to be in
    Pendleton today. Eric Martin is director of the Addiction
    Council Certification Board of Oregon and has become one of the
    leading trainers of methamphetamine, as far as I'm concerned,
    in the country.
        And the information that we're getting about the brain
    effects of meth addicts, even short-term use, is incredible to
    us in the treatment arena, because, you know, we've been
    telling people to quit using for decades. And what we find out
    is that the drug really messes up the part of the brain that
    says I don't remember what you tell me from day to day.
        And so in the treatment arena we've really had to become
    more of a hand holding organization, to some degree, where we
    actually call people up and remind them that they have an
    appointment, and give them a calendar their first assessment,
    and maybe do their assessment in chunks instead of 2-hour
    blocks because these folks are not really able to sit there for
    2 hours and give us that information. But yet on the other
    hand, I'm consistently told, you know, you've got to get these
    people moving.
        APHSA was mentioned earlier, as far as the moms and the
    kids. And I knew that was going to be insane to begin with,
    when it came to methamphetamine. You know, we're trying to get
    these people on their feet in a year. Many of them, if their
    children go into foster care, lose their benefits for treatment
    anyway.
        So one of the problems in Oregon is the different little
    rules as far as the availability and what beds you can get into
    and what slots are available to you and whatnot.
        There's are a lot of barriers to particularly these women
    whose custody of their children, they're told to go get some
    treatment, go do some things in order to get them back, and
    we've got a year to help them put that together. And that's a
    bit tough.
        I want to spend a quick minute on Drug Court. I can write a
    little, but I can talk a lot. Drug Court is a situation where
    you involve everybody. I've really enjoyed it. It's been a
    highlight of my career. I go into staff meetings and I talk
    with the District Attorney, I talk with the defense attorney,
    and I talk with the judge, and we talk about this person.
        And then this person comes up and talks to the judge. And
    the judge has the data and the progress report. And the judge
    gives them the strokes or gives them the sanctions, whatever
    they have coming. And they do that consistently throughout--for
    our program, it's a year.
        And there's some transference that takes place. We've heard
    people talk already today about the lack of family. And I, you
    know, law enforcement probably kind of cringes when I say this,
    but there have been some of our folks that have done well
    because the judge did well with them. It was transference. It
    was like, ``Hey, dad, I'm here, I'm doing well.''
        They've never had anyone with any authority actually pat
    them on the back. And I have people that actually have 5 or 6
    years clean that our judge is retiring that have really come up
    to me and say, ``Gee, what are we going to do? He's retiring,
    dad's leaving.'' And it's like, you can get through it. You can
    grow up. It's part of growing up. It's part of getting through
    it.
        So I guess the last thing I would say about treatment and
    Drug Court being a good treatment for methamphetamine addicts
    is that we need the consequences. You know, in the DSM-IV for
    diagnosing substance abuse disorders, one of the leading ways
    that we do that is continued use despite negative consequences.
        And so, as a treatment provider, I need that, but I know
    the consequences are not going to keep the people from using.
    They're using despite those consequences. And my experience
    with the prison systems and the consequences that somebody
    already mentioned that our clients are basically kind of going,
    you know, don't worry about it.
        I mean, I can tell somebody, ``Hey, you're going to die.''
        And they look at me and say, ``Rick, you know, you told me
    that last year.''
        So I really need to be able to look at them and say,
    ``Look, you're not going to get a stroke from the judge this
    weekend,'' or ``You're going to spend the weekend in jail.''
        And instead of going in 13 months and getting out and
    floating around, these people basically get short sanctions,
    they come back to the treatment program and they talk to us
    about how that, and we can use that as a process of treatment,
    rather than, you know, this kind of cat and mouse game that we
    play with the criminal justice system and the substance abuse.
        So that's all I have. Thank you.
        Mr. Souder. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.082

        Mr. Souder. Ms. Deatherage.

                    STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN DEATHERAGE

        Ms. Deatherage. Chairman Souder, Congressman Walden, thank
    you for holding this important public hearing on the issue of
    methamphetamine. My name is Kaleen Deatherage, and I'm the
    director of public policy for Oregon Partnership, Oregon's only
    Statewide non-profit organization that provides substance abuse
    prevention and treatment referral.
        I know that you've heard and read a great deal about the
    tremendous toll methamphetamine is taking on Oregon's rural and
    urban communities. The manufacture and use of meth continues to
    harm families; our environment; and the most innocent among us,
    our children. And it's also placing a tremendous burden on our
    law enforcement and criminal justice systems.
        Helping children, family, and neighborhoods overcome the
    scourge of meth requires consistent public investment in a
    multi-pronged strategy; prevention that stops meth use before
    it starts, substance abuse treatment that helps people who
    struggle with addiction, and law enforcement that helps
    maintain community livability. It is in effect a three- legged
    stool that works only if each component exists.
        The goal of the alcohol and drug abuse prevention component
    is to make a positive impact on individual, family, and
    community behavior. We have an existing prevention knowledge
    base, founded on research and principles of effectiveness,
    which should guide the prevention strategies applied by
    agencies and communities across our Nation to address this
    issue.
        I would like to point out a few of the drug prevention
    strategies that have been shown to create positive behavior
    change. First, it's important to help young people to recognize
    internal pressures, such as wanting to belong to the group, and
    external pressures, like peer attitudes and advertising that
    influence them to use alcohol and drugs.
        Next, it's important to teach the youth that using alcohol
    and other drugs is not the norm amongst teenagers, thereby
    correcting the misconception that everyone is doing it. And,
    last, actively involving the family and the community so that
    prevention strategies are reinforced across settings.
        The field of alcohol and other drug prevention has also
    identified evidence-based principles that should be applied to
    programs to effectively impact individual, family, and
    community behavior. Some of those principles include:
    Prevention programs should target all forms of drug abuse.
        We know, and we said earlier today, that almost no one
    starts by using methamphetamine. They're starting with alcohol,
    they're starting with marijuana, and our programs need to look
    at the full range of substances, not just at methamphetamine.
        Prevention programs must include skills to resist drugs
    when offered. Strengthen personal commitments against drug use
    and increase the social skills of our young people who use
    drugs. Prevention programs should include a parent or a care
    giver component that reinforces with adults what young people
    are learning at school and in community settings.
        Prevention programs should long-term, over an entire school
    career, with repeat intervention to reinforce those prevention
    goals. And prevention programming needs to be adapted to
    address the specific nature of a drug abuse problem in a local
    community.
        This summer, Oregon took a big step forward in efforts to
    address the methamphetamine crisis. With the leadership of our
    Governor, strong support from State lawmakers, and invaluable
    groundwork by the Governor's Meth Task Force, we signed
    legislation that requires prescriptions for cold medications
    containing pseudoephedrine. The legislation also strengthened
    law enforcement and provides greater resources for Drug Court
    and substance abuse treatment programs, which are proven to
    heal individuals and family.
        As the work of the Oregon Legislature this session clearly
    demonstrates, Oregon's meth crisis transcends politics and
    requires that all segments of our community work together.
    While new tools will now be available to law enforcement to
    address meth manufacture and use, communities Statewide also
    need to use proven prevention principles to develop broad-based
    strategies to fight their ongoing meth epidemic.
        Oregon Partnership is committed to providing new prevention
    resources and tools to assist communities in those efforts. And
    I would like to tell you about a new collaborative venture
    between Oregon Partnership and Southern Oregon Public
    Television to develop a campaign titled, ``Target Meth:
    Building a Vision for a Drug-Free Community.''
        This strategic response to the meth epidemic will
    incorporate a Statewide media and community training campaign
    designed to educate Oregon residents on the problems and
    dangers associated with methamphetamine manufacture and use.
    The Target Meth Campaign will deliver cutting-edge information
    to communities through a complete multimedia campaign,
    consisting of four major components.
        The first is a Master Methamphetamine Training Powerpoint,
    which will allow the user to select from meth subject matter
    slides and customize presentations by adding their own local
    video. To accompany the training Powerpoint, the Oregon
    Partnership is producing a Target Meth Community Action Guide
    to provide community leaders, faith-based organizations, parent
    groups, and others with drug prevention practices, techniques
    from neighborhood involvement, community mobilization,
    assistance for families dealing with drug addiction, and a link
    to local resources.
        Oregon Partnership and Southern Oregon Public Television
    are co-producing three 30-minute Target Meth specials, and each
    special will be designed to air with a local companion piece
    that focuses in on specific regions of Oregon and provides
    local data.
        The last component of the campaign is a Target Meth Web-
    based information portal providing Oregon meth information,
    programing, and downloadable tools. In addition, the portal
    will include video clips from Statewide media coverage,
    resource links, State and local meth stats.
        Oregon Partnership is excited that citizens from all walks
    of life are joining together to fight the meth epidemic, from
    representatives of law enforcement, treatment, community
    coalitions, and the news media to the average citizen on the
    street. The good news is that we know prevention works. And the
    National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates that for every
    dollar invested in prevention programming, we save $10 in
    enforcement and treatment.
        I want to thank you, Chairman Souder and Congressman
    Walden, for your leadership on the Federal level to address the
    devastation meth is causing across America. Thanks to you,
    there is encouragement for families and communities struggling
    with meth.
        Here in Oregon we've asked all of our citizens to
    participate in stopping the threat to their own safety, to
    their health, economy, and the environment. And the best news
    of all is that as a result of our ongoing effort, Oregon is
    starting to see successes in the fight against meth, and hope
    is beginning to return to individuals and families across our
    State.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Souder. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Deatherage follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.085

