[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
APPALACHIAN ICE: THE METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC IN WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA
=======================================================================
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
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 11, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-187
__________
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
30-526 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
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
JON C. PORTER, Nevada C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina Columbia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ------
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio (Independent)
------ ------
David Marin, Staff Director
Lawrence Halloran, Deputy Staff Director
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
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio Columbia
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. Marc Wheat, Staff Director
Dennis Kilcoyne, Professional Staff Member and Counsel
Jim Kaiser, Professional Staff Member and Counsel
Malia Holst, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 11, 2006................................... 1
Statement of:
Emerson, John J., Assistant Special Agent-in-Charge,
Charlotte District Office, Atlanta Field Division, Drug
Enforcement Administration................................. 20
Gaither, James C., district attorney, 25th Prosecutorial
District of North Carolina; Van Shaw, special agent, North
Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, Clandestine Labs
Response Program; Gary Clark, sheriff, Caldwell County,
North Carolina; C. Philip Byers, sheriff, Rutherford
County, North Carolina; and Lynne Vasquez, mother of
convicted meth dealer and addict........................... 38
Byers, C. Philip......................................... 45
Clark, Gary.............................................. 42
Gaither, James C......................................... 38
Vasquez, Lynne........................................... 49
Shaw, Van................................................ 39
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Byers, C. Philip, sheriff, Rutherford County, North Carolina,
prepared statement of...................................... 47
Clark, Gary, sheriff, Caldwell County, North Carolina,
prepared statement of...................................... 44
Emerson, John J., Assistant Special Agent-in-Charge,
Charlotte District Office, Atlanta Field Division, Drug
Enforcement Administration, prepared statement of.......... 23
Foxx, Hon. Virginia, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina, prepared statement of............. 16
McHenry, Hon. Patrick T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of North Carolina, prepared statement of......... 11
Shaw, Van, special agent, North Carolina State Bureau of
Investigation, Clandestine Labs Response Program, prepared
statement of............................................... 41
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, prepared statement of.................... 5
Vasquez, Lynne, mother of convicted meth dealer and addict,
prepared statement of...................................... 52
APPALACHIAN ICE: THE METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC IN WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Lenoir, NC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
the Commissioners Chamber, Caldwell County Government Offices,
905 West Avenue NW, Lenoir, NC, Hon. Mark E. Souder (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Souder, Foxx and McHenry.
Staff present: Jim Kaiser and Dennis Kilcoyne, professional
staff members and counsels; and Scott Springer, congressional
fellow.
Mr. Souder. The subcommittee will now come to order. Good
morning and thank you all for coming.
This morning, this hearing continues our subcommittee's
work on the growing problem of methamphetamine trafficking and
abuse--a problem that has ravaged communities across the entire
country. I would like to thank my fellow subcommittee members,
including our Vice Chairman Patrick McHenry, who invited us
here to his district, as well as Representative Virginia Foxx
of North Carolina's fifth district. Each of them has been a
strong advocate in the House for an effective bipartisan anti-
meth strategy. I am looking forward to working with them on new
legislation for this Congress, and I hope that the information
we gather at this hearing will help us achieve that goal.
Meth is one of the most powerful and dangerous drugs
available, and it is also one of the easiest to make. It is
perhaps best described as a perfect storm--a cheap, easy-to-
make drug with devastating health and environmental
consequences, consuming tremendous law enforcement and other
public resources, that is extremely addictive and difficult to
treat. If we fail to get control of it, meth will wreak havoc
in our communities for generations to come.
This is actually the 12th hearing focused on meth held by
my subcommittee since 2001. In places as diverse as Indiana,
Oregon, Hawaii, and Minnesota, I have heard moving testimony
about how this drug has devastated lives and families. 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 then, we try to get a picture of the state
of meth trafficking and abuse in the local area. Then we ask
three questions. First, where does the meth in the area come
from and how do we reduce the supply? Second, how do we get
people into treatment, and how do we keep young people from
starting meth use in the first place? And finally, how can the
Federal Government partner with State and local agencies to
deal with this problem?
The next question, that 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 ``superlabs,'' which until
recently were located 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 meth, and today it is believed that as much as 90
percent or more comes from Mexican superlabs. The superlabs are
operated by large Mexican drug trafficking organizations that
have used their established distribution and supply networks to
transport meth throughout the country.
The second major source of meth comes from small, local
labs that are generally unaffiliated with major trafficking
organizations. These labs, often called ``mom-and-pop'' or
``clandestine'' labs or ``Nazi'' labs, in the lingo, have
proliferated throughout the country, often in rural areas. 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 meth labs, and have frequently suffered from
severe health problems as a result of the often hazardous
chemicals used.
As a side point, I just got a Blackberry message that in my
District we had a meth lab case, not too far from my house,
outside of the major city of Fort Wayne, which is 230,000
people. And the guy got 45 years because the lab blew up, it
killed his mentally handicapped sister; and the fire
department, the local fire department, because there had not
been a meth lab in that area, went charging in and the
explosion occurred just as they were getting ready to enter, or
the whole fire department, the volunteer fire group, would have
been killed as well as the girl inside, because they did not
know they were going into a meth lab case. So there are dangers
associated with these mom-and-pop labs that are different than
the crystal meth, the Mexican meth that is coming in.
Since meth has no single source of supply, 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 sales restrictions on pseudoephedrine products,
like cold medicines. Some States limit the number of packages a
consumer can buy; others have forced cold medicines behind the
counter. We now have a national law that will affect every
State with that.
However, these retail sales regulations will not deal with
the large-scale production of meth in Mexico. That problem will
require either control of the amount of pseudoephedrine going
into Mexico, or better control of drug smuggling on our
southwest border, or both. The Federal Government will have to
take the lead if we are able to get results. And we have
started to do that in our major meth bill as well.
The next major question is demand reduction. How do we get
meth addicts to stop using, and 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 the 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 helps the work of community
anti-drug coalitions to bring drug use prevention education to
young people; 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. Currently, the Federal
Government does provide a number of grants and other assistance
programs to State and local agencies. In addition to the
programs I mentioned earlier, the Byrne Grants and COPS Meth
Hot Spots programs help fund anti-meth law enforcement task
forces; the DEA and other agencies assist State and local
agencies with meth lab cleanup costs; and the Safe and Drug-
Free Schools program and the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign help schools and other organizations 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
appropriate balance between the needs of law enforcement and
consumers, and between supply reduction and demand reduction.
Fortunately, I believe a big step forward was taken last
month when Congress passed and the President signed into law
the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. This comprehensive law
is designed to tackle meth trafficking at every State, from
precursor chemical control to international monitoring, and
from environmental regulations to child protection. There was
strong bipartisan cooperation. The legislation moved through
Congress quickly as Members got the message from the grassroots
that meth does not respect State boundaries. We will be closely
watching the implementation of this law and looking for new
ways to thwart meth traffickers and help those individuals,
families and communities that have been devastated by this
drug.
Today we have an excellent group of witnesses who will help
us make sense of these complicated issues. For our first panel,
we are joined by Mr. John Emerson, Assistant Special Agent-in-
Charge of the DEA's Charlotte Division Office.
On our second panel, we are joined by Mr. James ``Jay''
Gaither, District Attorney of the 25th Judicial District; Mr.
Van Shaw, Director of the Clandestine Labs Program of the North
Carolina State Bureau of Investigation; Sheriff Phil Byers of
Rutherford County, a veteran witness to our committee; and
Sheriff Gary Clark of Caldwell County. We are also joined by
Ms. Lynne Vasquez, who has a painful story to tell about her
son's involvement with meth and how it has devastated her
family.
We thank everyone for taking the time to join us and look
forward to your testimony.
Now I will yield to Mr. McHenry.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.003
Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for coming
to North Carolina and to our 10th District. As we were
discussing before, you are not a stranger to Lenoir nor the
furniture industry. Being a former furniture retailer, you have
visited here a number of times. But welcome back. Thank you for
bringing the subcommittee here. I am very proud to work with
you on combating the methamphetamine use and epidemic that we
are facing as a Nation.
I would first like to thank the County Commissioners here
in Caldwell County for giving us the use of this chamber and
providing us with the resources to be here today. So I would
like to especially thank Chairwoman Faye Higgins, who is here
today. Thank you, Faye.
In March of this past year, President Bush signed into law
the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005. This act
underscores the importance and need to focus attention on the
rise of methamphetamine production, use and distribution across
the country. Today, national law addresses precursor products
by putting pseudoephedrine and ephedrine behind the counter,
enhancing criminal penalties, while also addressing prevention,
health and environmental concerns of methamphetamine.
We have a number of experts on our panels today, I am so
happy they are here today. We are being hosted today as well by
Caldwell County Sheriff Gary Clark, who hosted a discussion
among the 10th District sheriffs back about this time last
year. Out of that discussion that Gary instigated, we were able
to formulate some additional legislation that has been rolled
into the Combat Meth Act. In particular, doubling the penalties
for those that are producing meth or any type of controlled
substance in the presence of a child. So thank you, Gary, for
being here and being willing to testify.
I would also like to thank Sheriff Phil Byers of Rutherford
County. Philip testified last year before this committee, but I
know, because of the problems that he has faced as the sheriff
of Rutherford County with the rampant use of meth and the
production of meth there, the innovation that he is putting
into force on the streets. I am looking forward to hearing an
update from him.
I also appreciate Jay Gaither, who is our District Attorney
here in Caldwell, Burke and Catawba Counties. Jay is going to
discuss the impact of meth users on the court system. And as
meth becomes more prevalent and, you know, our forces are put
out into the streets to combat meth, he is going to relate to
us how theft and other drug abuse and trafficking issues are
affecting our local communities.
The debilitating mental and physical effects of this drug,
the production process, the way it touches everyone, especially
in rural communities, are not being overlooked. Over the past
few years alone, we have seen a dramatic increase in the number
of meth labs in North Carolina. Mr. Van Shaw from the North
Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, on our panel today, can
attest to the fact that SBI agents first discovered about nine
meth labs here in North Carolina in 1999. That was working with
local law enforcement as well. This number has grown to 328
found in 2005. You can see how rampant this increase has been.
Also with us is Mr. John Emerson, Assistant Special Agent-
in-Charge with the Drug Enforcement Administration, who has
worked with our local sheriffs and SBI and taken part in law
enforcement operations within the past year targeting meth
laboratory operators and traffickers here in western North
Carolina.
I look forward to discussing the future initiatives that
the Federal Government and local officials will undertake to
eliminate the meth problem in our State. Not only do the courts
and local law enforcement have a unique challenge when it comes
to meth, but child service programs, families, they bear the
unfortunate burden of this drug, greater than any government
agency. And we are going to have a witness here today that can
attest to this in very personal terms. So we also must be
concerned with the welfare of children and families and make
sure that they are not neglected and torn apart by this drug as
well. Ms. Lynne Vasquez--thank you for being here, Lynne, I
certainly appreciate you taking time out of your schedule. I
know it is going to be difficult for you to speak in front of
such a large crowd and before us, but it is an important story
and we appreciate you coming to talk about how meth has
affected your family and affected your life as well, and how it
has touched your child and your grandchildren. So thank you for
taking your time to be here, Lynne.
Let us just get down to it. Promoting awareness of this
spreading problem, protecting our children, providing resources
to those on the front lines are some of the key issues. And we
need to solve this problem and learn more about how we can take
innovative solutions that are happening here at the local
level, with our sheriffs, with our district attorneys, with the
SBI and DEA, working on the ground. Let us take this
information and plug it back into what we can do at the Federal
Government to have a comprehensive look at cracking this
problem. Look, 25 years ago with crack cocaine on the rise, if
the Federal Government had taken a comprehensive approach
early, we would not be facing the severity of the problem that
we are still facing with that drug.
Hopefully, with the fast response of the Federal Government
to put a comprehensive anti-meth bill in place, we can put the
resources on the ground to root out this problem before it
truly takes hold of our communities. In an effort to combat
meth, as I said, the President signed in March a bill that
included the small provision that I put in there doubling the
penalties for individuals who manufacture or traffic controlled
substances in the presence of a minor. This legislation, as I
said, comes directly from local law enforcement agents working
on the ground. And the sheriffs today I hope can give us
additional ideas so we can continue to root out the rising use
of meth. And let us make sure that we focus on our children,
our families and our communities in this whole process.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for bringing the committee here
today. I thank the community for being here and being engaged
and I appreciate the expert witnesses that we are about to hear
from. I am also grateful that my colleague just to the north of
us, Virginia Foxx, Congresswoman Foxx, who is also a first term
Member of Congress, who I have enjoyed working with during my
service both in the General Assembly in Raleigh and while in
Congress. I appreciate Virginia being here as well. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Patrick T. McHenry
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.006
Mr. Souder. As Congressman McHenry said, it is kind of like
being home in more ways than one. Not only am I a furniture
dealer, but I have a High Brighton dining room suite and High
Brighton tables in our living room and my bedroom furniture is
Broyhill, so I really do--and Hickory Tavern sofa--so I really
do feel very much at home.
Cass Ballenger was a close friend of mine and we went, when
he headed the Central American Subcommittee, we have been in
Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Venezuela multiple times and
Colombia and elsewhere and he gave one of the greatest
introductions ever to the Republican Conference when
Congresswoman Foxx was running. He introduced her as a spirited
mountain woman. So we are really glad she is here today too.
And do you have an opening statement?
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have a good memory.
I want to thank the Caldwell County Commissioners for
allowing us the have the hearing here today. I represented
Caldwell County in the State Senate for one term and I am
always happy to be in Caldwell County.
I want to thank the chairman and the vice chairman for
holding this field hearing in western North Carolina and thank
you for listening to the successes and struggles of our
communities with the scourge of methamphetamine abuse in our
great State.
Mr. Chairman, your leadership on this issue in Congress has
resulted in tremendous gains on the war on meth that have
rippled throughout the communities I represent. I am deeply
appreciative of the work you do and for the opportunity to
build on our successes with this hearing today. And I am
particularly appreciative to Congressman McHenry for inviting
us to come so close to my district here today.
