[Senate Hearing 113-886]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-886
OVERSIGHT OF THE
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 30, 2014
__________
Serial No. J-113-58
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
28-398 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking
CHUCK SCHUMER, New York Member
DICK DURBIN, Illinois ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TED CRUZ, Texas
MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
Kristine Lucius, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Kolan Davis, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
APRIL 30, 2014, 10:10 A.M.
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 1
prepared statement........................................... 30
Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa...... 2
prepared statement........................................... 32
WITNESS
Witness List..................................................... 23
Leonhart, Hon. Michele M., Administrator, U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration, Washington, DC................................. 4
prepared statement........................................... 24
QUESTIONS
Questions submitted to Hon. Michele M. Leonhart by:
Senator Blumenthal........................................... 39
Senator Cornyn............................................... 48
Senator Feinstein............................................ 36
Senator Flake................................................ 50
Senator Grassley............................................. 41
Senator Hatch................................................ 45
Senator Sessions............................................. 47
Senator Whitehouse........................................... 38
ANSWERS
[Note: At the time of printing, after several attempts to obtain
responses to the written questions, the Committee had not
received any communication from Hon. Michele M. Leonhart.]
MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Colorado Information Analysis Center (CIAC), CIAC Report 14-
65046, ``Alert Bulletin Marijuana Infused Edibles,'' March 19,
2014, bulletin................................................. 61
National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS), Arlington,
Virginia, statement............................................ 51
United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement
Administration, Eric J. Akers, Deputy Chief, Office of
Congressional and Public Affairs, Springfield, Virginia, May
10, 2014, letter............................................... 63
OVERSIGHT OF THE
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2014
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
Room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J.
Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Leahy, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Grassley,
Hatch, Sessions, and Flake.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT
Chairman Leahy. Good morning. I apologize for the delay. I
thank the Senators who are here: Senator Grassley, Senator
Sessions, Senator Flake, and of course, Senator Whitehouse, who
will take over this hearing at some point.
I had a chance to chat with Administrator Leonhart in the
back, and I appreciate very much having you here.
This hearing comes at an important time. Our Nation
continues to struggle with an old and unfortunately persistent
problem: the seemingly unrelenting addiction to powerful
controlled substances. But I think a lot about that problem is
evolving and changing. The drugs of choice are evolving, along
with the path to addiction for many Americans.
As I said to Administrator Leonhart, it is a lot different
from the days decades ago when I was a prosecutor or when
Senator Sessions or Senator Whitehouse were prosecutors.
Prescription drug abuse has reached epidemic levels. Overdoses
from prescription opioids now account for more than half of all
drug-related deaths. That is something we did not see not very
long ago.
Around the country, law enforcement is now demonstrating a
strong commitment to creative approaches to combating drug
abuse. We have seen that enforcement alone is not enough. No
amount of arrests or seized drugs can truly break America's
drug habit. We need a comprehensive approach--one that includes
prevention, treatment, and re-entry services.
A month ago I brought the Senate Judiciary Committee to
Rutland, Vermont. Rutland is a very small city, and like rural
towns across the country, it has seen a surge in addiction to
heroin and other opioids. But the community has come together
to respond in remarkable ways. At that hearing it was not a
case of people pointing fingers at each other. They were
saying, ``We are all in this together.''
The police department almost functions as a community
organizer. They partner with early intervention coordinators,
social workers, and even building inspectors to address
addiction from every angle.
I am encouraged to see that the Justice Department is
similarly committed to a comprehensive approach. Through its
Smart on Crime Initiative, the Department is supporting
prevention and re-entry efforts and promoting fairer sentences.
The DEA is committed to addressing drug abuse through
prevention. The DEA has long supported educational programs
that aim to reduce demand for drugs. I view in the same light
the Office of Diversion Control, which controls the
distribution of prescription drugs.
Now, I was pleased to see that, in conjunction with DEA,
authorities in Vermont just last weekend recovered over 3,300
pounds of unused prescription drugs through a takeback event.
Now, 3,300 pounds--remember, we are a State of only 620,000
people. This was enormous. That means hundreds of thousands of
unwanted pills are no longer sitting on shelves and susceptible
to abuse. Effective diversion control means effective addiction
prevention.
While the DEA is doing critically important work in many
areas, I do have some concerns that I have raised. I have
concerns about some of the DEA Special Operation Division's
investigative techniques. We have discuss this privately, and
given the sensitivity of it, we will not discuss it openly in
this hearing. But it is an area in which additional oversight
is needed, and I want the DEA to cooperate with those of us who
have the responsibility of oversight.
I have repeatedly sought answers regarding the DEA's
involvement in a 2012 counternarcotics operation in Honduras,
in which four Honduran civilians were killed including a 14-
year-old boy. And the DEA must make changes to ensure this type
of tragedy does not happen again. I realize that is before your
time, but I want you to take a look at that because if they
have not taken steps to ensure this would not happen again, I
would have difficulty supporting DEA's participation in such
operations in the future, either wearing my hat in this
Committee or in the Appropriations Committee.