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.086

        Mr. Souder. Ms. Baney.

                        STATEMENT OF TAMMY BANEY

        Ms. Baney. Hi. Make sure I'm not too close, not too far
    away.
        Chairman Souder, Congressman Walden, and members of the
    panel, thank you for this opportunity. I am here today
    representing, in essence, the third leg of the stool. I am the
    community volunteer. And I also am coming to you today as the
    sister of a recovering addict.
        My brother is just now 21 years old, and he's been battling
    the methamphetamine addiction for 5 years. I have watched--I
    resonate with a lot that you mentioned, and the destruction
    that it can cause within a family can be unbearable at times.
    And coming from a family of four children; two are firemen, one
    a community volunteer, and another struggling with meth
    addiction, it wasn't just parenting.
        You couldn't put a finger on what made it different. We all
    grew up in the same house. And so I hope to offer some of the
    stigma, that it really isn't there; that it's not about the
    parenting, it's not about something that went wrong. A lot of
    times it's just about the child and choices that are made.
        I'm also here as representative of the Meth Action
    Coalition, which is a grass roots effort in Deschutes County,
    and I'm here representing the Central Oregon region, which is
    Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson Counties. And, of course, as
    you know, we have a methamphetamine problem. And we are right
    on Highway 97, which I drove to get here.
        I didn't drive slow, and it was very easy to not drive slow
    because--and sorry for those that are--sheriff.
        Mr. Walden. You were driving the speed limit.
        Ms. Baney. Well, just over. And, however, as I flew my car
    here, I did not run into law enforcement officials. And the
    reason why is because of funding cuts. And the reason why is we
    have rural areas, we have, you know, 50-mile stretches where
    there is barely a house or a barn.
        And so we're talking about a prime--I drove along today,
    when I could see the trees flying past, Sheriff, thinking of
    myself as someone who has precursor chemicals in the back and
    thinking what an easy road this would be to drive. And so no
    wonder the rural areas are having such a difficult time
    grappling around this situation. And so Deschutes County and
    Crook and Jefferson are no different in that.
        And one thing that we have done is, thank you to the HIDTA
    dollars, we've been able to put together the Central Oregon
    Drug Enforcement Team. So we are crossing all county lines, and
    we have partnered all three counties together to leverage our
    dollars. And that's been very beneficial for us.
        Bend may seen like a very urban area; however, we have La
    Pine and Sisters and Terrebonne and even Redmond. There are a
    lot of areas, I grew up outside of town on five acres, and, you
    know, we could do a lot out there. And so to think of Deschutes
    County just as Bend, OR, is not the same. There are a lot of
    rural areas.
        We do not have a problem with the mom and pop labs in the
    Central Oregon region, so to speak. We primarily, actually, in
    speaking with our CODE team, have taken less than a gram of
    powder off of our street, and the vast majority, obviously, is
    crystal meth, and that is coming from Mexico. And apparently we
    have an influx of the Mexican cartel in our region.
        And so when we talk about the precursor chemicals and we
    talk about pseudoephedrine and getting them off the shelf, we
    know that is more lending a hand to others in saving maybe one
    child's life down the road. You were asking about, well, what
    does that really mean by putting those drugs behind the
    counter.
        What it means to us is if we save one child's life, if the
    inconvenience is on me because I have a head cold, I would
    rather save a child's life.
        So for us, it's not the mom and pop lab, it's the crystal
    meth that we're fighting. And it's not an inexpensive drug.
    It's taking those that have been hard- working and have saved a
    lot of money, and it's taking those dollars and washing them
    completely down the drain with $100 to $120 a gram.
        So I am here to speak about the three-legged approach. And
    I know that I'm getting the yellow light. But the importance
    is, none of us are going to be able to conquer this. You could
    drop $5 million to the sheriff, and he's not going to be able
    to do anything if we don't talk treatment and we don't talk
    about the community.
        So I'm here to, hopefully, instill the importance of the
    community aspect in looking at Federal dollars and dropping
    those down into the local level. If there's a component about
    engaging the community, that is the legwork for those who are
    doing the work and can help to take some of the burden off
    those that are doing the work as well.
        Right now in Deschutes County, in order to get into
    treatment, there's a 120-day waiting period. The vast majority
    of the people are on the Oregon Health Plan or they lose the
    Oregon Health Plan when they go into jail, which is usually
    what happens. And then they're matrixed out because our jail is
    well over capacity.
        So what I share with you--oh, and to detox, you would need
    to put that on your day-planner in about 10 days. So like you
    were saying that you get your Egg McMuffin, you have to say,
    well, in 10 days, I think on the third Wednesday of the fourth
    month, you'd want to detox.
        So in talking about treatment, in talking about law
    enforcement, components in grants dropping down from the
    Federal level, talking about engaging the community is
    critical. In talking about getting rotary clubs and getting
    your volunteers and the school board and everybody on board in
    talking about, yes, we have a problem, and here's how we're
    going to address it. I really encourage you to add a component
    in talking about the community involvement and engaging the
    community.
        Thank you so much for your time.
        Mr. Souder. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Baney follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.087

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.088

        Mr. Souder. Mr. Miller.