And I want to thank the members of the panel for the work
that they are doing in their community, for collaborating with
the subcommittee today in this constructive dialog on how to
combat this crisis nationwide. I frankly was a little surprised
when I got to Congress to learn what a nationwide problem this
was. As a State Senator, I was quite aware of it and worked
very hard to increase the penalties for dealing in meth and for
having any involvement with it. And as the chairman mentioned,
he had heard about a bust in his district and a fire, one of
the reasons I got very involved with this was from a very
personal situation also, in Watauga County where we had a
volunteer fire department go to fight a meth fire in Deep Gap
and Darien South, who was one of those firefighters, totally
unaware of what was happening, is in the hospital now
struggling for his life. The fire department responded, they
did not know that this was a meth fire and he has lost most of
the use of his lungs, as did some others have permanent
injuries. So the people who are responsible for the meth lab
only spent 2 years in prison, but our law enforcement people
are going to spend the rest of their lives dealing with this. I
was able to get an amendment in a meth bill in North Carolina
to increase the penalties strongly for people who injure
anybody involved with law enforcement.
We had a hearing also in Washington and I was very glad, as
Congressman McHenry was, to bring one of my constituents and
community leaders, Sheriff Mark Shook from Watauga County to
that hearing. He is a leader in this area and has done
outstanding work in helping us reduce the number of meth labs
in Watauga County. We have very little crime in Watauga County
and most of it has been associated with drugs and with meth
labs. But we have made great strides and the number of labs has
gone down significantly and I am really pleased to have that.
Our law enforcement personnel have valiantly raided meth
labs and driven mass production out of our area and we have
delivered a strong blow to the supply side of the problem
locally, but without a national response, it will only drive
production of this drug elsewhere. And as the chairman pointed
out, we have to worry about the giant labs, the superlabs, but
we need to be concerned about it everywhere. The outstanding
job Sheriff Shook, Sheriff Clark and all of our sheriffs have
done in our area must be duplicated at the Federal level if we
are going to eradicate meth from our communities.
We all agree that the response to the nationwide
methamphetamine epidemic must be multi-faceted. If there were a
quick and easy fix to the problem, we would have enacted it
already, but the supply and demand intricacies are complex and
our response needs to be an all-encompassing response. Some
combination of controlling precursor chemicals, eliminating
meth smuggling from Mexico, severely punishing offenders and
empowering our law enforcement must be accomplished.
I am proud to have supported the anti-meth bills that we
have had in the Congress that have passed, and especially the
provisions in the PATRIOT Act that President Bush signed into
law on March 9th. Among other things, the law will make it more
difficult to obtain the ingredients necessary to manufacture
the drug, crack down on meth cooks, traffickers and smugglers
by strengthening Federal criminal penalties.
The challenge meth abuse poses is strong, serious and
immediate, and so too must be our response. I look forward to
receiving the testimony of our panelists and hope we can use
that feedback to create a firm legislative response to the meth
problem.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Virginia Foxx follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.009
Mr. Souder. Thank you. Before we hear testimony, we need to
take care of some committee procedural matters first. I ask
unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to
submit written statements and questions for the hearing record
and that any answers to written questions provided by the
witnesses also be included in the record. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
Second, I ask unanimous consent that all exhibits,
documents and other materials referred to by Members and
witnesses may be included in the hearing record and that all
Members be permitted to revise and extend their remarks.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Let me briefly explain to those of you who may not be
familiar with our subcommittee, a few things with procedural
matters and what we do. This is an oversight committee.
Congress is set up--and actually the oversight--the House was
set up with funding, so appropriations has always been part of
the House. The second group of committees that were established
under the Constitution were oversight committees and then third
were authorizing committees.
The way theoretically that this works is that an
authorizing committee today, for example, would pass an
education bill like No Child Left Behind, the appropriators
would fund it and then the oversight would go to Government
Reform. This committee also has oversight over education, for
example.
We have oversight over all drug issues. Now we are also
authorizing on drug issues. The drug czar office goes through
our subcommittee, the Office of National Drug Control Policy
goes through our committee as well as the Community Anti-Drug
Act. So we are unique in the sense that we are the only
committee that does oversight and authorizing on that issue.
Most people knew our committee when President Clinton was
in through a lot of the investigations we did there, on
everything from Indian gaming to Waco, to those type of things.
Today, in particular, the vice chairman and I got quite a bit
of publicity off the steroids hearings, so we do not want to
hear anybody here say ``we are not here to talk about the
past,'' because in an oversight committee, that is what we do,
we talk about the past and we try to figure out how to avoid in
the future.
We swear all of our witnesses in. The penalty for lying
under oath is death, so you just need to know that. Not really.
But we have prosecuted people for perjury--so far, not from any
of my subcommittee hearings. Mark McGwire, for example, spent 3
days trying to avoid a subpoena for the steroids hearings, went
to several cities and did not want to testify the way he did
because he knew he was under oath and that is why he did not
want to testify because he could have been prosecuted based on
some of what he said, which is why he did not want to talk
about the past.
The third thing is that we have a light system here because
we take testimony for 5 minutes. At 4 minutes, a yellow light
comes on, then red. Now we are going to do that with the
southern drawl today, so it will go a little past the 5-minutes
that we do in Washington, but roughly. You heard me go through
the procedures, all the written statements will be in the
record, anything else you want to submit, that record will be
published as a hearing book that will be one of a series of
this period. We have been doing a very thorough analysis of
methamphetamine and there will be a published book. But so we
can get to questions, if you can keep it close to that
timeframe.
Now Mr. Emerson, if you could come forth. In oversight, we
always by committee tradition, do the Federal first, because
that is our primary, is the Federal. And our first panel is Mr.
John Emerson, Assistant Special Agent-in-Charge, Charlotte
District Office of the Drug Enforcement Administration.
If you will raise your right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that the witness responded
in the affirmative.
Thank you for being with us today. As noted earlier, we
have been together in Bolivia a number of times and Cocha Bomba
and Santa Cruz and it is good to be in a place where we are
less likely to get shot at--at least hopefully--and where we
have a President different than Evo Morales. Thank you very
much for coming today and we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOHN J. EMERSON, ASSISTANT SPECIAL AGENT-IN-
CHARGE, CHARLOTTE DISTRICT OFFICE, ATLANTA FIELD DIVISION, DRUG
ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Emerson. You are welcome. Thank you.
Chairman Souder and distinguished Members of Congress,
before I start my testimony, I would like to take this moment
to thank my other distinguished law enforcement panelists for
their efforts in combating methamphetamine in western North
Carolina. Sheriff Gary Clark of Caldwell County, Sheriff Philip
Byers of Rutherford County and Assistant Special Agent-in-
Charge Van Shaw of the North Carolina State Bureau of
Investigation have been outstanding partners in this fight. It
has been my pleasure and that of my agency to work closely with
you. Thank you for your efforts.
In addition, I would also like to acknowledge the hard work
of Mrs. Gretchen Shappert, U.S. attorney for the Western
District of North Carolina and her staff of prosecutors who
have been very supportive in the prosecution of methamphetamine
lab cases.
Chairman Souder and distinguished Members of Congress, my
name is John Emerson, I am Assistant Special Agent-in-Charge of
the Drug Enforcement Administration's Charlotte District Office
in the Atlanta Field Division. On behalf of DEA Administrator
Karen Tandy, the Atlanta Field Division Special Agent-in-Charge
Sherri Strange, I appreciate your invitation to testify
regarding DEA's efforts in the North Carolina area to combat
methamphetamine.
We have witnessed a rapid evolution of methamphetamine in
North Carolina. While not new to the Atlantic southeast, we are
now finding more meth than ever before. Law enforcement has
been combating methamphetamine for well over 20 years and we
have seen first hand its devastating effects. In the Atlantic
southeast and across the Nation, we have led successful
enforcement efforts focusing on methamphetamine and its
precursor chemicals and have worked with our fellow law
enforcement partners to combat this drug. Methamphetamine found
in the United States originates from two general sources,
controlled by two distinct groups. Most of the methamphetamine
found in the United States is produced by Mexico and
California-based Mexican traffickers whose organizations
control superlabs. Current data suggests that roughly 80
percent of the methamphetamine consumed in the United States
comes from these large labs.
The second source for methamphetamine in America is 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 20 percent of the methamphetamine consumed in
America.
Methamphetamine is a significant drug threat in North
Carolina, where demand, availability and abuse remain high. The
market for methamphetamine, both in powder and crystal form, is
dominated by Mexican trafficking organizations. Small toxic
labs produce anywhere from a few grams to several ounces of
methamphetamine and they operate within this State. These labs
present unique problems for law enforcement and communities of
all sizes. The DEA, both nationally and in the Atlanta Field
Division, focuses 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 Atlanta Field Division's enforcement efforts are led by
DEA special agents and task force offices and State and local
agencies who, along with our divergent investigators and
intelligence research specialists, work to combat the drug
threats facing North Carolina. During the last year, our
efforts in North Carolina have resulted in significant
methamphetamine-related arrests, some of which occurred as part
of investigations conducted under the Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Force Program and the Priority Target
Organization Investigations Program. The western portion of
this State is a hot spot experiencing a surge in
methamphetamine trafficking, but DEA is working with other law
enforcement agencies in a campaign to fight its increased
presence.
Training is vital to all law enforcement officers involved
in this hazardous investigation and since 1998, DEA's Office of
Training has provided training to over 12,000 officers from
across the country. Since fiscal year 2002, our Office of
Training has provided clandestine laboratory training to more
than 154 officers from North Carolina.
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 companies
with specialized training and equipment to remove hazardous
waste. The DEA's hazardous waste program with the assistance of
grants to State and local law enforcement supports and funds
the cleanup of a majority of the laboratories seized in the
United States. In fiscal year 2005, the cost of administering
these cleanups was approximately $17.7 million. Through our
hazardous waste program since fiscal year 2004, DEA has
administered nearly 552 lab cleanups in North Carolina at a
cost of over $1.1 million.
The DEA is keenly aware that we must continue our fight
against methamphetamine. Nationally and within North Carolina,
we continue to fight on multiple fronts. Our enforcements are
focused against methamphetamine trafficking organizations and
those who provide precursor chemicals. We are also providing
vital training in lab cleanups to our State and local
counterparts who are outstanding partners with us in combating
this problem. Law enforcement has experienced some success in
this fight, but much work remains to be done.
Thank you for your recognition of this important issue and
the opportunity to testify here today. I will be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Emerson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.016
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much for being here and for
DEA's steady work. I have expressed a lot of frustration on the
House floor and to the individuals involved about the drug czar
office's lack of response on meth. They last week presented,
the ONDCP, to the Hill, to the meth caucus, started to present
their meth plan which they waited until we passed the bill and
then decided to come up with a plan about 5 years late. DEA, on
the ground, has been doing this, as you pointed out, for 20
years and in particular under Director Tandy has been very
aggressive. But once again, it was kind of interesting because
it appears it came from the bottom up. In other words, the DEA
offices were dealing with the meth on the ground and the
Washington headquarters was not even aware of how much DEA was
immersed in the battle on methamphetamine because this is
probably the first drug issue we saw, particularly in the small
labs, where it was coming at Washington from the grassroots
level rather than being defined as a national problem and going
back down.
A lot of States had already put in the pseudoephedrine
controls, the Federal control will not actually take effect
until I believe October 1st, although some implementation
starts to go through on June 30th on some types of drugs. Have
you started to see in the zone that you are working some drop
in the meth labs because of the feeling that there is a
tightening up, local law enforcement being more aware of it and
an increased move to crystal meth yet? Or how is it working in
this zone?
Mr. Emerson. Last year, in calendar year 2005, we saw what
we are calling like a leveling off of the labs. They were
roughly doubling each year from 1999 through 2004. They were
anticipated to go somewhere near 600 at the end of 2005. The
number was 328 and opposed to 322 the year before. So we saw
some leveling off last year.
The pseudo law that North Carolina courageously passed last
year and went into effect January 15th this year has been in
effect for almost 3 months and the Attorney General just
released information that the labs are down about 30 percent
for this first 3 months of the year as opposed to the same
period last year. So we have seen some effects, a leveling off
last year and then with the law in effect this year, a slight
decline for the first 3 months of the year.
Mr. Souder. When the pseudoephedrine law--this is just kind
of a curious question, I have no idea what--there is always a
danger in asking a question when you have no idea where this
answer is going to go. But have you seen any direction out of
either DEA or out of the drug czar's office or out of the FBI
or anybody's office, DHS at the border, that now that we are
going to do this federally on October 1st, but also that when a
State pseudoephedrine law takes effect, that there is a
strategy shift that says every other place that did a
pseudoephedrine law in the United States, that crystal meth
came in behind it within 6 months and that somehow there needs
to be an adjusting to understand who is going to supply the
meth in that region. There is no exception. In Oregon and
Washington, Hawaii that were the first States that had the big
meth problems, this happened. Oklahoma, which touted their law,
is now overrun with crystal meth and the regulation of
pseudoephedrine, while it is better for local law enforcement,
really is not better for the people who get addicted. In fact,
it is cheaper and more potent.
Is there a strategy that says when we do this, this is how
the drug dealers are going to react, and drug addicts?
Mr. Emerson. We have certainly talked about it and
certainly we have received information like that from our
headquarters about shifts in patterns and trends. We do see
that information out of headquarters. And we also, as you heard
from my testimony, believe that 80 percent of the meth that
comes into the States, including North Carolina, is from
Mexican organizations. So we are already focused on identifying
organizations, Mexican traffickers. We have been tracking them,
arresting them when we have sufficient evidence for a number of
years, and we plan to continue to do that.
But in a local sense, because the pseudo law is in effect,
both statewide and federally, we, in planning our strategy for
this coming year versus last year, I see us more working toward
the Mexicans than we did with the labs last year. We took a lot
of cases on regular local labs under Federal conspiracy laws,
especially in Rutherford and McDowell Counties, which were the
worse two counties hit by the labs. So we had a lot of emphasis
on that last year. But we do expect to see more this year
because of the pseudo laws to look at the Mexican
organizations, a couple of particular areas that we know are
hot spots for meth trafficking in the western part of the
State.