                       STATEMENT OF SHAWN MILLER

        Mr. Miller. Chair Souder, Congressman Walden, my name is
    Shawn Miller, and I represent 235 members and 1,113 member
    locations of the Oregon Grocery Association involved in the
    manufacturing, wholesaling, and retailing of grocery products.
    Our industry employs roughly over 50,000 Oregonians.
        I'm here today in support of H.R. 3889, the Methamphetamine
    Epidemic Elimination Act. First, I'd like to thank Chair Souder
    and Congressman Walden for their leadership and commitment in
    addressing the serious meth epidemic that faces our communities
    here in Oregon and all across the Nation.
        The grocery industry recognizes the problem as an epidemic
    and wants to be a partner in crafting a comprehensive solution.
    The crisis has had a significant impact on Oregon communities
    and the Oregon Grocery Association joins you in supporting the
    elimination of the meth production, distribution, and use.
        Not a stranger to this issue, the Oregon Grocery
    Association has worked with law enforcement to pass legislation
    in Oregon limiting the sale of pseudoephedrine products to 9
    grams or less in a single transaction. OGA is willing to limit
    the sales even further, which is proposed in H.R. 3889.
        With that said, we do have serious concerns about recent
    legislation passed in Oregon that imposes questionable and
    inefficient controls on the sale of cough and cold medicine
    containing pseudoephedrine or PSE. I'm referring specifically
    to the recent passage of House bill 2485, which was passed here
    in Oregon recently, which requires all PSE products to be
    treated as Schedule III prescription drugs.
        Under the Oregon law, which has not gone into effect yet,
    it will go into effect early next year, only retail stores that
    have a pharmacy are allowed to sell these medications with a
    doctor's prescription and these items must be kept behind the
    pharmacy counter.
        OGA believes that Federal legislation needs to balance
    consumer access with reasonable PSE sales restriction. I want
    to be clear that the Oregon Grocery Association does support
    restrictions requiring all the PSE products be secured behind
    the counter, locked behind the counter at all pharmacy and non-
    pharmacy outlets.
        We also support requiring the clerk to assist the customer
    in obtaining the PSE product; however, we believe Oregon went a
    little too far in House bill 2485 going to prescription-only.
    We believe that Oklahoma went a little too far in their model,
    and we do believe that legislation that's passed the U.S.
    Senate and is currently pending in Congress goes too far.
        The end result under the rigid pharmacy-only approach is
    dramatic reduction in consumer access to cold and cough
    medication, depending on whether the consumer's local grocery
    store has a pharmacy department and what hours the pharmacy is
    open on a particular day. For consumers living in rural Oregon,
    which is much of Oregon, pharmacy-only access can create major
    hardships if the nearest pharmacy is 20 or 30 miles from the
    consumer's home.
        The Food Marketing Institute and the National Consumers
    League gauged consumer opinion on views of the sales
    restrictions of PSE products in a national survey that was
    released in April 2005. What this survey found is revealing.
    About 44 percent of the 2,900 adult survey respondents felt
    that pharmacy-only access would create a hardship for them,
    while 62 percent said they did not believe that restricting
    sales of PSE products to pharmacies is a reasonable measure for
    controlling meth production.
        In stark contrast, the survey respondents were far more
    receptive to less severe restrictions that pharmacy-only
    access, such as placing all the cough, cold, and allergy
    products behind the counter; not necessarily a pharmacy
    counter, but placing them in a locked display case.
        Additionally, more than 80 percent of the survey
    participants expressed support for limiting the quantity of
    such products that individuals can purchase, which is also a
    component of H.R. 3889. For these reasons, the Oregon Grocery
    Association cannot support pharmacy-only classification for
    cough and cold products containing pseudoephedrine.
        Pharmacy-only access clearly poses significant problems for
    consumers who have a legitimate need for these medications to
    treat their allergies, coughs, and cough.
        Chair Souder, Congressman Walden, I want to express the
    industry's support of the Meth Epidemic Elimination Act. As you
    work toward a final product in these next few weeks, we would
    urge at subcommittee to amend the bill to include strong
    Federal preemption language governing the sale of PSE products
    in order to ensure uniformity.
        Many retailers, including OGA members in Oregon, have
    retail outlets in multiple States. Creating this restriction on
    sales of PSE products that are uniform throughout the States
    will facilitate retailer compliance.
        In conclusion, I want to re-emphasize the need to balance
    consumer access with reasonable PSE sales restrictions. I want
    to thank Chairman Souder for visiting Oregon and listening to
    the grocers' concerns and recommendations as you develop this
    very important piece of legislation, and I want to thank
    Congressman Walden for his leadership on this issue.
        And I thank you for the opportunity to provide this
    testimony.
        Mr. Souder. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.089

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.090

        Mr. Souder. And I'm going to--I'll question a few, and then
    turn it over to Congressman Walden. A lot of different things.
    Let's start with Mr. Miller and work backward.
        It's kind of hard to sometimes be a quasi-skunk at the
    picnic, so to speak. But we're working through very tough
    legislation. I come from a small town in Indiana where I grew
    up, and they've lost their pharmacy and their grocery store. I
    want to make it clear, I shop at Wal-Mart. I'm a supporter of
    Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart financially supports me. I'm not anti-Wal-
    Mart.
        But Wal-Mart and Target support this legislation, the
    restriction behind the counter, because they can deal with
    that. Many of the associations can figure out how to deal with
    that. What the fundamental question is, is how many small
    grocery stores are going to shut down because we took out the
    profit margin?
        When there are ways of tracking at the wholesale level, as
    the DEA's written testimony showed today, the big busts came
    because they could tell the small grocery stores were doing
    large increases. It's tracked by distribution organizations.
    And you can tell which store went above budget, just like we
    can tell in Mexico.
        If this is the only way we can do it, this is the way we're
    going to do it. And let me just tell you now, there isn't going
    to be a pre-emption. Unfortunately, if you don't win at the
    State level, it's clear we're not going to pre- exempt State
    laws on this.
        But what we need out of your association, to the degree--
    and often these little stores don't even belong to the
    association. But how many grocery stories in small towns don't
    have a pharmacy? You said you have a membership. How many of
    those don't have a pharmacy?
        And to the degree that they're willing to say this, what
    percentage of their profit is in the sales--in Indiana it just
    went into effect, and it went behind the counter as opposed to
    behind the pharmacy. The average store dropped from 120
    pseudoephedrine down to 20. So first off, if you can get an
    estimate of how much product reduction there is and what that
    does to profit.
        And then, second, at the margin, what is the estimate in
    the small towns, how many grocery stores will go out? It won't
    be 12 months, it won't be 24 months, I know this is hard, but
    if you look at that margin.
        In other words, if the average grocery store margin, profit
    margin is 5 percent after taxes, and 10 or 20 percent of that
    is from pseudoephedrine products, or even 5 to 10, you can tell
    that you're going to push them below 3 percent, and they're not
    going to survive.
        Many of them are already going down, it's just a matter of
    how many will this push over the top, and is that really going
    to solve the problem. But we need some hard data. We're pushing
    the National Grocery Store Association to tell us what's
    happened in Oklahoma. Everybody knows I came from a retail
    background. All businesses yell loudly on each thing.
        The question is, is it really going to be a restriction?
    Can they make the money on substitute products? Is the only
    problem going to be tobacco and lottery tickets? Is that where
    we're headed?
        What's going to happen to convenience stores that are a big
    part of the access that's replaced small town grocery stores,
    you get it at the gas station. But if they don't have a
    pharmacy, you're not going to be able to get the stuff at a gas
    station. Does that mean those convenience stores are going to
    shut down; they're not making it on the gas?
        What is the practical tradeoff we're making here? And it's
    really not affecting the bigger towns. This is a small town
    question. Because the bigger grocery stores will have some
    margin in profits, but it's not going to hurt badly.
        Mr. Miller. Chairman Souder, I'd be happy to be look into
    that. Our association does represent the large retail stores,
    the chain stores that do have pharmacies and some that don't,
    and we also represent the small mom and pop stores in many of
    the small town communities across the State.
        I think in the issue--and I'd be happy to try to do a
    survey.
        Mr. Souder. Yeah, because it would be like we have Super
    Value in northeast Indiana, IGA, those type of organizations.
    They have a good indication to be able to kind of
    collectively--how many of these small stores are left that, in
    effect, could be toppled by this?
        Mr. Miller. We would be happy to put together that
    information. I think, from our standpoint, what we're trying to
    balance is the access and the convenience for the consumer, the
    legitimate consumer, that wants the product more so than the
    profit level.
        And so I know from the grocery stores that I've talked to,
    it's really not a profit issue and a product issue, more so
    that this is, you know, in retail industry, obviously we are
    interested in pleasing our customer.
        When they walk into a grocery stove, they want to be able--
    as some of the grocery stores you just indicated--they want to
    be able to get all the products they can and go home and not
    have to go to many different stores. And so in the retail
    industry, we try to please those customers.
        Mr. Souder. This actually first popped up in Hawaii because
    they have lots of little tiny towns with grocery stores who
    don't even have a scanning system. And the only way to get to
    this was at the wholesale level or to shut down the grocery
    stores.
        Mr. Miller. And the wholesale level, we do support
    legislation and stricter penalties on actually retailers that
    are going to get in products from the wholesaler and put them
    out the back door. I know that was one of the components of the
    legislation on the stricter penalties that we do support as an
    industry because we want to get rid of those people in our
    industry, if they are running it out the back door.
        So if there are any components to your legislation that
    deal with the wholesale level, I know that we're very
    interested in that end of the legislation as well.
        Mr. Souder. Let me ask a couple of you now, some more basic
    questions. First, Sheriff Trumbo, do you get a Byrne grant and
    do you use the Byrne grant on any narcotic problems?
        Mr. Trumbo. Yeah. The Byrne grant goes to the Blue Mountain
    Enforcement Narcotics Team. And they use that for their
    operation.
        Mr. Souder. And how many dollars.
        Mr. Trumbo. $30,041.
        Mr. Souder. And do you also get any COPS money?
        Mr. Trumbo. Our department doesn't. I don't think the BMENT
    team does either.
        Unknown. No.
        Mr. Souder. So no on the COPS. Ms. Baney, in the community
    prevention in Oregon, does anybody here have any of the
    community grants that come through the national--the Drug-Free
    Community.
        Ms. Baney. Yes, we do. And we do in Deschutes County as
    well. And it works very good in the rural drug-free area.
        Mr. Souder. And is it predominantly in your area, or are
    there several in Oregon?
        Ms. Baney. Go ahead.
        Ms. Deatherage. We have 33 drug-free community grants used
    in Oregon, and they're spread across the State. There's good
    geographic representation.
        [Discussion off the record].
        Mr. Souder. What we're trying to figure out is, initially
    there were 50 grantees and then 100 grantees in the entire
    Nation, and I was trying to figure out how you got 33. But what
    you have is a grantee that is then subdivided into 33.
        Ms. Deatherage. No, we have--California has nearly 50 Drug-
    Free Community grants. And so we have 33 separate grants in the
    State of Oregon.
        Mr. Souder. But your grants aren't----
        Ms. Deatherage. Some of those--they're not all brand- new
    this year. Some may be in their 2nd, 3rd year. But there are 33
    distinct grantees. I can share with you more information later,
    if that would be helpful.
        Mr. Souder. What's happened is, we have a cap. And we've
    moved through this bill, and we've gradually increased the
    number, and the dollars are up to $70 million in the amount of
    our cap. It basically means there are 700 in the entire Nation.
    Of that 700, the question then is would 33 of those be in
    Oregon? And the answer is possibly. It may be you have a couple
    that are coming through another grantee. But regardless of
    that, you have a major--that fund has been tapped into heavily.
        Let me ask another kind of entry-level fundamental
    question, and that is that in the--may I ask this across the
    board, but let me start with Ms. Deatherage. You focused a lot
    on the kids. In the meth problem, it doesn't seem to be heavily
    among kids. In your Drug-Free Communities program, are you
    targeting here the program specifically at the population that
    seems to be more at risk?
        One of the problems we've had with the Drug-Free Schools
    program is for years it often--I'm going to make a broad
    statement here that, for the record, is dicey. I don't mean it
    this way. It's just my son, who has never used drugs, and my
    daughter who has never used drugs. However, my son, because he
    loved rock music, because he hung around with guys who used
    drugs, found most anti-drug programs laughable. And he and his
    friends made fun of them and didn't go to them.
        My daughter, who was somewhat, in a nice way, a goody two
    shoes, which is wonderful, found these programs very good, very
    motivating, and she wasn't a person at risk. And the question
    is how do you--one of my concerns in meth is that we're
    approaching this, we're really good at convincing young
    children who aren't tempted at this point for the bulk of it,
    for folks in high school, but we seem to have a very unusual
    problem here in that many of these people--not all.
        Because once it gets going in a community, it hits a large
    percentage. In one town in Arkansas, 80 percent of the town,
    including law enforcement, the doctor, everybody else. But
    typically in the community, people have already gotten into the
    culture because of marijuana and others and often isolate
    themselves from fear of getting caught.
        How, in the community anti-drug effort, can you educate on
    meth when they're already inside the drug culture, to some
    degree they've somewhat become anti-social. How would you
    recommend, in our prevention campaign, we target the people who
    are actually most at risk of moving to meth?
        Ms. Deatherage. That's an excellent question. And I--that
    question in and of itself is why the enforcement piece of this
    problem tends to be easier to deal with than the prevention
    piece.
        But to try to take your question apart, first of all, Drug-
    Free Community grantees are required, and as they should be, to