Mr. Souder. One of the things that has been unusual in meth
other than other drugs is that the mom and pop labs are not
where the traditional drug trafficking organizations have been.
In other words, if you take, in my district, Fort Wayne will
have a coke problem, will have no mom and pop labs in Allen
County except one rural town had one. Just north of it, there
was a county that is getting anywhere from 70 to 100 labs in
that county alone and yet 10 miles away, they do not have any
meth. As the pseudoephedrine law takes effect in Indiana, what
we are seeing is the crystal meth move into some of these small
towns that, generally speaking, meth has been more of a white,
blue collar drug, crystal meth has a slightly different
variation. Cocaine has been more in the urban areas and you
have got a different mix.
The question is OK, now, what do you do if in these rural
areas where you have much less law enforcement resources, much
less treatment resources, if their kind of mom and pop meth,
Nazi lab meth, turns into crystal meth, how are we going to
deal with a different mechanism. Now presumably it will still
be coming--is this your assumption, still going to come through
Charlotte or through Atlanta, Knoxville, into the mountains in
this case, even if it is going into a different population? How
do they develop a network to reach that market, because this
traditionally would not be a market that is supplied through
those organizations. That is what Oklahoma has run into and
eastern Oregon.
Mr. Emerson. The way we have done this traditionally is
keeping good relations with our State and local partners. They
see things first on the ground, the local sheriff's office, the
local police departments, they are going to see those trends
and they help us identify targets, they bring information to
us, intelligence. We have agents assigned to particular
counties and their job is to coordinate with those local law
enforcement officers to identify those trends and patterns and
identify specific traffickers that we would target then for
investigation. So I hope the answer to your question is that
through intelligence, by having our agents doing what they are
supposed to be doing out in the field, that they are going to
gather the intelligence on who those traffickers are and try to
cutoff that supply when we can.
Mr. Souder. Is there a regional DEA task force in this zone
anywhere? What is the closest, Charlotte?
Mr. Emerson. Yes there is a task force in Charlotte and
there is a task force in Asheville, the Asheville post of duty.
Mr. Souder. And are these counties included in either of
those?
Mr. Emerson. Yes. Well, not every county participates
because they do not generally have a lot of manpower and they
cannot--you have to dedicate someone full time to a task force.
But we do have agents assigned that are either part of the task
force or not part of a task force, but they have a certain
county assignment, so we would have an agent who works with,
let us say, three counties with the sheriffs' departments, the
police departments, in those counties. And his job is to be out
there working with those officers and identifying the biggest
traffickers in those particular counties and then making that
case go from a local level case to a Federal level case, so we
can take it into Federal court and have the best option for
prosecution and length of sentence.
Mr. Souder. What is the closest meth hot spots for them,
eastern Tennessee? Are there any in North Carolina?
Mr. Emerson. I do not know.
Mr. Souder. You do not know. If you do not know the answer
to the question, there probably is not one. And is the closest
HIDTA--what is the closest HIDTA?
Mr. Emerson. There's a small HIDTA in Atlanta. It is an
urban two-county HIDTA, I believe. And then Tennessee has a
couple of HIDTA offices and I believe they are a spinoff of the
Appalachian HIDTA.
Mr. Souder. So nothing in North Carolina?
Mr. Emerson. Nothing in North Carolina.
Mr. Souder. South Carolina either?
Mr. Emerson. No.
Mr. Souder. So Baltimore/Washington would be the closest to
the north and Atlanta is focused heavily on the airport and
downtown?
Mr. Emerson. That is right.
Mr. Souder. Thanks. Mr. McHenry.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The question I have for you, Mr. Emerson, you discussed the
DEA has administered 552 lab cleanups in North Carolina. Do you
see that--where do you see that trend going this year and next
year?
Mr. Emerson. Well, I think it is a little hard to say at
this point because the Federal pseudo law, as Mr. Souder
pointed out, is still going into effect, the State law just
went into effect in January. If we look at other States that
have passed the pseudo law, there has been generally a 30-40
percent reduction in labs I believe and we have already seen a
30 percent reduction more or less in the first 3 months. So we
hope this year with the aggressive prosecution federally that
we did of traffickers, of meth cooks last year, along with
enhanced North Carolina laws with increased sentencing, plus
the pseudo law, both State and Federal, that there will be a
reduction this year. Obviously we will not know that until the
end of the year. But we hope that is the direction that the
small toxic labs are going.
Mr. McHenry. Now you also mentioned the clandestine
laboratory training that you provide to local law enforcement.
I know some of our sheriffs' departments have taken advantage
of that, not out of want but out of need and necessity. Where
do you see this training going?
Mr. Emerson. I see more classes coming out of Quantico. I
think we have teletypes in now for three more classes very
rapidly, May, June, and July, I believe there are new classes.
And we have a certain amount of slots in the Atlanta Field
Division for local officers to go, State and local officers, to
go to those classes. It seems to me that the amount of classes
increased this year from last year, from what I can tell.
Mr. McHenry. Part of the question I have from local law
enforcement on a frequent basis, and I had a conversation to
this effect with a sheriff in my district, was the staffing
levels for the lab cleanups. It is just very difficult because
of the size of North Carolina, the number of cleanups you have
to administer, to get a very quick turnaround time for lab
cleanup. So oftentimes you have to have a sheriff's deputy
posted at a lab for 24 or 48 hours, 72 hours, just to make sure
no one enters the lab. Where do you see the staffing levels go
for this, and their response time?
Mr. Emerson. Well, actually, with that program, DEA just
administers the funds. The protocol in this State is the State
Bureau of Investigation is the primary agency that responds to
the lab, they are a great team, they have been around for
years, they are well-equipped. They are the team that responds.
Although DEA has people to do that, the protocol in this State
has always been that SBI does that and it does such a great
job, it is a big advantage for us. But then, through the COPS
funds, private contractors come out and actually do the
cleanup. So that is not a staffing issue for us. That is done
through those contracts.
But the container program that has been established in
Kentucky, which I believe is spreading through a number of
other States, is a goal to help reduce that amount of time.
Whereas certified law enforcement officers would go to the
scene, clean up whatever evidence there is of the lab there,
bring it to a container and that would happen in a short period
of time and then the contractor would go to the container and
pick up the waste and then dispose of it within a week's time.
So that is DEA's goal, is to move that, to cut down that time
period by spreading this container program and the costs are
much more reduced that way. The average cost of a lab cleanup
nationwide is $1,900 per lab. With the container program, it is
$350 per lab. So that is the way DEA is looking to try to
reduce that time and save money.
Mr. McHenry. When do you see that coming to North Carolina?
Mr. Emerson. North Carolina is one of the States slated for
it. The timeframe I am not sure of, but I saw that they are on
the list for a visit to present the program in North Carolina.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you. And thank you for coming and thank
you for your testimony.
Mr. Emerson. You are welcome, thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. Ms. Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. Last summer, the DEA concluded Operation
Wildfire, which is described as the largest national law
enforcement operation to target meth manufacturing and
distribution to date. Can you tell us what the impact was in
North Carolina? Did the operation meet its goals and what were
some of the lessons that we learned from that?
Mr. Emerson. Yes, ma'am. We were certainly, I think for
those days, were more successful than we had planned. We had a
number of targets that we were interested in. We went to our
State and local counterparts looking for targets, people that
had been involved in meth-related crimes, especially repeat
offenders. Our goal was to have some impact to find labs and
to--primarily find labs and to arrest people that there were
warrants out for, to find out if there were any children in
homes where meth was being cooked. So it was a surge operation
to try to have some impact for a period of time in the western
part of the State. I think we involved some 15 counties, other
Federal agencies, Probation and Parole, Department of Social
Services. We arrested 70 people in about a 3-day period, which
was the highest number anywhere in the country of the 427
arrests that took place nationally.
So for that short period of time, I think it was an impact.
We got a number of people off the street, especially some
repeat offenders. Long-term, I am not sure if there was any
really long-term impact from that, but at the time, we seized
six labs, we seized about 64 grams of methamphetamine, I think
30 guns, some cash. So there was some impact for a period of
time.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Emerson. You are welcome.
Mr. Souder. I had a few followup questions.
Are the main trafficking organizations, is the pattern
coming from--is the primary point across the Mexican border or
up through Florida here?
Mr. Emerson. The Mexican border.
Mr. Souder. Laredo, El Paso, or Arizona, more to the
southeast?
Mr. Emerson. We have cases with Tucson, Phoenix, but
primarily McAllen, Laredo are probably our biggest, but we have
seen from Arizona and actually Los Angeles has been very active
lately.
Mr. Souder. Do you see anything in this region coming from
the Tri-Cities area or Washington State or where it goes up and
across?
Mr. Emerson. No, sir.
Mr. Souder. Is it mostly Mexican or is it Central American
as well?
Mr. Emerson. Mostly Mexican.
Mr. Souder. Any signs out of Charlotte in this region of
the Salvadoran gang distribution or you do not have as much----
Mr. Emerson. There is MS-13 presence in Charlotte and some
other gangs and they are involved in drug trafficking, but we
see much more street level and we have not really gotten
involved in that that much, with so many other priorities on
larger Mexican trafficking organizations that have moved into
North Carolina. But there is gang activity for sure in
Charlotte.
Mr. Souder. And have you seen any sign of meth moving into
the African-American population in North Carolina?
Mr. Emerson. I have heard of it, but we have not seen it
that much as far as cases and arrests. But we have heard about
it. But we do not see it as any growing trend at this point.
Mr. Souder. Are there any tensions between where the
Mexican trafficking organizations are hitting the African-
American trafficking organizations that traditionally have had
cocaine?
Mr. Emerson. We have not seen that at the wholesale level.
The Mexicans dominate the trafficking situation here.
Mr. Souder. There is a mythology developing that the
African-American population will not use meth. But in
Minneapolis in one of our hearings, we heard that in one
neighborhood, the African-American trafficking organizations
started selling meth and within 3 months, 20 percent of the
addicts in Minnesota, Minneapolis, were African-American meth
addicts and it was just one neighborhood of the city. It had
spread faster than crack. And it is something we are watching
very closely because if crystal meth substitutes for cocaine,
we just are not ready to handle it. And when it hits an urban
area--because traditionally this has been more of a rural
problem--in St. Paul, on the other side, which was a totally
different thing in the Minnesota hearing--in St. Paul, the
number of kids in child custody went from zero to 90 percent
with meth addicts' kids with no labs, no labs at all, it was
all crystal meth--90 percent in 6 months when it hit the city,
much like the way crack takes over a city.
Omaha, I believe, and there is a little bit at the edge of
Detroit, but very little even crystal meth in most cities. Is
that true here too? Even in the crystal meth, does it tend to
be out from the major cities a little bit more?
Mr. Emerson. Meth is definitely our biggest problem in the
rural areas, but there is no doubt, there is a good
availability of meth in the urban areas of Charlotte
particularly, more than other parts of the State or the bigger
cities in the State. We see more meth coming into Charlotte. We
still see that though with Caucasians mostly, the meth use. We
have not seen that hit--there is a steady supply of cocaine
that comes in here through Mexican traffickers, so there is
still a good supply of cocaine coming in unfortunately for the
Charlotte area and other bigger cities in North Carolina.
Mr. Souder. Winston-Salem and Raleigh?
Mr. Emerson. Cocaine is primarily what we seize.
Mr. Souder. And what about on college campuses, have you
seen any crystal meth around the college campuses?
Mr. Emerson. Some, but again, we do not really deal that
much at the retail level, so I cannot answer that question for
you completely. We hear more about Ecstasy and marijuana on the
college scene than we do with meth, but certainly, as you know,
meth knows no bounds. So it is there, we just do not see it at
a level that has come to our attention.
Mr. Souder. Two weeks ago, the New York Times reported
that--which we had been picking up at the edges of our
hearings--that on the Indian Reservations in America and the
Indian Nations, at least west of the Mississippi, meth has
replaced alcohol as the No. 1 problem, which historically has
been the problem. It has devastated in Arizona, Montana, upper
Dakotas, just overwhelmed even the alcohol problem. Have you
seen any of that in Cherokee or any of the Indian Nations here?
Mr. Emerson. Meth is a problem on the reservation and we
have met with Chief Hicks of the Cherokee Tribe and after
meeting with them and their officers there, I think we have a
consensus on the source of that meth. And instead of trying to
work on that reservation at the retail level, we are familiar
with the sources for the meth coming to the reservation and we
have plans to work those cases.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Any other questions?
Ms. Foxx. I have one more question.
There is a lot in the news in the last few days about
immigration and particularly illegal immigration. The journey
from Mexico to North Carolina is a long one, especially for
somebody with illegal drugs and probably someone who is coming
here illegally. Do you have any suggestions on what we could do
to interdict meth traveling from Mexico to North Carolina?
Mr. Emerson. Certainly the more intelligence we have, the
better off we are going to be. The best cases are always
derived from the best intelligence. So any way that we can
develop more intelligence, we are trying to do that all the
time through all the sources and means that we have and working
with our State and local partners. Certainly if there is any
suggestion, the State and local interdiction teams on the
highways have been a great asset to us, not only for
interdicting drugs coming northbound, but money going
southbound. But the intelligence that we derive to initiate
Federal investigations or we see that there are ties into other
ongoing nationwide or even global investigations has been a
great help to us.
So certainly I think any help that could be done for
improving the interdiction team situation would be a great help
for us and for other States.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Well, the good news is we are going to have the
southwest border controlled in the next 60 days or so.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Emerson. That is good news.
Mr. Souder. Thank you for your testimony. We may have a few
more written questions, but appreciate your leadership and work
in this area.
Mr. Emerson. Thank you very much.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. If the second panel could now come forward. Mr.
Gaither, Mr. Shaw, Sheriff Clark, Sheriff Byers, Ms. Vasquez.
If you would remain standing while I give you the oath.