    address more than just one drug. So you shouldn't find any
    grants out there just dealing with methamphetamines and they
    actually wouldn't be in compliance with the grant itself.
        You asked about addressing methamphetamine with young
    people when we know that it tends to be maybe college age or in
    the 20's that we see the predominant meth use. It goes back to
    a comment that we made earlier today. Very few, if any, people
    ever begin their drug addiction by deciding this morning I'm
    going to get up and try methamphetamine. So they've probably
    been drinking or smoking marijuana or some other entry type
    drug, then they have progressed to methamphetamine use.
        And I think when we look at a community level at how we're
    going to prevent use among our young people, we're really
    looking at how we're going to change norms in our community.
        And I think what the challenge is, how do we take on a task
    that's not going to have a 6-month or even a 1-year measurable
    outcome, like we might want to see, but similar to tobacco, how
    do you tackle the 20-year campaign to change public perception
    and public knowledge about the dangers of cigarette smoking?
    And I think we're looking at the same type of approach is
    needed for drugs.
        So I think you're right that we do have--when we look at
    prevention, we talk about universal prevention which is for
    everybody, selective prevention which is for at-risk
    individuals, and intricate prevention which is at the most
    specific population for perhaps a specific ethnicity at risk.
        Universal prevention programs probably are going to be more
    applicable to people like your daughter who have some of the
    protective factors in their life and are not at as great of
    risk to use. More emphasis has to be put on how do we identify
    those youth who may be at greater risk because of past trauma
    in their life, because of parental history or use of friends
    and family.
        And how do we form our messaging so that we can begin to
    make an impact with those individuals as well. So I think we're
    looking at the need for a multi-pronged strategy, but clearly
    we've got to start earlier and we've got to be in schools more
    often with a more effective message. At this point, we're not
    getting the job done efficiently.
        Mr. Souder. Mr. Jones, before I yield to Greg, let me--
    you've been--you've dealt with this with your own family, with
    yourself, and as well as working with many addicts. And there
    was one suggestion in the first panel that, in fact, prevention
    may not work on meth, and we're wasting our dollars when we
    focus on prevention of using meth.
        And what Ms. Deatherage just said, which she wouldn't
    phrase it this way, but she really hit on a core of a debate
    that I've been having with the drug right now, and that is the
    position of ONDCP is that, in fact, we can't really dent the
    meth question with the prevention. We have to focus on the
    marijuana--tobacco is funded through a different procedure
    through the tobacco funds--and alcohol.
        Because you can't isolate the meth user once they're inside
    this subgroup, and it is a fact that we've moved, that the meth
    population, we moved the meth population. It's been real
    interesting, as somebody that's been minutely involved in the
    National Ad Campaign, to hear Members of Congress sound off
    about the ineffect, ``Well, I haven't seen the ads, I don't
    understand the ads.''
        Well, they're not the target of the ads. If I see an ad,
    then they've made somewhat of a mistake.
        Mr. Walden. There may be some State legislators who may
    be----
        Mr. Souder. For example, we had a little bit of a battle
    when they ran an ad in the Washington Post. I felt that was
    more political to try to prove to Congress than try to reach
    kids. I've had some concerns about--I'm a Notre Dame football
    addict--that the ads that they run on occasion during games is
    to show me, as chairman of the subcommittee, that they're
    running ads, rather than focusing on kids who are at risk,
    although I don't really know about Notre Dame alumni, that
    particular class.
        But the point here is that in watching how they've done
    target polling, as we've pushed in the National Ad Campaign,
    they've actually tried to highlight the highest risk
    population; let's say, marijuana go to certain different
    places.
        And the new ads are about to come in on methamphetamine.
    For example, there was one of a girl plucking her eyelashes
    that I just thought it was the dumbest ad I've ever seen. And
    the females on my staff were just appalled. They thought it was
    incredibly effective, and I thought it was incredibly stupid.
    But I know enough to know that it doesn't impact me.
        Now, the fundamental question here is do you believe that,
    in fact, we can do targeted prevention? I'm not talking about
    treatment right now, but prevention targets that would have
    reached your kids or you or the people who are your addicts, or
    are we better off trying to get them before they get into that?
    And then if that's the case, we're miserably failing on meth
    and why?
        Mr. Jones. I want to echo what Kaleen Deatherage has said,
    in I don't really think that--yes, I think we can prevent
    methamphetamine use. The prevention work that's being done
    that's effective is not very specific.
        You know, you're not going to respond to something about
    plucking your eyebrows out unless you've done it or you know
    somebody who did or you watched your mom do it. But that would
    be effective for someone who went, oh, yeah. You know. But you
    can't relate to it because it doesn't address you.
        See, methamphetamine once a person has used it, the tug-of-
    war is on. You know, it's a very powerful drug in that the only
    thing it's been compared to is a sexual orgasm. And we're up
    against that issue with our kids anyway. And so then with some
    of the adults, it's like, you know, taking away their chocolate
    cake. There's a tug-of-war that goes on.
        I think--I go all the way--I mean, I've been in prevention
    for all of my career, too. And I go all the way back to the
    Chemical People Project, the Just Say No campaign, the whole
    Red Ribbon Campaign, and the different things. And they all
    have their pieces.
        What I have seen recently that I really--and I do see
    treatment as a primary prevention strategy, particularly in our
    Drug Court, we've had 15 drug-free babies, I don't think
    prevention gets any better than that. The assets, the street-
    based program, the community-based program, bringing families
    together, that's where prevention is. And it's not drug
    specific.
        Methamphetamine isn't a drug of self-esteem. It's a
    stimulant. It's not far different than the smoking issue.
    Because, actually, I used to run a detox, and I could take all
    the drugs and alcohol off a drunk and an addict, and they'd
    kind of tolerate that, but they'd want to beat me up if I took
    their cigarettes. Nicotine is a behavioral stimulant.
    Methamphetamine is a much more powerful behavioral stimulant.
    It's a very insidious drug.
        You know, your question about actually targeting these
    folks who are in it, I think that's a tough issue. I think
    we're involved in some movement right now as to what we're
    doing with kids. I have 40 kids in my treatment right now. I
    have a wonderful staff. We have not thrown anybody out of our
    treatment program over the last 5 years.
        And back in the earlier days of treatment, if you didn't
    behave, you got thrown out. Well, that just fed into things.
    So, you know, I think keeping kids engaged, keeping people
    involved in a process with positive role models, mentorships,
    things like that, that are being talked about in prevention
    right now are key.
        Mr. Souder. Do you use the matrix well.
        Mr. Jones. Yes. Actually, Joe County recently got a
    $500,000 grant to implement meth projects.
        Mr. Souder. Which county.
        Mr. Jones. Josephine County.
        Mr. Souder. And what city does that----
        Mr. Walden. Grants Pass, Cave Junction, Selma, Williams,
    Sunny Valley. Grants Pass is the biggest part of that.
        Mr. Souder. And do you--a couple quick questions on
    treatment yet. One thing we've heard in treatment is that the
    alcohol method of treatment, where you have an enabler and then
    the support, isn't really true in meth. Have you run into
    people where, in any husband and wife situation, they aren't
    both involved?
        In other words, the traditional treatment models we assume
    there's an abuser and then a support, where what we see over
    and over in meth, they kind of pull away into what we call the
    mom and pop places. Even though a lot of people don't like to
    use that expression, often they pull their kids in to help, who
    are cooking too, and their immediate friends.
        In Ohio we had an addict actually come in that just came
    off. Nick had to make sure I read him his rights. There were
    about 40 sheriffs. But one of the things he said is they're
    completely isolated within the community because they're afraid
    somebody's going to tip off law enforcement, which is not the
    traditional enabler community.
        How does this differ in treatment?
        Mr. Jones. It's very insidious, the treatment is for these
    folks. And there are some similarities. I don't like getting
    too specific. And there's recent information that Eric Martin
    has been presenting regarding treatment in that we're as
    effective with methamphetamine as we are other drugs, and I
    don't know why we're getting such a bad wrap.
        I think the expectations are high, for one, in the
    treatment arena regarding people. And that's why I made the
    statement that recovery or treatment, it's a process, it's not
    an event. But it is very insidious, it's very criminal, and
    it's very generational in our area.
        It isn't really uncommon for us to have families who are
    very much involved. But we've seen the same thing with
    marijuana in our area, still a cash crop. And we're still
    struggling with generational growers in the area. The thing
    about methamphetamine is that most of these folks come through
    the door having burned out everybody else. I think that's the
    major difference.
        When you get someone who's purely alcoholic, who has the
    traditional family system around them where there are some
    enablers and different people, the meth addict, by the time we
    get them usually, they have really blown everybody out of the
    water. Everybody's mad.
        Mr. Souder. So you're not seeing moms and dads? You're not
    seeing pairs?
        Mr. Jones. As far as both using and coming into treatment?
    Yes, we are.
        Mr. Souder. Higher than some other drugs, or do you see it
    in some other drugs as well, where you see the pair?
        Mr. Jones. Actually, I think we probably see it more with
    the meth addicts. I would have to agree. We do see folks coming
    in who are jointly addicted more than the other drugs.
        Mr. Souder. Do you see it in law enforcement? Do they tend
    to get both of them? Or sometimes the reason you're not seeing
    a pair is because they caught one and the other didn't get
    caught.
        Mr. Jones. Actually, they've been getting both of them down
    in our area, and they're also getting charged with child
    neglect. And we're actually kind of having----
        Mr. Souder. Let me ask a quick question of the sheriff.
    When you go in, do you tend to get both of them and they both
    get the same----
        Mr. Trumbo. And then we get the child or children.
        Mr. Souder. Let me ask one other treatment question, so I
    kind of keep that train of thought here for a second. We've
    heard in some places, and I assume all these are true, and I'm
    just interested in getting data. Some cities are running 50
    percent are women and it's weight loss driven. Other places,
    which doesn't suggest it's a sexual orgasm approach, although
    it may give them that effect, but they lose weight. Maybe they
    get a sexual orgasm as a side benefit. Not a side benefit, but
    their goal is to lose weight.
        Other places are just straight the drug was addictive. A
    third is that I had a company, an RV company, fastest growing
    RV company in the United States, heard that they had a drug
    problem. They did a quick test, and a third of their employees
    were either on cocaine or meth with just a little marijuana.
        And the argument, the treatment people in that county,
    which has one of the highest meth problems in that State, is
    that they're using it like an amphetamine, because of the piece
    rate, they initially, at least, get a faster support rate. That
    suggests that the people coming into treatment aren't coming
    in--it may even be different by region, but even within a
    region, depending on your mix of industrial, women, what the
    word of mouth on the street is, or are you seeing all these
    areas?
        Mr. Jones. All of the above. I've been in the business for
    a long time. And I used to consult the Weyerhaeuser Corp. in
    Klamath Falls. And other than waiting around waiting for a fire
    to happen, those people were all basically in a production
    position, and they used a lot of methamphetamine.
        And I think any production business in this country,
    basically you're going to find the same thing. Methamphetamine
    is a stimulant. It is the drug of self- esteem. It is the drug
    that makes people feel efficient. Far greater than cocaine in
    that cocaine makes you feel that way for about 20 minutes, and
    methamphetamine will give you that for 10 to 12 hours or more,
    depending on the drug itself.
        The comparison with the sexual orgasm is really more of a
    term, in that people, lay people don't seem to understand, if
    you haven't used it, what it feels like to have that kind of a
    rush, particularly if you inject. If you smoke it, it's
    similar, but it's about, you know, around 3 seconds. What is it
    like to have a feeling like that within 3 seconds, 5 to 3
    seconds? Most lay people around, unless you've experienced it,
    have no idea.
        So orgasm is used as a, well, that's similar, that's the
    competitor. What you'll also find out in talking to law
    enforcement is that the meth addicts do have a tendency to be
    very involved in high risk sexual behavior. And there's a lot
    of jokes and stuff around about sex toys and those kind of
    things.
        My generational overview of that, actually developmental
    overview of that is that some of these folks have never
    participated in sexual behavior not stoned on some chemical.
    And that's a major issue that we have in our treatment program.
        I think the thing I want to say about treatment more than
    anything else is that we have to really stay focused with them.
    They have to come in and see us a lot. Rather than traditional
    therapy and psychotherapy and issue-oriented kind of things,
    it's really important to have these folks kind of coming in two
    or three times week, if not more.
        We have an ability to see people five times week. And
    sometimes we'll see them four or five times, you know, in a
    couple of days, you know, just coming in, having them give
    urine screens. It isn't about therapy as much as it is about
    contact and accountability and kind of keeping clean long
    enough to get to where they can get some therapy.
        The problem we're having in the treatment arena is people
    expect it to be like surgery, where you go in and get the cure,
    you know, and never drink again. That doesn't work for people
    on meth. We have to keep these people involved in some form of
    treatment forever.
        It's like my cardiac problems, you know. I'm going to be
    dealing with this forever. It's not--I'm not done just because
    I got a defibrillator and I'll get shocked if I don't behave.
    It's important for me to take the medications I need, it's
    important for me to do the followup work. It's the same thing
    with addicts.
        And we tend to blow that off, and the addicts tend to blow
    it off. And, you know, I think that we are growing kind of a
    different addict with some of these folks in the criminality of
    it all.
        My daughter, for example, at 26 years old, has significant
    legal problems that are going to follow her for the rest of her
    life, as far as employment and bonding and child care issues
    and HUD and all those things that go with that are major
    barriers. And I think those folks tend to not do as well out
    there in the world, and they do relapse more often, because
    they have so many more trip-ups.
        You know, the alcoholic who works for the frozen food
    organization over there, he trips on it, he gets sent by his
    boss to go to treatment, and we work with his employer and ya-
    da, ya-da, ya-da, everything is fine afterwards. He keeps his
    job, he stays there, everything is fine.
        With the meth addict, oftentimes there are so many hoops
    for them to jump through, that sometimes they say screw it. And
    I think the more we walk with them slowly and lower our
    expectations of what we expect out of them. Why would you want
    to--we expect someone to make $7.50 an hour working at Taco
    Bell when they've been making a couple thousand a day messing
    with speed.
        I mean, it's very tough. They look at me like, how do I do
    that? And that's a process, not an event. They have to come
    talk to us. We have some groups that focus on that.
        Mr. Souder. What you say is interesting, but the
    difference, other than drug addicted driving, which we need to
    get under control, like alcohol driving, it's mostly a process
    of right now getting cheap tests that police can administer
    because more people are dying from that.
        But other than that, the alcohol addict probably is causing
    some financial problems in his family, maybe beating his child
    and family. I'm not arguing that. But they're not blowing up
    their home, they're not tying up local law enforcement, they're
    not polluting the local waters. And that's why it's a different
    type of a drug to deal with than alcohol. And we're not
    understating alcohol. We're trying to tighten this. Let me give
    it to him.
        Mr. Walden. Thank you. And thank you, Rick, for your
    comments. I was going to have you explore just briefly for the
    chairman the discussion we had in Josephine County, the
    followup forum on the success of the women who had been clean
    and given birth and the savings that had been achieved as a
    result. And I think that was all tied into the Drug Court,
    right.
        Mr. Jones. It was. Well, I have an interesting position,
    too. I run a treatment program that's actually owned by the
    Oregon Health Plan, one of the few--actually, the only one in
    the State. So I work with 20 doctors. I work with a small
    medical clinic.
        We actually had a panel today to deal with prescribed
    medications that I had to miss because I was here. I thought
    this was important, and those guys could take care of that
    themselves. And so there's a big focus in my job and at my shop
    about medical issues and the whole frequent flyer kind of
    problem.
        And, you know, a methamphetamine affected baby costs well
    over $1 million. And so they really like it when we have meth
    addicts who show up in our program who might be pregnant or get
    pregnant in the program and deliver a drug-free baby. We make a
    big hoopla out of it.
        We give them gifts, we bring them before the judge. We give
    them a bear. We give them a certificate, we give the baby a
    certificate, the only Drug Court certificate they'll ever need.
    Because that's, like I said earlier, that's the epitome of
    prevention.
        You know, women, we've had just a few more women than men
    graduate from our Drug Court program in Josephine County. And
    in my history, that's phenomenal. Back in the 1970's and
    1980's, we didn't have women in treatment. We couldn't figure
    out how to balance all the issues, and we now have all these
    women in treatment and we're dealing with barriers of child
    care.
        I didn't answer one of the issues you brought up about
    women and the sexuality and the weight loss and all those kinds
    of things. You know, that's a major package deal. We run across
    of a lot of these women that can't clean their house unless
    they're wired. And so it's kind of--just think if you don't
    sleep for a couple days what you can get done. I mean, it's
    amazing how that works.
        So I have been real excited about the Drug Court piece down
    there.
        Mr. Walden. Do you remember the numbers? I've forgotten the
    numbers.
        Mr. Jones. We had 15 drug-free babies. And I didn't really
    have time to put together these statistics, but we had a high
    number of women in our----
        Mr. Walden. The equivalent would be, at a minimum, maybe
    $15 million in savings just in the ER.
        Mr. Jones. Oh exactly.
        Mr. Walden [continuing]. Let alone the long-term costs of
    treatment care.
        Mr. Jones. Not even really talking about what we know about
    the care of--I think you had actually mentioned the child and
    some of the issues that these kids have as they become
    teenagers and whatnot.
        Mr. Walden. Go ahead, Karen.
        Ms. Ashbeck. I just want to interject something about what
    Rick was saying. My daughter is 42. She's been fired from every
    job she's held. And it seems that's the pattern. She can't
    focus. She can't stay on track.
        She was very sexually active, not in a good way, because
    she had multiple partners. And then she would use meth, and
    then coming off of it she'd go into a deep depression or she'd
    be in a depression before she used it. And my granddaughter is
    seeing all of this.
        I mean, that's, you know, she had a grandpa and I at the