Please raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that each of the witnesses
responded in the affirmative. I will now yield to Mr. McHenry
for the introductions.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly
appreciate the distinguished panel we have here today, and in
order of testimony, I will introduce the distinguished panel
that we have put together here for the committee's attention.
First, we have James C. ``Jay'' Gaither, Jr., the District
Attorney for the 25th Prosecutorial District--that is a
mouthful--encompassing Burke, Caldwell and Catawba Counties, a
resident of Catawba County.
Jay graduated from Davidson College with a undergraduate
degree, then graduated from law school from California Western.
Has had extensive prosecutorial experience as well as law
experience. In 2002, he was elected district attorney.
Mr. Gaither and his wife Beth live in Hickory and have four
children.
In 2005, Mr Gaither was successful in drafting and helping
pass Rachel's Law which increased the punishment for shooting
into occupied dwellings and vehicles, an incident that involved
someone that Mr. Gaither had been involved in helping their
family.
So thank you for being here, Jay.
Mr. Gaither. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. McHenry. Next testimony will be from Mr. Van Shaw from
the State Bureau of Investigation, he's the Assistant Special
Agent-in-Charge. He has worked for the SBI for 19 years,
including the last 4 as clandestine laboratory response unit
supervisor. He helped initiate the Drug-Endangered Children
Program and also in the State of North Carolina pseudoephedrine
restrictions and increased penalties for meth production.
Thank you, Mr. Shaw, for being here.
Next, we have Sheriff Gary Clark, our host here today, with
22 years of law enforcement experience here in Lenoir. He was
elected sheriff in 2002. He has gone on to be involved in a
number of meth lab seizures, has been a real innovator in this
area of law enforcement.
He is also a graduate of Law Enforcement Executive Training
from UNC-Chapel Hill and he has over 4,000 hours of training in
law enforcement.
Thank you, Mr. Clark, for being here.
Finally, we have Sheriff C. Philip Byers. Philip is the
sheriff since January of this year in Rutherford County. Before
that, he served for 15 years with law enforcement service and
experience, including the previous 4 as chief deputy of
Rutherford County.
He has an undergraduate degree from Appalachian State
University and he has a masters of public administration from
Western North Carolina University.
He and his wife, Sheila, reside in Rutherford County.
Finally, our last witness of the day, Ms. Lynne Vasquez.
She has a personal story to tell of her son Chad, who got mixed
up in meth, and because of that is now serving a sentence in
jail. And Ms. Vasquez has been a wonderful grandmother to her
two grandchildren and has since adopted them and taken custody
of these two grandchildren. She is going to tell a personal
story today of how meth has affected her family. And this is a
story that, Ms. Vasquez, unfortunately other people have the
same story that you have. But I appreciate you being willing
enough to be here today to tell the public what you have faced
and how meth harms families, what it does to individuals. I am
sure your son was a good young man and just got messed up in
horrible, horrible, destructive drugs that just took hold of
this fine young man.
I appreciate you being here and being willing to testify.
Thank you, Lynne.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Souder. Well, our first witness is Mr. Gaither, and the
Indiana Gaithers would sing their testimony. We would
appreciate it if you just would state it rather than sing it.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENTS OF JAMES C. GAITHER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 25TH
PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA; VAN SHAW, SPECIAL
AGENT, NORTH CAROLINA STATE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
CLANDESTINE LABS RESPONSE PROGRAM; GARY CLARK, SHERIFF,
CALDWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA; C. PHILIP BYERS, SHERIFF,
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA; AND LYNNE VASQUEZ, MOTHER OF
CONVICTED METH DEALER AND ADDICT
STATEMENT OF JAMES C. GAITHER
Mr. Gaither. Thank you, Chairman Souder. The information
that the Gaithers were based in Indiana was not known to me. I
knew they were from Tennessee and I do claim kinship. As long
as they do not deny it, I will claim it. They are a great name
to share.
I am Jay Gaither, the District Attorney for the 25th,
Burke, Caldwell and Catawba County.
I want to thank Congressman Patrick McHenry for his concern
regarding the methamphetamine epidemic in our counties and
thank the Congressman for your part in introducing and passing
new Federal laws protecting children threatened by the
manufacture of this awful substance, and thank you for drawing
attention to the growing crisis in our communities by calling
this hearing today.
Chairman Souder, thank you for traveling from Indiana, this
week in particular, where a lot of people like to be at home
with their families. We appreciate you being here in North
Carolina.
Congresswoman Foxx, when you were a State Senator, I recall
when I would send you e-mails concerning issues regarding the
drug trade in North Carolina, I could not hardly get up from my
desk but that I had a response. You are one of the most
responsive elected officials I have ever known and it is good
to see you again. I have not seen you since you have been
elected. Congratulations.
As a State prosecutor now for 3 years, one of the first
things I realized was the quick response of the Federal
Government far outpaced the State's abilities. The ability for
the Federal Government to apprehend and incarcerate these
individuals who manufacture and traffick methamphetamine was
impressed upon me immediately. I met with Gretchen Shappert
within the first month after my election and since that time
have been working closely with the Federal Government and am in
awe of the men and women who put their lives on the line for
the State of North Carolina and for the U.S. Government here in
western North Carolina. It has been a privilege to work with
each and every one of them and to watch how they work with my
local law enforcement.
At the same time, North Carolina cannot abdicate its
responsibilities, should not in my opinion be taking the
relatively light steps that we are taking to address this
epidemic. The punishment for selling and delivering
methamphetamines or for possessing methamphetamines is woefully
weak here in North Carolina. We need new prisons and we need
tougher laws.
Probably the most important thing that can be addressed
resources wise, and it has already been touched on, is the lab
issue in the State of North Carolina. Our State Bureau of
Investigation's lab is woefully under-funded; 9 months to 12
months is how long we have to wait in order to get a lab report
back. The biggest problem for me there as a prosecutor is until
I get that lab report back, my prosecution summary is not
complete and I cannot go forward with a prosecution.
Oftentimes, these individuals are arrested in our
communities and then they are released back into the community.
The impression that people get is that they have been released
and are not going to be prosecuted. For 9, 10, 11, 12 months,
they continue to trade in drugs and they continue to flaunt our
laws with no apparent repercussions for the arrest that has
been made by the Sheriff's Department and the task force. And
that just increases, I think, the likelihood of further
criminal activity and the likelihood that our laws will be
taken lightly when people are out there who have been arrested
but not yet capable of prosecution because of the shortage of
funding for the labs and the slow time that--or the long time
that we have to wait for that SBI lab report to come back. We
need increased funding for the lab and for law enforcement.
The final thing I want to talk about is my desire to see
good things come out of this hearing today and also for local
and State government to start looking at public safety, what I
consider the third leg of the future of our economic
prosperity. Schools and roads receive a lot of the funding,
they also receive a lot of the attention. Public safety I
believe is sometimes not focused on as a positive. I would like
western North Carolina to go the further step rather than being
in a defensive, to be in an aggressive, proactive posture where
we can boast to other States and to other regions, listen, we
have one of the safest communities--well, since we are in
western North Carolina--in North Carolina and one of the safest
States in the country.
So this is my perspective on the total picture of drug
trade and specifically here on meth. Thank you for inviting me
and I look forward to answering your questions.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
Mr. Shaw.
STATEMENT OF VAN W. SHAW
Mr. Shaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members.
The State of North Carolina has seen the abuse of
methamphetamine rise dramatically during the past 5 years. The
number of methamphetamine laboratories, chemical and glassware
seizures and related dump sites have nearly doubled every year
from a total of 34 in 2001 to 322 in 2004. Through the hard
work of the North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, the
North Carolina Department of Justice, State Bureau of
Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration and numerous
local law enforcement agencies, we have begun to see a decrease
in the number of laboratory seizures across the State.
The enhancement of methamphetamine manufacturing laws and
restrictions on the sale of pseudoephedrine have been
instrumental in bringing about this decline. The trafficking of
methamphetamine by Mexican national drug organizations still
remains a significant problem, and trends suggest that it will
only increase in an effort to fill the demand for
methamphetamine that is no longer being produced domestically.
The North Carolina Department of Justice, in conjunction
with the State Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement
Administration are formulating a Methamphetamine Trafficking
Task Force that will seek to combat the flood of
methamphetamine into western North Carolina. This task force
will be modeled after the highly successful south and eastern
Tennessee methamphetamine task force which has received Federal
funding for its operation.
The task force seeks to organize local, State and Federal
law enforcement efforts and methamphetamine trafficking
investigation to maximize productivity and the utilization of
funding. This task force would provide overtime funding to
local law enforcement agencies, training for law enforcement
officers, public education programs and drug intelligence
dissemination throughout the State. Efforts would also be
coordinated in the area of enforcing pseudoephedrine laws to
ensure the continued decline of methamphetamine laboratories.
Federal funding of this task force would provide the financial
foundation to ensure its success in slowing the flow of
methamphetamine into North Carolina.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
Sheriff Clark.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shaw follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.017
STATEMENT OF SHERIFF GARY CLARK
Mr. Clark. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
Members of Congress, colleagues, guests and visitors. Welcome
to Caldwell County.
My name is Gary Clark, I am the sheriff of Caldwell County.
Caldwell County is a semi-rural area consisting of a population
of approximately 77,000 people. The primary industry in this
county is furniture-based. However, with this industry quickly
disappearing due to overseas manufacturing and the unemployment
rate climbing, we are seeing a frightening increase in the
production, sale, distribution and use of methamphetamine.
Known as crystal meth or ice, methamphetamine is an illegal
narcotic that can be easily manufactured using recipes found on
the Internet, raw materials readily available from the corner
pharmacy, convenience store or the local hardware store. It is
manufactured in makeshift labs that can fit into the trunk of a
car or a duffel bag. The ease of production and relatively low
cost of raw materials make it an illegal product for an
industry that is driven by one motive, which is greed. The
manufacturing process itself raises other serious concerns in
that it produces toxic byproducts that pose serious
environmental concerns. The process itself is highly volatile.
Explosion and fire are common with illegal meth labs.
Manufacturing meth involves a variety of toxic and explosive
chemicals, solvents, metals, salts and corrosives.
The drug also poses a serious threat to children. Seventy-
five percent of meth lab seizures in Caldwell County occurred
at sites where children live of play. One such example in our
county was in fact a day care for preschool children.
Meth attacks and breaks down all social barriers. We have
found in Caldwell County that there is a direct correlation to
meth and increases in violent and property crimes, computer
crimes, identity theft and child neglect. I am sure that each
person here today has their own personal horror story
concerning meth addiction and abuse, but we are here for
possible solutions.
Limited manpower is the No. 1 issue facing law enforcement
in Caldwell County in keeping up with the growing number of
clandestine labs and dealers. If a lab is found in our county,
we sometimes have to wait hours or days due to limited number
of State cleanup teams with those teams being stretched so thin
across western North Carolina counties.
We have made great strides in combating this epidemic by
stiffening laws and limiting accessibility of over-the-counter
medications used for meth production. However, I believe that
in order to effectively combat this problem, Federal, State and
local law enforcement must come together to form task forces
throughout the State. This would enable Caldwell County and
other smaller jurisdictions with limited resources to address
problems as they arise, as opposed to prioritizing problems
based on severity.
Although we have somewhat inhibited the production of meth
in the States, we must continue to look for ways to stop its
transportation into our country through more aggressive
interdiction and maximum penalties for those responsible for
this type of violation.
The scope of drug awareness and resistance education must
continue for our children and must be broadened into the high
school levels where the greatest potential for abuse exists.
Education, I believe, is the No. 1 weapon in addressing any
problem.
We should also address the abuser after rehabilitation. The
limited number of centers designed to deal with this type of
abuse and their easy accessibility are crucial in order to
prevent a relapse of abuse.
The solution to this epidemic, as with any other epidemic,
comes with a price. In order for these things to come to
fruition, our representatives will have to find ways to funnel
resources to Federal, State and local municipalities and
continue to take a proactive approach.
I appreciate you, our representatives, taking the time to
listen and I hope by informative sessions like this, we can
help raise awareness about this issue and encourage all
citizens to get involved in its prevention.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Sheriff Byers, good to see you again.
[The prepared statement of Sheriff Clark follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.018
STATEMENT OF SHERIFF C. PHILIP BYERS
Mr. Byers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The last time I was before this honorable committee and its
members, you informed me I was sitting in a chair that Sammy
Sosa had sat in a few days before when he was before your
committee. I am not sure who has been in this one, but I am
still honored to be before you today. Congressmen,
Congresswoman, thank you so much for being here.
On July 26, 2005, I had the privilege of addressing the
members of this Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy,
and Human Resources. During the testimony, I made several
recommendations to include: Restricting the sale of
pseudoephedrine products nationally; tightening the Mexican
border to help prevent traffickers from entering the United
States; longer prison sentences for traffickers and
methamphetamine producers and anyone who involved children in
the trade or allowed children to reside in a home used for meth
production; address pseudoephedrine black market, Canada and
China being two of those; funding for interstate drug and
criminal interdiction teams; and continue to prosecute
methamphetamine cases in Federal court, due to the longer
sentences.
We also discussed the fact that working with mental health
care providers would be necessary for a recovery and treatment
plan for those who were addicted.
With the passing of the Patriot Act legislation earlier
this year, the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005
became law and provided the following, or will provide the
following as of October: Restricts the sale of medicines
containing pseudoephedrine; creates a DEA classification for
meth precursors; provides $99 million a year for the next 5
years for Meth Hot Spots Program which will train local and
State law enforcement and also assist in investigating and
locking up meth offenders; requires new reporting and
certification procedures for the exporting and importing of
pseudoephedrine products into this country; provides $20
million in funding in 2006 and 2007 for the drug endangered
children response teams to promote work with Federal, State and
local agencies; requires reports to Congress on designations of
byproducts of meth labs; and enhances criminal penalties for
meth production and trafficking.
As a result of the passing of the Combat Methamphetamine
Epidemic Act of 2005 and the North Carolina Methamphetamine Lab
Prevention Act of 2005, we have already witnessed a reduction
in meth labs in western North Carolina. During the month of
March 2006, 14 labs were discovered in North Carolina, compared
to 40 in March 2005. And 33 labs in March 2004. First quarter
lab seizures for North Carolina compares as follows: 2006, 73
labs for the first 3 months of the year; 2005, we had 108;
2004, for the same period of time, 81 labs.