    same place. You know, we lived on a ranch outside of town, and
    she'd come out there and ride horses and stuff. But my
    granddaughter started using marijuana at age nine. So what she
    was saying--she was going to be with me here today. She's out
    sleeping in the car because she worked all night, but she
    wanted to be here.
        She's clean right now, but she has pending charges against
    her. She may go to jail. We don't know. They were--can't go
    into why, but, anyway, so, you know, she has some issues that
    she has to deal with. But I remember when she was pregnant with
    her child and we were talking, and she said, ``Does God forgive
    you if you make the same mistake over again?''
        And I said, ``Well, that depends on if you're doing it
    intentionally or if you're just doing it, you know, just
    because you know you're going to be excused.''
        And she said--and she's 16 years old. She said, ``Well, I
    think God knows that my mom is fragile and that He will forgive
    her for what she does.''
        She's been her mother's care giver. And that's what you see
    with so many of these children. And like some of these case
    histories that I wrote down, is that the child becomes the
    parent. And my daughter would ask my granddaughter if she could
    have a party or if they could do this or if they could do that.
    And she's in the fifth grade.
        You know, you don't ask your child--she was trying to be
    her daughter's best friend rather than her parent. And so then
    what happens is the child becomes the one who tells the parent
    what to do and manipulates that parent into doing what they
    want them to do. And they use each other. And it's sick. It's
    just so sad.
        And you know it's going on. I accessed treatment for my
    granddaughter in three different treatment programs. She was in
    one in Portland and then she was in one in Boise, and then she
    went to El Cornelius Treatment Center in Baker for almost a
    year. But she would sabotage herself and fail so that they
    would--because if she felt success, then we would expect more
    of her.
        Or, you know, I mean, there's--I'm sure Rick sees it all
    the time. But it's so frustrating. And now, you know, she has
    missed so much. And she says, ``Grandma, there are things that
    I should know, but I just don't know them. It's like, 'Why
    don't I get that?'''
        You know, and it's just common, everyday things that you
    should know; as feelings for your child or, you know, that
    pleasure center. And I visited with a lady who's 18 years clean
    from cocaine, and she said the hardest thing for her and her
    husband to do when they came off of cocaine was to know what to
    do to have fun. They don't know what to do.
        Mr. Walden. Because that's what they've always done.
        Ms. Ashbeck. And she said, ``We always had friends, 'cause
    we had--my husband had a good job and we had lots of money, so
    we had lots of friends.'' ``But,'' she said, ``when we went off
    coke,'' she said, ``then it was, you know, what do we do for
    fun.''
        It wasn't the sunset or the baby ducklings in the pond or
    any----
        Mr. Walden. Let me go to Sheriff Trumbo. And then I know
    we've well gone over the time line of the committee. But I want
    to followup on this issue of the cleanup that I raised and the
    contracting thereof.
        Can you tell me what--because you were kind of shaking your
    head back there when we were walking through how the contract
    works. Can you tell me what your officers and others in the
    community face when you do discover a lab and then how that
    contract works?
        Mr. Trumbo. The last two labs we had, we had to call the
    cleanup crew out of Portland to come in and clean them up
    because the Pendleton cleanup crew was in Portland cleaning up
    labs.
        Mr. Walden. Let me get that straight.
        Mr. Trumbo. Pretty simple.
        Mr. Walden. The Pendleton crew was sent to Portland to
    clean up a lab when you've got a lab here to clean up, so they
    send a crew from Portland to here to clean up a lab. Is that
    because the number came up for Pendleton, they get the next
    lab.
        Mr. Trumbo. Right.
        Mr. Walden. So rather than--OK. So my fire analogy was
    pretty close; next fire that comes up in Portland, we'll send a
    Pendleton crew.
        Mr. Trumbo. So that's the challenge we're facing, because
    we have to have two lab site safety officers on the lab until
    the cleanup crew gets there. And when they come out of
    Portland, that's 4 or 5 hours. Because they have a minimum time
    they have to be here, but they don't push that, I'll guarantee
    it, because they're making money for every hour they're sitting
    in that truck.
        So, you know, they're pushing right to the limit each time.
    But we have to sit there and guard that scene, and it becomes a
    real challenge for us.
        Mr. Walden. And am I correct that the DEA picks up the
    actual cleanup costs----
        Mr. Trumbo. Yes.
        Mr. Walden [continuing]. But not your officer time?
        Mr. Trumbo. No. But they don't pick up our overtime costs.
        Mr. Walden. That's what I mean.
        Mr. Trumbo. And the protective suits and all the other
    things.
        Mr. Souder. Because we were trying to sort this out
    earlier, let me see if I can understand this, because there's
    several things going on. DEA does the clean-up cost. Your
    primary pressure isn't the clean-up cost. Your primary pressure
    is how long they have to sit there until the agency----
        Mr. Trumbo. It's the manpower cost.
        Mr. Souder. Therefore, the Kentucky model that enables you
    to do it directly or for minimal cost would enable your
    officers to get out of the way, and then the DEA comes in and
    cleans it up.
        Mr. Trumbo. Absolutely.
        Mr. Souder. So that would----
        Mr. Trumbo. That would save the Federal Government hundreds
    of thousands of dollars every year.
        Mr. Souder. Because this is what, in Indiana, our State
    police run the cleanup, so they can do the first sites. And
    part of our problem is to try to get enough of those mobile
    labs. And we don't have enough mobile labs to come in.
        So we have all these police agencies sitting in a minimum
    of 4 hours up to 8 hours with drug teams of four people, tying
    up in some counties the entire police narcotics force. And if
    there's a way to seal that in 30 minutes such that the site is
    secure enough that the officers can leave or just leave one
    person, you change the cost dynamics for overtime
    substantially.
        Mr. Trumbo. We spent about $360,000 in this county last
    year on drug cleanup. That includes what DEA paid and what our
    overtime cost and equipment costs and everything else, about
    $360,000.
        Mr. Souder. You said that included the DEA costs.
        Mr. Trumbo. That includes everything. But it's all taxpayer
    money, whether it's Federal, State, or local. It's still
    taxpayer money, which is what I said in my speech. You know,
    you become a victim and a victim and a victim, and you keep
    paying.
        Mr. Walden. So one of your issues is the delay in the
    cleanup.
        Mr. Trumbo. Yeah. It becomes a real major delay, especially
    with us. Right now my staffing level is one-third of an officer
    for every thousand people, and I should have an officer and a
    half for every thousand people. So that becomes a big issue.
        And one of our patrol officers is site safety trained,
    which means we pull him off the street, stick him in a
    protective suit, send him out.
        Mr. Walden. And help me understand this; are you required
    to have more than one officer on the site?
        Mr. Trumbo. We have to have two.
        Mr. Walden. And they have to be site trained.
        Mr. Trumbo. They have to be site safety officers, and they
    have to be trained, and they have to have the proper equipment.
        Mr. Walden. Why do you have to have more than one? I would
    think one of you standing there well-armed would be enough to
    chase away anybody that was going to mess around.
        Mr. Trumbo. That's an OSHA requirement, isn't it? State of
    Oregon stepped in and said they wanted two.
        Mr. Walden. Is that what's required elsewhere across the
    country, or is that an Oregon requirement?
        Staff member. It just depends on State law.
        Mr. Souder. I think it's Oregon.
        Mr. Walden. Does anybody know what it is in Washington? Do
    they have to have two?
        Mr. Trumbo. The thing that concerns me--and at one time a
    couple years ago, DEA might have dried up and DEQ stepped in.
    But if it came down to the local level having to suffer the
    cost of cleanup----
        Mr. Walden. You wouldn't bust many labs.
        Mr. Trumbo. Well, that, and, in fact, there would be some
    things done to try to circumvent some of the costs, and we
    don't want to go there. You know, we've still got an
    environment, we've got a neighborhood, and we want things done
    correctly. So there's got to be some way of doing it correctly
    and then saving taxpayer money.
        Mr. Souder. I just want to ask a followup question because
    it's so refreshing to hear a local official say, hey, it's all
    the taxpayers' money, it doesn't matter which level.
        Mr. Trumbo. Well, it's the same thing when people say, you
    know, ``I'm not affected by methamphetamines because I live in
    a good neighborhood and my kids don't use it,'' and all that.
        And I say, ``Fine, you're the same one that's paying the
    taxes. Who do you think is paying the freight on this thing?''
        Mr. Walden. Yeah, the editor of the Medford Mail Tribune,
    we had a forum in Medford, and he was talking about how they'd
    done a series on it, front page sort of deal, and a reader had
    called in to complain that they were wasting all the paper on
    covering this issue that had no effect on him and why were they
    doing that?
        And he recounted that story.
        Mr. Trumbo. And what we're experiencing here on the local
    level, and I talked about these indirect costs, what's
    happening now is these meth abusers are stealing cars and
    they're driving right to the front of a business and right
    through the front door. And then they're stealing everything,
    throwing the stuff in the stolen car and--so now not only do we
    have theft, we have some major building destruction because
    they're driving right through the front doors.
        Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, there was some discussion earlier
    about the difference between alcoholics and meth addicts or
    alcohol and meth, and I'd just like to quickly draw an analogy
    in that--because I don't know about the rest of the State, but
    Josephine County still has a significant drunk driving problem.
        And most of the drunk drivers that come into my treatment
    program are repeat offenders. And they don't understand
    anything about the fact that they're driving a bullet down the
    road than the meth addict understands that he's messing up
    someone's property.
        It's big to us, but they're just as much messed up up here
    as the alcoholic is who thinks--I guess in D.C. you really
    can't drive at all, unless--if you've had one glass of wine, I
    heard on the news this morning, which is fine, but they're in
    just as much denial about the effect.
        The guy that drove the car into the building over there--I
    mean, I'm not soft on crime, but he doesn't understand it any
    more than the guy driving down the road drunk. The disease of
    addiction is the disease of addiction regardless of the drug.
        Mr. Souder. Let me just ask on that, because you're
    getting--do you--one of the questions about meth, and as we
    look at treatment is does meth do different things to your body
    than others and does it cause quicker negative damage to your
    body?
        Mr. Jones. Definitely.
        Mr. Souder. More than other drugs? And in case that, for
    example, the question of whether somebody can hold a job, does
    it depend somewhat whether they--I would think if crystal meth
    is pure, that crystal meth would burn you out quicker and you'd
    start to lose your job quicker and so on.
        Mr. Jones. The lifestyle issues are certainly huge. They
    are certainly much huger than alcohol. We've known that for
    decades.
        Mr. Souder. Are there meth users that would--like some
    people smoke a little bit and then some drinkers drink more on
    weekends or that type of thing. Are meth users, do they binge?
    Do they control some? Or is it such that you just have straight
    downhill?
        Mr. Jones. Well, I think it's just like anything else. We
    see people who do that. We see bingers.
        Mr. Walden. But that suggests you can control the extent--
    --
        Mr. Jones. Well, there are people that, because of their
    lifestyle issues, use occasionally every drug. And then there
    are people because of whether it's genetics or lifestyle issues
    or whatever they were raised with, use one time and they're
    gone. I don't think you can lump it all into----
        Mr. Souder. I understand that basic principle: Some people
    can handle more alcohol and less and react differently. The
    question is, is meth unique or relatively unusual as a drug
    that its addictive properties--and we've had different
    testimony of what it does to your brain and body--is such that
    you can't kind of restrain yourself.
        Mr. Jones. It becomes that way. I think for some it's a
    matter of time. I mean, there are people, just like anything
    else, we call it tapering on, rather than tapering off, in the
    business. There's no question at all that methamphetamine is a
    very toxic, quick-acting substance.
        But the addiction, you know, it carries the same symptoms.
    You know, the denial about how it's affecting me and all those
    things, that's what I'm really trying to get across. It does
    happen much more rapid in some people.
        My philosophy is, if you've got a screw loose and you use
    methamphetamines, you're going to knock it out of its socket.
    You know, it really depends what you've got going on----
        Mr. Walden. It amplifies.
        Mr. Jones [continuing]. When you put that stuff in your
    system as to what can happen next.
        Mr. Souder. Ms. Ashbeck, you said that your daughter said,
    when you asked her--was it your granddaughter or daughter that
    said, you know, what could you have done, and she said she
    could have come in contact with the law sooner.
        Ms. Ashbeck. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Souder. Could you elaborate on that a little bit? And
    do you think that really would have had an impact? And then the
    second thing with that is, would it also, if there was a drug
    test at work, would that have had a similar impact.
        Ms. Ashbeck. No. Because she wasn't working. She was just
    doing the drug.
        With the matrix system the way it's set up, it's five
    points. It's a point system. And she said she would get picked
    up and all she could think in her mind was book and release,
    book and release, book and release. That's it. They book and
    they release them.
        She said that for her, getting locked up sooner would have
    helped her. It might not have some others, because while she
    was in jail, she visited with some of the other inmates and
    they maybe had been in there 7 to 8 months, and they couldn't
    wait until they were out to go get their first hit.
        That wasn't the case with her, although she did relapse
    after a short time out, but has been, so she says, clean for
    about the last 9 months.
        But here comes the story of, you know, credibility,
    rebuilding credibility and trust. She hasn't been in any
    trouble, she's been working, and she's gained some weight, so,
    you know, those are all really good signs. She's been lucid in
    the times that we've been around her.
        But I think the way that the system is set up, there was a
    point in time where, when we were in this very room, and the
    judge had the opportunity in his hands to say, ``You need--this
    is what I'm going to do for you, and you need to go to--I'm
    going to say that you need to go to treatment.''
        And he didn't do that. He could have, but he didn't,
    whatever the circumstances.
        And I think that we need to be more aware of what is
    actually going to help the people, what are the precursors that
    makes one person choose a drug and not another. I'm from a
    family of alcoholics. My father committed suicide when I was 11
    because of alcohol addiction.
        My grandfather was. My mother was. I'm not. I like an
    occasional glass of wine. But my two daughters are drug
    addicted. My granddaughter is drug addicted, but my son isn't.
    So what are the precursors?
        And, you know, all three children were raised in the same
    house. Two were girls, one was a boy. But it's like they were
    saying, some people are predisposed. Some people are
    predisposed to alcoholism, some people are predisposed to
    drugs.
        The drug was attractive to my granddaughter because of how
    her relationship was with her mother and the world that they
    lived in, that's what it was, even though she had another world
    to go to and she could, you know, she had us as a good example.
    And she had other friends as good examples.
        But it's just that some people are more destined to do
    that. What--you know, we could go on all night to figure out
    what that is. You know, is it genetics, is it self-esteem, is
    it ADHD, is it bipolar? What is it? Maybe it's all of those.
        But I think catching them as soon as you know they have the
    problem and separating them from the drug is extremely
    important. Jail, I would say jail detox, in a situation--and I
    don't know that jail is the answer. But separating the person
    from the drug is most important. And then rehab is extremely
    important.
        And not for 30 days like some insurance people want to say.
    It has to be long-term. They have to learn a new way of
    thinking. And the sooner you catch them, the less damage is
    going to be done to their brain.
        But like my daughter who's been doing drugs now for over 20
    years, what's the hope for her? She's with a man now who really
    loves her and cares for her and is getting her help, but will
    she ever be able to hold down a job? She might, if she's the
    greeter at Wal-Mart maybe.
        But to stay on track--you know, she's a wonderful,
    wonderful lady, but it's just not there for her anymore. And
    it's so sad to see that. And, you know, I'm sure that Rick will
    agree with me, the sooner that you catch them and separate them
    from the drug, the better luck you have or our prisons are
    going to be full and we may have a State orphanage because the
    children are getting neglected.
        Amber, my granddaughter, is fortunate to have the support
    that we're giving her. Our family is divided, because some say,
    you know, she made her choice. Well, you know, God never gave
    up on us. I'm not giving up.
        If I didn't wake up with hope in my heart, I wouldn't get
    up in the morning. It reminds me of a little song: The more we
    work together, they happier we'll be. You know, your friend is
    my friend and my friend is your friend.
        It's simple, but that's exactly what we need to look at
    here, is that we all need to work together to stop this menace.
        Mr. Souder. Before closing, I need to ask Ms. Baney one
    question.
        Ms. Baney. Yes.
        Mr. Souder. Did your group just go through this review on
    the national grant structure.
        Ms. Baney. No not to my knowledge, no.
        Mr. Souder. Do you know--ONDCP is doing a review right now
    of all the different community grants. Did you hear anything
    back? We have chaos at the national level.
        Ms. Deatherage. Yes, there's chaos here, too. I know that
    Oregon Partnership is the fiscal agent for the grant. We
    received our scores, but I haven't--I just got an e-mail
    yesterday saying that they want to come out and do a site
    review next year. We're in our second year. We've not been site
    reviewed yet.
        Mr. Souder. And you said you had 33.
        Ms. Deatherage. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Souder. Of the 33, through either of you, do you know
    how many of them got renewed.
        Ms. Deatherage. I could find out. I don't know off-hand. I
    don't know.
        Mr. Souder. If you could give that to me, because my
    understanding is they suspended 20 percent.
        Ms. Deatherage. OK, 63 were defunded and 88 were put on
    probation.
        Ms. Baney. We were not one of those.
        Mr. Souder. Thank you. Thank each of you for your openness
    today, for your testimony. If you have other things you want to
    submit, if you could get those to us as soon as possible. Also,
    thank you for your leadership in each of the communities you're
    a part of.
        With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 5:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Additional information submitted for the hearing record
    follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.091

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.092

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.093

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.094

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.095

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.096

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.097

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.098

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.099

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.100

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.101

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.102

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.103

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.104

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27723.105