Methamphetamine lab responses in western North Carolina in
2006 through March 31st by county: Unfortunately Rutherford
reports 14; McDowell, 12; Madison, 2; Haywood, 2; Watauga, 1;
Mitchell and Jackson both, 1 lab.
We are beginning to experience limited success in fighting
local meth labs, but the overall methamphetamine trafficking
and addiction problem continues to grow. In Rutherford County,
we have fewer meth labs, but increased methamphetamine
trafficking and addiction. The majority of methamphetamine, or
ice if you will, that we seize today is smuggled into this
country from Mexico. The methamphetamine or ice that comes from
Mexican superlabs is very potent and leads our users to a new
level of addiction. As we continue to fight methamphetamine and
the epidemic in this country, I once again wish to share my
suggestions and recommendations to this committee.
First, we must tighten and control the Mexican border and
reduce the amount of ice coming into this country from Mexico.
Second, we must continue to work with our Federal
prosecutors to prosecute meth manufacturers and trafficking
cases as the sentences are much longer.
We must continue funding interstate drug and criminal
interdiction teams.
Work and provide additional funding for mental health care
providers to develop a solid treatment and recovery plan. That
is necessary.
And we also in North Carolina, along with John Emerson and
Van Shaw, who I must say have been tremendous, without their
help, we would not have survived the meth epidemic in
Rutherford County. I thank them both here before this
committee. We are working to get funds for the North Carolina
Statewide Methamphetamine Task Force.
What we are seeing, if you look on a map, there are still a
lot of counties in North Carolina, basically half the counties,
with zero meth labs. We want it to stay that way. But if we do
not work with those counties to let them know what is coming,
then they will be much like we were in western North Carolina
several years ago. We were not prepared, and they will not be
prepared. So we hope we can get funding for that statewide task
force.
This information is based on my experience in dealing with
meth labs and struggles that I have witnessed. I hope a small
portion of this information will help to develop a better
system of fighting what continues to negatively impact local
governments in western North Carolina.
I thank you for the work that you have done and continue to
do, and will be happy to address any questions.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Ms. Vasquez, you are batting cleanup today. Thank you for
being with us and being willing to share your testimony and you
will have as much time as you need.
[The prepared statement of Sheriff Byers follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.020
STATEMENT OF LYNNE STARR-VASQUEZ
Ms. Vasquez. I think I am somewhat the opposition here.
Thank you for having me.
I am the mother of a 25-year-old sentenced on January 5th
in Federal court--thank you, Jesus, for Federal court--for
methamphetamine use, abuse and manufacture.
If I had anything to say that would be most important to me
and my family and what we have experienced over the past 3,
3\1/2\ years, it would be time. Time has been a real element
for us.
It was a year and a half after I turned my son in--I turned
him in myself, and it was a year and a half after I turned him
in before he got on the hot list that I could see, where they
really pressured him. I have not done this without--I said I
was going to be OK. I have not done this alone and I had the
best backup that I could possibly have. I fought for my
grandbaby, I fought for him over a year before I got him. I
have no idea what he has been in, I do not know what he has
seen, I do not know if he has been contaminated. But I got him,
took me a long time to get him.
It is hard when you watch your child die, and that is what
I was doing. And if I had steps to make over again, I would
probably do the same thing that I did before. I called and I
called and probably a lot at the Sheriff's Department think I
am just crazy, you know, because I called them so much. And
after I got that baby, in the morning, when I made sure he had
his security blanket to go to school, I made sure I had my
security blanket, which was the business card of this man that
sits to the right of me. Never one time have I called him that
he has not called me back and I really appreciate that--I
really do.
I really appreciate getting on a first name basis with the
narcotics agents in Rutherford County. I wanted them to do it
quicker because I was losing him, and for every day that I went
and I turned the key, I did not know if that was going to be
the day that he was not alive. He got down at one time to 139
pounds. My son is a very handsome man, normal weight maybe 222,
something like that. A long time to get him where he needed to
be, a long time for them to do their job. Time is important
here.
I say time, time over and over again. They indicted him
into Federal court on December 17th, and attached to my papers,
I have a picture of him 1 month before he was indicted. On the
night that Detective Will Sisk, December 16th, he met me at the
courthouse and my son turned himself in. I had not seen him in
awhile, just talked to him on the phone, and I did not realize
that his body was gone, he was deteriorating. I do not know how
much he weighed, but his skeleton was all I could feel when he
went to kiss me goodbye.
These people have stuck with me through all of this and
when I called and I cried and asked for help, they were there.
But they could not move up the time. They processed him and
they put him under house arrest December 17th. They sent me
home from Federal court without a support system. There was no
counseling for him, there was nowhere for me to take him.
I have laid and held my son and I have watched him cry and
beg, I have watched him have seizures, I have called the
hospital and they told me he is playing with you, it has been
too long. I have taken him to as many as three hospitals in a
night and when I finally found somebody, all the way down in
Kings Mountain, they said he needed just something for his
nerves and let him sleep. He had an allergic reaction and by
the time I got back into Rutherford County, he had stopped
breathing. Back into Cleveland County and they adrenalined him
and I thought I was losing him.
I went through all these things for almost 4 months and
then it started to lift off and he fought to be clean, he
really fought to be clean. But he did not fight long and hard
enough because it had him.
Over and over, I talk about Will Sisk because Rutherford
County is a big county, but he got personal with me and I know
he had a job and I know he has got a lot of jobs, but I would
call Will and I would tell him, Will, Chad is using again, put
the heat on him and Will would show up. He would talk to him,
he would let him know I am here, he befriended Chad. And I
think with the help of some of these things, I did not lose him
all the way.
Struggling to stay clean is hard. The Federal court set him
up with counseling agencies, counseling agencies turned down
the contracts. He would go to another counseling agency, they
would keep him in a week or two, they turned down the contract.
They would withdraw contracts, one place to another to another
and time goes on.
He got straight through the summer last year. He had a baby
born and I thought that he was going to be OK after she was
born because methamphetamine took everything from my son. He
lost his home, his car, his wife, his children. And he had no
reason--he had no reason to keep going and he had a little girl
July last year. And he had a reason to fight for the first time
in almost 4 years. And she passed away on October 29th. And my
son fell harder than he had ever fell before and I was back to
the phone calls.
These people have stood by me and they have helped me. But
they did not do it quick enough. The law process is not quick
enough. Getting my children, my grandbabies out of danger was
not quick enough. I needed them home with me when their mom and
dad first started using. I did not get it, I had to fight.
There was nowhere for me to go, when I had used all money to
take care of legal expenses and bail him out of jail, and that
is what a mom does to start with. Unfortunately some of them do
it continuously.
I did not have the money to go get an attorney to get my
grandchildren. I did not have the money. I finally found an
attorney in Rutherford County and I owe that man today, but he
got my kids. DSS did not have a part in it. Not even when my
son and his wife sat in the Rutherford County jail for a full
blown meth lab in their home, guilt or innocence is irrelevant
when they sit in the county jail accused, DSS still would not
help me.
We need help. We need to target--I feel we need to target
people who have not used, because people that have used, they
know. We need to talk to mothers and tell them the hardest
thing that you will ever do in your life is go on a back street
somewhere behind a church and talk to the SBI and tell them
come and get your child--it is hard, but we have a choice, we
have a choice. If we turn our back, we are going to watch them
die. We turn them in and maybe they will have a chance to live.
And I know what the percentage rates of recovery are.
I thank these people here for being with me, for sticking
with me for all those calls. It has been a long, hard road--a
long road. He is in a U.S. Penitentiary in Atlanta, GA today. I
have not talked to him in almost 3 weeks. You know, there is
something different about me and my son, bad, good or
indifferent, he tells his momma what is going on. This is why
Detective Sisk helped me. And I remember always, I remember. Go
get your baby, he will come home.
They have cut me off from him, and every day a part of me
is gone, every day. Every day a part of him is gone. Thirty
days does not seem like a long time, it is a real long time to
an addict. It is a real long time when you have lost everything
that you had and then you are losing everything else. It is a
real long time.
So anything and everything I could tell you would come back
to the same thing. It is time. We need to change the time
elements, time is what we are working with from the beginning
to the end. I almost lost my son, but I did not.
I am a student at the University of South Carolina and for
almost 2 years, I pull up into that parking lot and I step out
of my car and I say OK, God, you got it, because I cannot carry
this no more. And through the grace of God and these people
that are here today, they got him and he is alive.
And that is all I have to say.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Vasquez follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526.033
Mr. Souder. Thank you all for your testimony and for all
the testimony. It is really hard when it is that personal, but
we appreciate it very much.
Mr. Gaither, if I could followup on one of the points you
made relating to time, and that is getting the lab reports
back. Mr. Shaw, maybe you could address this too.
Who do you send the lab reports to in North Carolina? What
is the process that it goes through?
Mr. Gaither. Law enforcement--I am sorry, can you hear me?
Mr. Souder. Yes.
Mr. Gaither. Gary Clark, law enforcement, collects the
items, sends them to the State Bureau of Investigation and they
send the results back to myself and also a copy to the law
enforcement agency making the arrest.
Mr. Souder. And is this--by the way, this is true in every
State, it is not just North Carolina that is having this
problem. I do not mean to imply it is just North Carolina, but
this is not something we traditionally talk about and yet it is
happening. In my home State, they are saying that they will
release, and often they will be up for their third meth lab by
the time they are prosecuted for the first meth lab.
Is meth different than other drugs? Does it take longer
than other drugs? Or is this a problem regardless of what you
are prosecuting somebody for?
Mr. Gaither. Let me defer that to the agent, if you do not
mind, as far as the difference that the lab might have in
assessing one drug over the other.
Mr. Shaw. Well, exactly as you stated, the backlog has
existed in the laboratory for a number of years, much like it
does in other States. The problem is attrition, the number of
cases that are coming in and continue to increase.
What has compounded this is that the processing of a
methamphetamine lab manufacturing case takes approximate 50 to
60 hours of analysis in the laboratory. So that agent is doing
that analysis for practically 1 whole week plus overtime. So
you can see, as those numbers increase, it is going to decrease
the number of cocaine cases, meth cases, trafficking cases,
everything else down the line because they are now doing
something that 4 and 5 years ago was very rare for us to do.
Mr. Souder. Could you explain why that takes so much longer
in a meth case?
Mr. Shaw. When you go to a methamphetamine laboratory, you
are taking samples of all the unknown liquids, violator liquids
that are present and part of the manufacturing process. And
because most of those are in 2-liter bottles, mason jars,
containers that they are not supposed to be in, you cannot just
look at it and say I know exactly what that is. So the chemist
actually draws samples. Those samples are then transported back
to the laboratory and analysis is done on each and every sample
to tell what it is, what part of the manufacturing process it
is and also, obviously, the presence of methamphetamine and
what State it is in. So there is a lot of analysis and
identification that goes on to make the manufacturing case.
It is further complicated by the fact that we take each and
every drug laboratory that we process and we process it to the
Federal prosecution standard with theoretical yields,
quantitative and qualitative analysis, which is used in Federal
court that may or may not be used in State court. A lot of
times we do not know whether the case is going to State or
Federal court when we are processing the scene. So we do add a
little bit of time onto that but it has paid great dividends
when it comes down to prosecution time and the Federal
prosecutor wants to go back and pick up multiple cases. And it
has prevented us from having to go back and redo those cases.
So it has caused a significant backlog in our laboratory in
addition to what already existed.
Mr. Souder. Is this because they are household chemicals
that would be legal unless they are used in certain mixes and
combinations?
Mr. Shaw. Exactly. And just having that identification, and
not only that, what type of role that household chemical plays
in the reaction to get the manufacturing because in almost
every trial, you are educating that jury and the more
information that can be provided to have someone understand why
hydrogen peroxide, which is an everyday item we all have, is a
component of meth manufacturing and having that in conjunction
with other things is critical to the case.
Mr. Souder. And does this become even more difficult--you
have a law in North Carolina I presume, based on some of the
prosecutions, that you do not actually have to find the meth at
the place, it can be a prospective lab or a retrospective lab,
which means that you would have to establish different lines of
criminal evidence than if you had the cocaine and meth there.
Mr. Shaw. Right, we do have the manufacturing charge as
well as the possession charge and we are prosecuting cases when
there is not meth on the table, but there are the elements
there that suggest manufacturing as well as we have a precursor
State law, that if they just possess a few chemicals but we
know they are associated with it.
Mr. Souder. What in the legal sense could we do that would
shorten the evidential proof process and still make it stand up
in court? Because this is an incredible problem, if it is 50
hours compared to just a little. There is not enough money in
the United States as this problem expands to try to address
this problem, yet we are putting the meth people right back out
on the street because we do not have the evidential chain. Is
there anything that you could see that could establish a
shortening of that process?
Mr. Shaw. Well, I think one of the things that is happening
is that we are seeing more and more prosecution, both at State
and Federal level. It is like any new problem. This one is so
scientific in nature, quite frankly, many of the assistants and
district attorneys, when their first case came up, they were
not sure how to try it. And understandably so, much like law
enforcement was not sure how to investigate it.
There has been a learning curve, and we are even doing that
in some of our analysis in what we can shorten up and what we
cannot. I am not sure procedurally how we can alter that
process to bring a good case into court and not lose it but
also try and save some time, other than continue to train
people, you know, continue to offer things that would enhance
everyone's understanding and hopefully expedite the case
through the system.
Mr. Souder. I want to make sure I understood something you
said there. Does it take as long today to develop that as it
did when you first got exposed to these cases? In other words,
does experience in fact reduce the amount of time?
Mr. Shaw. Yes, it does; it does in a number of areas. When
we were responding initially to 100 labs a year, we and
ourselves as an agency were in a learning process and we were
spending 8-10 hours at a scene. Today, we typically process a
methamphetamine lab in anywhere from 2 to 4 hours. We have
simply gotten better at it. So we have shortened time on the
scene, time tying up local officers, firefighters, EMS. The
same thing has happened in our laboratory in that you become
more efficient, you do not take as many samples because you do
not need that many samples in court. And so that is my point,
in that this has been sort of an evolution and we have seen
some shortening of those timeframes.
Mr. Souder. Mr. McHenry.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to start actually with a few comments that
both Sheriff Byers and District Attorney Gaither both
mentioned, and that has to do with illegal immigration. You
both mentioned that in some way, shape or form. I want to ask
how has the problem of illegal immigration coincided with this
problem of this meth epidemic that we are facing?
Mr. Gaither. Congressman, let me first just address the
issue of illegal immigration in the broader sense as far as the
courts are concerned. Then law enforcement can address it more
as far as they see at their level, the first response level.
The frustration at the prosecution level is to see those
who are illegal immigrants come into our system with a DWI or
various other types of charges and be put on probation. And our
hands are tied, as State officers, from any--there is nothing
that we can do. We are precluded from the enforcement of those
laws of the Constitution. Recently Charlotte-Mecklenburg I
believe has sworn in 10 of its sheriffs to operate along with
ICE in assisting them with the illegal immigration problem.
This is a great deal of frustration for us and we would
really like to see something come about in the next weeks. Of
course, it is the No. 1 issue on everybody's minds across the
country right now, we are seeing it in the news.
As far as being able to pick out one group or one element
in society that is more likely to contribute to this problem, I
cannot really do that. As the chart shows over here, 2001-2002
and then the spike is coming up. We are just seeing this in the
courts, the spike in 2003 and 2004 is just hitting the courts
now. We have not yet seen the spike in 2005 hit our court
system yet.
But just in a general sense, when you are dealing with the
issue of illegal immigration, the frustration level is through
the roof in the courts, to see folks come in who are illegal
immigrants, who are found guilty of a crime and then they are
put on probation. To me, a person who is an illegal immigrant
and comes in our courts should never be given the option of
probation.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you.
Sheriff Byers.
Mr. Byers. Congressman, illegal immigration is on the rise
in Rutherford County, like most every other county in North
Carolina and in this country.
We had a homicide last month that involved two illegals and
when we searched the homes or the mobile homes, we found half a
dozen illegal Mexican identification cards for both the victim
and the defendant.
We are dealing with it now. Sheriff Clark, I know he deals
with this and it is going to be an ever-increasing problem
unless we do something at the borders. And when we have
illegals, that is the easiest way to get the ice, if you will,
from Mexico to rural Rutherford County, NC.
Mr. McHenry. Sheriff Clark, would you like to comment on
this issue?
Mr. Clark. Certainly, thank you, Congressman.
What we happen to see in Caldwell County, being rural and a
lot of tree growers in our area, it attracts a lot of Mexicans
here and others of Hispanic background. Which once again, I
concur with Sheriff Byers, that gives a direct line to those
individuals in Mexico responsible for bringing dramatic amounts
of meth particularly to this surrounding area. And we continue
to see that, even though we continue to crack down on the
clandestine labs here in Caldwell and Rutherford, Burke,
Catawba. We are going to continue to see that influx of meth
coming from that direct pipeline from Mexico.
I think another thing we are going to have to strongly look
at is the trucking industry, because even though this is making
its way from Mexico to Arizona, it has still got to have a
direct way across the United States into western North
Carolina. And we are finding more and more of that is being
brought in here through independent truckers and through
trucking companies. So I think we have to take a closer look at
that. I think that is also another direct pipeline for most of
the illegals that make their way to western North Carolina.
Mr. McHenry. One more thing. Just a couple of days ago,
here is a quote from the newspaper here in, the Lenoir News
Topic, ``Mobile Meth Lab Found.'' Sheriff Clark, I know you are
the commander, you take personal command of the ice unit here,
to take on this problem. But here is a duffel bag found on the
side of a road that is a mobile meth lab.
Sheriff Clark, what ways are you trying to tackle this?
Because here you have really a toxic waste site that someone
happened to put on the side of the road. Can you comment on
that?
Mr. Clark. Well, meth dealers and manufacturers are
becoming more and more street smart to what our methods are of
detecting them. And to have something permanently set up I
think makes them more susceptible to criminal violations, so we
are finding more and more of these individuals have make-shift
labs, as I said, as I testified earlier, whether it be in the
trunk of an automobile or whether it be in a duffel bag, where
they can move it very quickly, where they can disassemble it or
assemble it very quickly. At the same time, I think the threat
level and also the potential hazardous situation goes up with
that haphazard kind of meth production. But we are seeing more
and more of that in Caldwell County.
Mr. McHenry. Sheriff Byers, can you comment on Rutherford
County?
Mr. Byers. We are seeing, again, Congressman, more illegals
bringing the meth. Our meth lab numbers are going to be down
this year and that is a wonderful, wonderful surprise. But it
is from a lot of hard work, a lot of hard work, and we have
four of our agents here today. I will not point them out
because they are kind of camera shy, so I will just say that
four of our agents----
Mr. Souder. Are they the ones in the red hats?
Mr. Byers. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, it would be the ones
with the red hats. [Laughter.]
But the problem still exists. And we have more illegals
coming into Rutherford County, and I will not get into the
immigration argument today, I know that you folks have had
enough of that or seem to have had enough on it, and sent it to
the Senate. But anyway, we continue to see it and that pipeline
will continue to be there. What we are seeing, I think Special
Agent Emerson mentioned 80 to 90 percent of the meth we are
seeing now, the ice, is coming from Mexico.
So we can win the war, the battle, if you will, on meth
labs. We are not dealing with chemists, we are not dealing--in
Rutherford County, we are not dealing with people who passed
chemistry in high school. They are not taking $250 worth of
ingredients and making $1,000 worth of product, therefore
making profit. They are taking $250 worth of ingredients and
making $200 worth of meth. So they are addicts, they are not
selling it on the street, they are addicts, they are making it
and giving it away.
But what we are seeing now coming from Mexico is not near
as toxic. Now what our guys were making in Rutherford County
and continue to make, is very toxic. See a lot of people
showing up at the hospital with liver and kidney failure, but
it was not very potent, so they had to make it every day. We
have arrested people, the agents here today, have arrested
people, jail at 12, out on bond by 2 and they would follow them
to buy the ingredients to make it again the same day. That is
an addict. That is not a businessman, it is a pure addict.
So that is what we have been dealing with. But the ice is
so potent that the mental health--it is going to be tremendous
if mental health can keep up with the potency. Not near as
toxic, so we may not see quite as many healthcare problems,
kidney and liver failure, but we are going to see a tremendous
amount of addiction, because the ice is truly potent and we
have more use in Rutherford County today than we did a year ago
or even 2 years ago.
Crime in Rutherford County is down 16 percent, I am proud
to say, crime in 2005 is down 16 percent. The one exception
there is domestic violence. And what is feeding domestic
violence? Meth.
So to answer your question, Congressman, I think I went too
long and went too broad, but the bottom line is yes, the
problem we are dealing with now is the ice and I want to
personally thank you before this committee and this group,
yourself and Congressman Taylor were kind enough last year when
I sent you the concern and the problem that we had, to find the
funding to let us start a drug interdiction team that will be
on line hopefully by mid-June. Monies are there and we thank
you for that. So we are going to try to fight to stop the ice,
which is coming from Atlanta, even Charlotte occasionally, but
usually Atlanta, through our highways and spreading across
western North Carolina.
So thank you for that and I highly encourage those other
sheriffs here today to help us in that fight, because we have
to get it off the streets before it gets to the homes and to
the individuals or we are going to have--mental health will
never keep up with the addiction that we are about to have.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Sheriff Byers. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I do have additional questions, but I will come to
that in due course.
Mr. Souder. Ms. Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. I have one quick question for Mr. Shaw. I think
all of us have heard horror stories about cases being thrown
out of court because every ``i'' was not dotted, every ``t''
was not crossed, that kind of thing. We all hate to see that on
procedural matters. But you pointed out the increased amount of
time it takes to adhere to the Federal regulations to take
something to Federal court.
Is there anything that is being required for Federal court
that does not have to be required? And if so, have you shared
that with the folks, so that if there is something we can do--I
do not want to damage any case, but is there anything we could
eliminate that is not absolutely necessary?
Mr. Shaw. Well, the short answer is not that I am aware of.
We did meet with the U.S. Attorney's Office and the other
assistants and talked about what was needed. One of the
advantages with the Federal prosecution is the theoretical
yield of what the capacity--what it would have made, if it had
not made anything. What it did make based on historical
aspects. So those are good things. They require a little bit
more lab analysis, but it is a much broader approach to
prosecuting the meth manufacturer. So it is a very slippery
slope you get on in suggesting doing away with something or
shortening something up because the broadness of that
jurisdiction with Federal prosecutors is what has made it so
successful as well.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Emerson, could you come forward for a
second? I wanted to ask you--I think probably for recording
purposes, as long as you can hear him, we will not have him sit
down.
When you get the crystal meth type cases that are coming
through, are those the same organizations that are smuggling
the marijuana and the cocaine?
Mr. Emerson. Generally, yes.
Mr. Souder. So there is not any kind of crystal meth
channel, they are basically selling whatever the market is.
Mr. Emerson. Generally, that is the case. Now I am sure
there are individual cases, we have seen them where we only got
crystal meth and that is what we are investigating that group
for. But as a whole, we see Mexican organizations are moving
all three of those products.
Mr. Souder. Have you seen them shopping crystal meth,
packaging it with other drugs?
Mr. Emerson. We have seen it transported together.
Mr. Souder. I should say, are they cutting the price to get
initial addicts. Basically as they see the mom and pop labs
decline, they may have been selling marijuana or other drugs,
but they will sell the crystal meth very cheaply or give it
away to try to develop a market?
Mr. Emerson. I do not think we have seen that specifically,
no.
Mr. Souder. And one other question, on the marijuana that
you are seeing, have you seen any of the hydroponic, large,
coming in from Canada in particular, any of the seeds being
bought over the Internet?
Mr. Emerson. Yes, we have. Mostly through the Asian
traffickers. Operation Candy Box, which was taken down about 2
years ago now, we had Asian traffickers bringing BC-Bud down
from Canada and we have seen some of those cases recently, but
not nearly the amount of cases that we see with Mexican
marijuana.
Mr. Souder. OK, thanks.
For those who are not aware, people still think we are
dealing with what we call in Indiana ditch weed or 1960's
marijuana, when the THC content is 20 to 40, the highest we
have heard in any area is 48, which basically is behaving like
meth or crack on the brain. And this pro-marijuana stuff that
is going around the country is just awful right now, because
they are packaging, and particularly this so-called BC-Bud in
New England, it is coming down from Quebec as Quebec Gold and
sometimes in the middle you get it mixed as BC Gold in the
midwest. But they are also selling it on the Internet and you
have to really watch for the home grown. You usually can tell
by the amount of electricity they are using.
But I wanted to then get into two other things to watch
for. One is if you found a mobile lab, that is a scary trend
because I believe in New Orleans, we saw a little bit in
motels; in Hawaii, they have had to implement, in parts of
Honolulu, an apartment fee to fumigate the apartments because
it is left over and the kids move into the apartment and can
develop all sorts of conditions based on these mobile labs
moving from apartment to apartment or motel room to motel room.
In other words, you can be traveling on a trip and get sick or
your kids can get sick because somebody had one of these mobile
labs moving there. And it is a--really kind of makes it harder
in our pseudoephedrine regulation if they are moving around
like that.
We were actually doing a hearing in Wilmington, OH, between
Dayton and Cincinnati, and the problem was viewed as a rural
problem, but we had the TV there from both Dayton and
Cincinnati, all three networks from each one. And a story came
in from Dayton, they had never had any home labs in the city of
Dayton prior to that day, and they took down what they thought
was one meth lab and it turned out to be a block. Part of the
reason meth labs are not found in cities is the smell, and so
that is why you see the problem in the United States has tended
to be rural Hawaii, eastern Oregon where there are national
forests, that is why you are going to see it in the mountainous
region of east Tennessee and western North Carolina before you
see it in the urban areas because there are places to go out
where you are in less populated areas. So Arkansas, in the
Ozark mountain area, in Indiana, the biggest area is the
Hoosier National Forest area. It is going to tend to be in the
more rural areas.
But as they move into urban, part of their challenge, even
in a small town, is the smell because people can start to smell
it. They bought a string of seven houses and it was buried in
the center, so their neighbors could not smell it.
None of you have seen a combination in a town yet of
multiple houses, is that correct, you have not seen that in
North Carolina?
Mr. Clark. We have seen it in hotel rooms where they will
string two, three hotel rooms together and do their business
out of there and then once the supply is depleted, then they
will go back home or wherever it is that they originally
manufactured.
Mr. Souder. No particular chain? [Laughter.]
Mr. Clark. No particular chain.
Mr. Souder. That is a scary concept, that is the first time
I have heard of a string of motel rooms, because that would
probably be a similar type of trying to disguise the smell.
Mr. Clark. And at the same time, most of these individuals
are smart enough that they check in under a pseudo name, so if
they did have to run from law enforcement, you do not really
have any other identification on them. These dealers and users
and abusers are becoming smarter and smarter to our techniques.
They read just like we do and they watch sessions like this
just as we do. So they are gaining intelligence from sessions
like we are having today, they are gaining intelligence on us
in law enforcement and lawmakers.
Mr. Souder. From what we have been able to get from
testimony from meth addicts themselves, is that the one thing
that is an advantage that we have in law enforcement is the
drug makes them more paranoid and they are more likely to make
a mistake.
One of the problems in the pseudoephedrine law is that we
have these log books, but one of the charges is moving from
place to place. Do you have a plan, since you have only done
this since January 15th, but do you also have a Meth Watch
Program that works with the local pharmacists, the retail
stores, to watch how a person is behaving? For example, without
saying the name of the chains, there are some chains that look
for certain types of purses or cases that come in, they know
there is nearly 100 percent chance that a person coming in with
that type of case is going to be getting a quantity or
shoplifting a quantity.
Mr. Shaw. We do have the Meth Watch Program in some
counties in the State. We have also attempted to contact
different retail associations. Unfortunately, since the passing
of our pseudoephedrine legislation, there is not quite as much
cooperation with the retail side, just simply because that
removed a substantial amount of products from grocery store
shelves and convenience store shelves and other types of retail
establishments. So many view it as the solution to the problem.
Of course, we know that is not going to be the case, that we
are still going to continue to have a problem.
But the meth watch program is out there, it is flourishing
in some counties. Some store chains are very cooperative, as
you mentioned. But it has been met with mixed success. And that
is why we continue to push the pseudoephedrine laws, because we
found that voluntary compliance just simply did not get the job
done.
Mr. Souder. Do you have a sign-in list?
Mr. Shaw. Yes, we do, we have a log, but there is an
inherent problem with that and it goes back to funding again.
With the signing of the log, you can still go from pharmacy to
pharmacy and those pharmacies, unless they are the same chain
and not necessarily even if they are, cannot communicate. There
is no real time data base that says I was just at CVS buying it
and now I am at Walgreen's buying it, so that the Walgreen
clerk or pharmacist can go, I cannot sell it to you, you just
purchased it 30 minutes ago.
So what we are finding, as Sheriff Byers pointed out, is so
many of these addict cooks are simply buying two boxes here,
two boxes here, two boxes here. That is all they have to do.
Mr. Souder. The Indiana State Police, because we have the
fifth highest number, I think last year we actually moved to
fourth, we are down roughly 50 percent 6 months into this law.
It is moving to crystal meth like we knew it would.
But two other things we are watching, because in the first
3 months, the log thing was intimidation, then all of a sudden
they realized that hey, it is not on the computer. But the Meth
Watch Program, some are tips, because if you watch a person,
and the person is alert as a clerk when they sign in, they are
likely to be more nervous if it is not for a cold. And watching
that, calling in, then they do a--occasionally now they are
doing a sweep of the log lists and those tips. What you need
are just an occasional high profile person, we got two in the
last couple of weeks doing this, jumping from log to log. And
all it takes, because of the nature of the group, if they
realize there is a potential chance of just being found guilty
of now another violation, which is in the logs, you are finding
them buying the materials and violating another law, has worked
as some deterrence. But if law enforcement does not
occasionally sweep those log books to see whether a name is
appearing in multiple places, because it will be there, it is
just a pain in the neck process to try to sort through,
particularly unless the clerks are helping tip off. But a
couple of high profile nailings like that can help give some
teeth to that.
The difficulty of--I was heavily immersed in the
negotiations of whether it should have to be sold at a pharmacy
or not. But for example, in New York City, they do not have a
single meth case yet and anybody who has been to New York City,
they have little mini-markets all over the place and you would
not be able to get cold or headache medicine in New York City
if we said it had to be sold at a pharmacy and yet, they have
no meth cases. But what happens is if you find one State does
not have the law, people move to the other law. So it has been
a very delicate balance.
And while Target, Wal-mart, big companies, can computerize
this, smaller grocery stores and particularly in rural areas,
almost every rural area in Indiana and I am sure it is true
here too, are fighting to keep a pharmacy or a grocery store,
they are barely making enough money to exist already as the
chains hammer them from the regional areas. And this is a very
difficult tradeoff and we have to be as creative as we can in
trying to tackle the variations from this.
Sheriff Byers, did you have a comment?
Mr. Byers. I would agree. And of course, we border the
great State of South Carolina, who is now addressing the
pseudoephedrine law, if you will. So our addicts are just
driving 15 minutes and are able to purchase the products they
need. But it has helped some in our county, we see that. I
probably get half a dozen calls a week from pharmacists who say
someone came in, they have been in twice this week trying to
purchase or they were nervous or these things. So we do get a
lot of tips, even though we do not have the data base that we
desperately need. But until South Carolina steps forward or
until October of this year when it is national, our folks are
going to go to South Carolina, 15 minutes away, and purchase
the things.
And again, a lot of our people do not purchase. The one
thing that has helped us is moving the product behind the
counter. A lot of addicts were shoplifting because they are
destitute, they did not have any money. So they were going in
and had two options, they were either stealing weed eaters,
chainsaws, anything they could get and pawn or sell for a
minimal amount of money to purchase, or they were going in in
groups of five, they would go to one pharmacy and shoplift
three or four boxes, then they would go to the next pharmacy
and another would go in and shoplift. And of course, they were
going to what is called mom and pop stores, but to our general
stores, if you will, and we have a lot in Rutherford County,
and they were shoplifting.
We did have the opportunity in Rutherford County to
prosecute a couple of store owners who had set up their own
little markets and had all the products you needed to
manufacture meth on one shelf. And thanks to John Emerson, Van
and the folks at DEA, we were able to federally prosecute a
couple of store owners for intentionally selling the products
all off one shelf that were necessary to manufacture meth. So
we got that problem stopped quickly.
Mr. Souder. Any signs of buying off the Internet at this
point?
Mr. Byers. Not in Rutherford County. Some of the other
counties, I know Wilkes County had a couple of cases where
pseudoephedrine products, bulk amounts, were purchased from
Canada and came into the county. So we have not witnessed that,
but yes, it has been going on.
Mr. Souder. Oregon has seen a rise. It is something to
watch. The myth is that these addicts are not going to have the
Internet, but almost all of them got the recipe off the
Internet, so they can use the Internet. The question is at what
point does it become disorganized and not purchase. Also, any
meth addict who is thinking about this or might read about this
hearing, we are working closely because the advantage of the
Internet is it has to be delivered and so as we work with FedEx
and UPS and others, the Internet may not be quite as handy for
them as they originally thought.
I want to make one comment on treatment, because one of the
challenges in treatment here is since it is a rural area,
Charlie Cruse is from my district, he is the head of ADMHA, the
Alcohol and Drug Mental Health Agency that is doing this and
they are testing meth models and meth is a very difficult--
because it is so addictive--in many ways very difficult to get
off of. All drugs are, but that in particular. And one of the
things is that they have this model that they have been
developing, and in my district we met with all the treatment
people and the only place that was familiar with the model was
Fort Wayne, which of course does not have a meth problem. The
mid-size county that did had heard of it at a workshop, and in
the most rural counties, they had never had the money to go to
a workshop. Because it is much like law enforcement, the
smaller the county, the more junior people you have in drug
treatment, they are starting out their career or did not have
as much training, they do not have as many resources, so the
meth problem is the most complicated treatment and it is the
problem where you have the least treatment dollars and the
least experience and the fewest number of people.
So we are trying to figure out how to adjust inside the
treatment model because it then becomes the least efficient way
to try to do drug treatment in the United States when we
already have a backlog of people seeking treatment.
But last week, Dr. Barthwell, who used to be Deputy
Director of ONDCP came in and there is an experimental drug
that is being run on the market that shows very interesting
promise. They are doing certain test cases in drug courts in
the United States. And it is not just for meth but it is for
others and it is almost like a methadone off of heroin, but it
stabilizes your brain. Because this is physiological and
psychological. The problem is that as people get stabilized,
their appetite for meth will disappear for as much as 2 weeks,
but what they have found is that then they think they are done
with their treatment, when in fact there are problems
underneath it that led to the drug addiction and they will give
it up and not get into the social support group, the Narcotics
Anonymous, the Alcoholics Anonymous type of programs.
But we are trying to figure out how to integrate this new
drug with the other forms of treatment. It may start to get
publicized as a magic drug, it is not, because even if you are
clean for awhile, the addiction is so potent, even if you do
not have a memory of it, if you get exposed because of the
groups you are hanging around with or your fundamental problems
are not addressed, you can drift back into it even--what it
does is it kills the memory that you used the drug. It is
fascinating and so there is no attraction to you until you hit
it again. But if you are in a group that you hit it again, you
will redevelop the addiction.
Mr. McHenry.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, when we had our Sheriffs' Conference last year,
both Sheriff Clark, Sheriff Byers, the one thing that you all
said very passionately is that something needs to be done, not
just because of the addicts, but because of the children in
these meth labs that are exposed to toxic chemicals and the
lasting effect it has. And Lynne, you actually spoke of that as
well. That is a large concern.
And you two gentlemen are most responsible for me going
back to Washington looking at ways to add an increased penalty
for those that produce meth or any controlled substance in the
presence of a child.
In North Carolina in 2005, there were over 100 cases with
children found in the home in meth lab seizures. You said,
Sheriff Clark, that 75 percent of the meth labs you seize here
in Caldwell County have children in them. That is very
frightening. I know that you have come up with some programs to
look at ways to treat children here in Caldwell County found in
those circumstances. I wanted to see if you could discuss that.
Mr. Clark. We have tried to join in with the local
Department of Social Services and health officials. County
Commissioners are also in-depth into many of the programs we do
at the Sheriff's Office. Foothills Mental Health is a big part
of things that are going on here in the county. But I think
most importantly, you have to team together. I do not think it
is just a law enforcement issue or a Department of Social
Services issue or a Health Department. I think you have to come
together collectively as a group to sit down and look at the
law enforcement issues, look at the health issues and those
social issues, particularly right now with some of the socio-
economic issues that we are facing in Caldwell County, I think
it is particularly important that we all band together
collectively to put our heads, if you will, together to come up
with ways to address this particular problem.
But out of the last four particular meth seizures that we
were involved in, three of those did involve children. And one
of the most alarming ones that I referred to earlier was in
fact a preschool or day care for children where there was meth
in the house.
So once again, I would repeat that there are no social
barriers or boundaries where methamphetamine is concerned.
Whereas sometimes when you speak of cocaine at one point in
time, I think historically looking at that particular drug, it
was out of the price of most individuals, but now you have
methamphetamine that has come along, as Sheriff Byers alluded
to, it is very conducive to particularly just those abusers. It
is the drug of choice. So we have to continue to band together
collectively, put our heads together, not only as
representatives, as law enforcement officials, as health
officials, but I think we are going to have to continue to band
together, put our heads together and come up with a plan of
action to address that particular problem.
Mr. McHenry. And going right into the same subject, Ms.
Vasquez, you have spoken of Chad and his involvement in meth.
When did he get started in meth, as near as you can tell?
Ms. Vasquez. It has probably been about 3 years, 3\1/2\
years.
Mr. McHenry. Three and a half years.
Ms. Vasquez. Uh-huh.
Mr. McHenry. And how old is your grandchild now?
Ms. Vasquez. I have one 5 and one 3.
Mr. McHenry. OK.
Ms. Vasquez. And the other passed away, she died October
29th this past year.
The two things that I really want to say in reference to
what has been said here at the table is I hope that they do not
get real comfortable with this idea of pseudoephedrine being
put behind the counter and we have a control on it, because you
do not have a control on it. Mexican methamphetamine is 10
times stronger than what has ever been made in a lab at home,
in a home base, OK? Some of the methamphetamine coming into
Rutherford County is coming out of Greenville, SC; it does not
come across the border, this particular did not come across the
border, it come out of Greenville, SC into Rutherford County,
10 times stronger. And the base for it is not pseudoephedrine.
The base for it is Clorox. I do not know how they are breaking
down that Clorox, I do not know how they are cooking it,
separating or whatever they have to do, but because you have
this drug confined behind the counter does not mean that you
have a control on. So that needs to be looked at.
The other thing that needs to be looked at, I feel, is that
my struggle was to get my grandchildren. It became a long, hard
struggle. I was threatened by DSS for harassment, OK? This is
hard. They actually gave my daughter-in-law instructions of how
to have me prosecuted for false information, OK? I understand
that there is a problem of where to put these children. I
understand that there are funds that need to be considered. I
understand that in Rutherford County--I know there are not
places to put them if they take them out of their home, we do
not have enough foster parents. But if you have a grandmother
saying give me my child, you do not have to worry about
somewhere else to put them. This needs to be taken into
consideration instead of grouping that grandmother with a bunch
of other people.
Mr. McHenry. What types of prevention and rehab programs
did your son have access to?
Ms. Vasquez. Actually he went down to--the Federal
Government had a contract in Cleveland County because there was
nothing in Rutherford County for them to tag him to. It was
really just counseling and through the whole ordeal, my son
said the same thing, they sit and they listen to me but they do
not hear me, they do not know what this is. My son has
depression problems, he is ADD. He tells me--and I was thinking
about this when you were saying what does this person coming in
to buy this look like. The very last part of my son being on
methamphetamine, I could not tell. If my son refused to touch
his children, I knew he was using again. I have two pictures of
him, one 1 month before he was indicted into Federal court,
attached to my statement. The other one was taken when they put
him into Mecklenburg County Jail after sentencing. But you have
to understand that on the second day of January, my son knew he
was going to be sentenced on the 5th, I, along with these
wonderful people that I had to work with me in Asheville, I
knew that he was going on the 5th. He had no idea, he thought
he would have six more months at home or 60 days still at home
before they processed him. My son tried to commit suicide on
January 2nd.
But from October until January, my son was using. As you
can see by the pictures that I put in there, he weighed 196
pounds, face full, big boy, looks like he is healthy again. No.
If I had not known he was using myself, no way. The kids told
me--I am not having anything to do with my kids, I know that he
was using, period. He is ADD, he has depression problems. I
talked on the Web with a medical doctor from Duke University,
problem is, depression problems, ADD, ADHD, they treat them all
with what, amphetamines.
The last 6 months that my son used, he could sleep, no
problem; he could eat, no problem.
On January 2, 2006, he told me I cannot go to jail for
something that I did not do. I did part of this but I did not
do all of it. What do I say? You have to do what the Federal
Government says for you to do. Ten needles of methamphetamine
and ran them all on January 2nd. He said with the hopes that it
would either bust his heart or it blow a vein in his brain. It
did neither one. I do not know where he got the meth, I do not
know how that all come about, but that is what happened.
He decided because that did not kill him, that he would go
peacefully on January 5th. I am telling you that all meth
addicts--and my son is an addict--do I believe that when he
comes home, he is going to have a big problem? I believe that.
Do I know that only 92 percent ever recover? And I think they
raised the odds a little bit, only 96 percent, if they were
needle users, recover. He was a needle user. Do I believe? I
only believe God. I only believe God. God carried me through
this. God got me through this. But we cannot be calm or
convinced we have a hold on it now, because when we get
relaxed, the problem is going to escalate.
Mr. McHenry. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Vasquez. And through the methamphetamine that has been
being made, it puts off--you were talking about smells, it puts
off four different smells, but the new methamphetamine they are
making that they are using Clorox for does not smell at all.
Mr. McHenry. Well, going right into your question about the
slowness of the process. I know that the Sheriff's Department
in Rutherford County was very engaged with you in trying to
tackle this. And we have two tracks, we have the Federal track
and the State track. And we have a prosecutor here from North
Carolina, Mr. Gaither, and I wanted to ask about what the
Federal Government can do to assist you as a State prosecutor
to fight against meth production and trafficking? What are the
things we can do to assist you and aid you?
Mr. Gaither. Let me make a couple of points. One,
Congressman, let us realize that if the Federal Government was
not already doing what they are doing, we would be faced with
just a tremendous overload in our courts. So we are very
thankful for what they are doing currently.
Our goal, other than specific deterrence, putting that
individual who we have arrested and brought to court behind
bars, is also general deterrence. We want to get the message
out to young people and everybody in the community that this
type of crime is punished harshly. I would say one of my
criticisms of the Federal Government is that when they arrest
somebody and when they prosecute them and give them the lengthy
sentence that they give them, a lot of times I do not ever read
about it in the papers or hear about it in the news. And I
passed this on to Gretchen Shappert and I would like to see
that change. I think if people saw the 10, 15, 20 year
sentences that the Federal Government is handing down and how
they are putting people behind bars for lengthy sentences, you
might get a general deterrence effect.
I would like to make one other point. One other thing I
would like to say is that the worse myth in the world is that
drug abuse and drug trafficking is a victimless crime. If you
took out the crimes that are committed by people who are under
the influence of drugs, our courts would not be empty, but I
would bet that it would be down 80 percent, 90 percent, it
would be a huge amount.
The balance, the net gain for doing what we are doing here
is tremendous and I just ask that you all continue to have the
commitment that you have here, have the faith in the people to
put the money and the resources behind the war on drugs and if
we can--I believe we can see on this chart here, that there has
been a stake in the ground, what Gary Clark has been doing with
the information that we have gotten from the west, with the
cooperation that we have gotten from the west, I think we have
slowed the advancement down. But crack cocaine,
methamphetamine, the whole gamut of drugs, are behind all our
break-ins, our assaults, all the crimes that we see in the
courts are drug-related. If we continue to put money behind the
interdiction of drugs, I think we will see an overall drop in
crime and I think that the net gain to the community would be
huge. I just wanted to throw that in there.
But as far as the Federal Government assisting us further,
you are doing a tremendous job, we appreciate you very much. I
am not going to sit here and ask for more. I think the State
government needs to step up and carry its load.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gaither, and I
appreciate the fact that Mr. Byers and Mr. Clark both discussed
the additional burdens on society that this meth problem
places. Sheriff Byers said in particular domestic violence,
Sheriff Clark related that to not just domestic violence but
robberies and all sorts of property crimes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. Congresswoman Foxx, do you have anything else?
Ms. Foxx. Well, I was going to make a comment about the
fact that these are not victimless crimes and that we can see
that meth affects everyone in a community, not just those that
are addicted to it. Domestic violence, all the other crimes,
the cost of mental health, social services, school system and
long-term effects for this. I think it is an extremely
important issue to think about because people cannot just say
well, my family is not involved with drugs, so I do not care
what happens, because it is affecting everyone.
I just appreciate what all of you have done to try to bring
down the supply of methamphetamine locally, but I think that it
is very, very important that we pay attention to the figures
that the chairman used, that 80 percent of the meth is now
coming from Mexico or Mexican sources. It is very troubling to
me that is the situation that we are facing.
Tomorrow, I am going to be hosting a field hearing
investigating the consequences of our borders, our porous
borders with Mexico and I am going to raise the issue there
about this, because I think people who are saying again that we
do not have to worry about closing the border, are only looking
at one dimension of the issue. And I think that the American
public needs to be educated as to the long-term effects of
this, especially the drugs and what is happening to us.
So I am very much concerned about this. I do not think--we
will never stop the flow of illegal drugs, I do not think that
is possible to do. But I think that we can certainly slow down
the supply of it. I think we have done a good job in western
North Carolina with all the law enforcement people, of slowing
down what is available here. But we have simply got to see this
as a national issue and a Federal issue. And I want to do
everything that I can as a Member of Congress to see that we
shut down the flow coming from Mexico. And I think the public
needs to be aware of what a serious issue that is for this
entire country.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
There are a number of things, I think in the next iteration
that we will be looking at in meth. I wanted to ask Mr. Shaw,
we heard that--are you looking at the Kentucky example of how--
--
Mr. Shaw. I am familiar with it, the container program.
Mr. Souder. Yes. Is that a cost problem in implementing
that or what is the major stumbling block? I talked to Chairman
Rogers and it is very difficult because he chairs an
appropriations subcommittee, he is one of the senior Members of
Congress. He has put extra money in his district, which he has
the power to do, because of meth. What is not clear to me, and
we have been trying to work out a date to go down to Hazard
County area where they have done this, but it is unclear to me
whether that particular component, because it certainly would
help local law enforcement in the contracted out portion, if we
could get the chemicals in the unit. You say you are looking at
this. Does it look like a cost question? Is it the evidentiary
chain in the court process? What are the biggest reasons why we
cannot go national with this?
Mr. Shaw. One of the major problems or resistance to this
program is simply you are taking law enforcement officers and
you are turning them into hazardous waste handlers. This
program takes officers having to over-package, use different
types of adulterants--vermiculite--put it in buckets, load it
up in trailers, carry it to a holding site, unload trailers,
meet them back, allow for that to be picked up, where now we
are utilizing contractors. One of the problems has been is that
there would only be one contractor per State or one contractor
per 30 States, with different offices. So for years, our
closest contractor that was under the Federal contract was out
of Johnson City, TN. We did not even have an office in North
Carolina.
So my opinion, being out there and being one of the agents
that drove the truck and did that in the early days of this
program, we need to have more contractors cleared and available
on the commercial side for quicker response. There is no reason
I should not be able to use a vendor out of Greensboro or
Asheville or Charlotte or Raleigh, and I cannot do that at this
point in time. There are just a couple of vendors we are having
to use right now.
That, as I see it, is letting those professionals do that
job. We are not tying up officers doing that job, they are out
enforcing the law. So I think that has been some of it.
Mr. Souder. Why do you think the vendors are slowed down in
getting cleared?
Mr. Shaw. I am not sure of the contractual process, I just
know that typically they are under contract for a period of
time, they are the sole provider of that service. So we are
then dependent upon their locations in our State to call upon
them, because the Federal Government is paying the bill.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Emerson, sorry to call you up again, but I
have heard variations of this. Is this predominantly that the
number of contracts is so small, unless somebody has a wider
service area, they will not even bid on the contract? Is this
quality control because these places have a lot of turnover in
their staff? What would be some of the challenges that would be
faced in getting more contractors?
Mr. Emerson. I am sorry, I just cannot answer that
question.
Mr. Souder. That is a written question, consider that a
written question, if you could get back to us and we will also
followup with Director Tandy.
Mr. Emerson. Absolutely.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. Did not mean to put you on the spot
with that, but since I am going to be 56 this summer, sometimes
my memory goes very short-term, so unless I do it right there,
I might have forgot to ask that question.
Mr. Shaw, did you have anything else to add there?
Mr. Shaw. That is simply one of the issues. I know that it
has worked in other States, especially the midwestern States,
with long distances between towns. I think it is a good program
for certain States. North Carolina is transitioning to a much
different State than it was 30 years ago. We are very
populated. I do not think that--our officers are extremely busy
and I think if you polled these two sheriffs, they would
probably say the same thing, that we need to keep that in the
hand of a contractor for our State and let our agents and
officers do the job of law enforcement and evidence collection.
Mr. Souder. I thank all of you for your testimony, being
very open and direct with us. As you can see, in our next
iteration, we are looking at a number of things like how do we
reduce this time at site and what are some creative ways to do
that. Another thing would be trying to figure out the next
iteration of OK, if you control the pseudoephedrine, are you
going to pop to another mixture of the labs, are they going to
go to the Internet, working with companies that are trying to
get ahead of the curve as opposed to just being behind it.
In treatment, we are struggling, but we are certainly
looking and there are a number of drug treatment, experimental
efforts. This has gone 2 years ago times four, then last year
times eight to try to figure out affordable ways to do drug
treatment, particularly in rural areas as well as urban areas.
Montana, I met with this amazing man, the Montana Meth
Project, which was done in the private sector, is
extraordinary. The question is how to get prevention like that
and get it coordinated with our national campaigns and to get
the private sector and others involved. There is no way the
Federal Government will be able to involve this and this
individual cannot do this in every State. But I mean the ads
there and the billboards and the radio and so on, it has
revolutionalized and grabbed. It will be interesting to see the
Montana Project as it moves to other States and whether it has
the same impact and whether it leaves a lasting legacy that
makes our Federal efforts seem like milk and toast right now,
at the aggressiveness that they did. So we are looking at this.
I realize that one thing that the record is not going to
reflect when I said earlier we are going to have the southwest
border controlled in 60 days, that was a joke, officially. I do
not know whether we can put laughter by my comment or whatever,
so it does not look like----
Mr. McHenry. Unfortunately it is a joke.
Mr. Souder [continuing]. We spent, two terms ago, much of
that year doing north and south border hearings and have
continued to do that, because in addition to the immigration
and terrorism questions, I am on Homeland Security and on the
Border Subcommittee there, too. It is an incredible problem
because when you are trying to chase a million people roughly
coming across a year illegally, of which probably 900,000 plus,
are coming related to work; trying to find the drug addicts and
the terrorists inside it is impossible. We could put an army of
200,000 people on the southwest border and not seal it right
now.
We did one hearing at the Tohono O'odham reservation
southwest of Tucson and this was 2 years ago. The previous
year, they had seized 1,500 pounds of marijuana. From January
to March of that year, they seized 1,500 pounds of marijuana.
The day of our hearing, where we had more--this is where Organ
Pipe National Monument is where the park ranger got killed as
they were going through, they had to knock off, seal a bunch of
the trails because it is so dangerous to walk through right now
because of all the drug runners and coyotes running illegal
immigrants as well, and armed fighting is occurring a lot. But
at the Tohono O'odham reservation, which has just been overrun,
we had all these Federal agents in to testify at our hearing.
They were so bold, they did not even care to see all the
Federal agents there. That day, during our hearing from 10 to
1, they nabbed 1,600 pounds of marijuana of guys running
through the town where all the Federal agents were sitting. In
addition, they had a Blackhawk helicopter and others took down
a group of seven SUVs who shot their way through. They got most
of the SUVs, but the lead vehicles got through. This is tough
and they are dealing in areas in the southwest border where
they do not even pick you up if you have less than 200 pounds
of marijuana--unless you have more than 200 pounds, a Federal
case would be 700 pounds.
It is an overwhelming challenge and we are going through a
very difficult political period, because unless we can get our
work permit and other types of things to work with this, I am
just telling you as somebody who has held hearings in almost
every single town and many of them multiple times, the major
cities on the southwest border--it is not possible to control
the southwest border until we get it down to a workable number.
We need to seal that, we need more effective things, but there
has to be some kind of a compromise here. I am saying this
politically, I know it is not popular to say, but I am telling
you as somebody who has been down there on the front lines, you
will not receive the relief in this area until we can get a
tough border and a tough border also requires some sort of a
strategy internally, because we are overwhelmed right now and
it is a huge challenge. But it is likely to be the most
controversial and the most difficult challenge.
And as we start to tackle things like the mom and pop labs,
we push it right back to the southwest border, not to mention
for those of us from northern States, the Canadian border is
not exactly sealed. As you heard, the hydroponic marijuana that
is coming into your area is coming through Canada. The biggest
terrorist threat to our Nation right now is north, not south,
even though the RCMP, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we do not
have to worry which side they are fighting on, which sometimes
we have the problem with the southwest. The Canadian Government
is more responsive in working with us, but on that border,
there is nothing along the north border. And when we push one
area, they pop to the other if they are a large trafficking
organization.
The reason I asked about Tri-Cities is that we are now
seeing them working heavily out of Atlanta and they are coming
into Indiana and they do not come logically through Laredo and
McAllen and up the shortest way, they will go up through
California. There is a huge trading mart working up just like
other wholesale or traders, working up, because the migrant
workers who pick fruit and tomatoes, they will hide inside them
and so they will have a season in the west, they will get a
connection inside the midwest, a connection inside the south,
they will swap guns to Canada for BC-Bud. They are the same
dealers as we heard here who are doing the crystal meth, the
BC-Bud, the guns and you have these big traffic marts around
the country.
The DEA is trying to figure out how to take these down.
That is what these drug task forces are doing. But I hope if
nothing else that I learned a lot about the particulars here,
but that you see how inter-related our State and local and
Federal efforts are right now. Because you might be taking
somebody down that looks like a local problem, but in reality,
they are into a regional and into a national and unless we can
get these different groups taken down and get their finances
taken down and work together on this, you are likely to be
picking them up. The Federal Government sometimes thinks they
are the end all, be all, but you are likely to get the person
back on the street who you have just got. The question is how
to turn him to the next one to the next one to the next one, so
we can get at the source of the stuff that is coming in and
poisoning our communities.
So thank you all and thank all your departments. Each
individual along the way is playing a key role in this because
we all know at a minimum 75 percent, probably 85 percent of all
crime is drug and alcohol related, or at least facilitated. So
thank you for your efforts.
We will look forward if there are any additional materials
you want to put into the record or if we have some additional
questions, we will hold the record open for probably 2 weeks.
With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]