Administrator, thank you very much, and thank you for the
time you spend on this. I am eager to hear your ideas, and
right after we hear from Senator Grassley, we will go to you.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Leahy appears as a
submission for the record.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
Senator Grassley. Welcome, Administrator Leonhart. Thank
you for coming. Your agency faces many challenges as it tries
and works to keep us safe from dangerous drugs.
I am going to point out in my questioning and in my
statement that some of those problems coming from the executive
branch make your job even harder from my point of view.
The United States is experiencing this epidemic that the
Chairman spoke about of opioid abuse, particularly heroin and
prescription painkillers. We recently had a survey where
700,000 Americans reported using heroin in the past year. That
seems to be increasing.
We read about the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman, pointing
out as just one example of a heroin overdose.
Law enforcement, including your agency, has a critical role
to play in responding to the epidemic. And, of course, we
cannot arrest our way out of this, but we can maintain the
current law enforcement tools that help the DEA go after those
who are trafficking heroin.
Unfortunately, as I said about the executive branch making
your job more difficult, there is disagreement on this
Committee on this issue, but I think the sentencing bill that
the administration supports does just the opposite. The
proposed Smarter Sentencing Act that recently passed out of
this Committee cuts the mandatory minimum sentences for those
who manufacture, import, or distribute even heroin--and it cuts
that sentence in half. These are penalties for dealers, not
users. In the midst of the heroin epidemic, as I said to you, I
think that this makes no sense.
I do not want you to take my word for it. In opposing the
bill, the Federal prosecutors themselves wrote that the current
system of penalties is the ``cornerstone'' of their ability
``to infiltrate and dismantle large-scale drug-trafficking
organizations and to take violent armed career criminals off
the streets.'' That is a quote from Federal prosecutors. And I
do not want to remove that cornerstone.
Another challenge for your agency that I hope to discuss is
the mixed message from the administration that young people get
about the dangers of marijuana use. The Department of Justice
declined to challenge State laws that have legalized marijuana,
despite the obvious conflict with Federal law. In an interview,
the President said this, that it was ``important'' that these
States ``go forward'' with legalization. This has caused
confusion and uncertainty about whether using marijuana is
really something to be discouraged.
We had a recent scientific study that served as a reminder
of how dangerous marijuana use can be. A paper published
earlier this month in the Journal of Neuroscience concluded
that even casual marijuana use was associated with potentially
harmful changes to the brains particularly of young people.
The Department of Justice apparently concluded that so long
as the States that legalize marijuana create effective
regulatory schemes, then Federal enforcement did not consider
that a priority. Those priorities include the prevention of
violence, increased use among minors, and diversion of
marijuana to other States. But we are seeing particularly in
recent news stories minors getting very much involved in that
use, and even sale and diversion of marijuana to other States.
They are telling me even in Iowa there is a lot of marijuana
coming from Colorado.
So I hope the administration is taking a look at the
announcement they made of what they considered a priority for
prosecution.
As a result, it is hardly surprising that a senior DEA
official recently told the Senate Caucus on International
Narcotics Control that what was happening in these States--
meaning Washington or States where there has been recreational
marijuana or even medicinal marijuana--is ``reckless and
irresponsible.''
At this point, those words apply equally to the Department
of Justice's policy that has permitted States to legalize a
drug for recreational purposes that Congress has chosen to make
illegal.
As the above examples attest, marijuana is being combined
with cookies and candy in Colorado in a way that is attractive
to young people, including children. I hope to discuss the
legislation that Senator Feinstein and I introduced last year
called ``Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act,'' that we can
get something done to deter this kind of marketing.
I am going to put the rest of my statement in the record,
Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much. We will look at any
legislation you or anybody else may come up with. I am always
worried about whether legislation steps on States' rights and
what they might be doing.
Please go ahead, Ms. Leonhart.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHELE M. LEONHART, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. DRUG
ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Administrator Leonhart. Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member
Grassley, and Members of this Committee, it is my honor to
appear before you to discuss the Drug Enforcement
Administration and our role in reducing crime and protecting
the American people from drugs. I welcome the opportunity to
continue the successful and positive relationship that DEA and
the Department of Justice have with this Committee.
Throughout our more than 40-year history, DEA has
successfully pursued the world's most violent and prolific
drug-trafficking organizations, and this includes the Sinaloa
cartel, whose leader, Joaquin ``El Chapo'' Guzman, was arrested
earlier this year by Mexican authorities. And as the head of
the Sinaloa cartel, Guzman contributed to the death and
destruction of millions of lives all around the world, and the
arrest of the world's most wanted international drug trafficker
is a major step forward in our shared fight against drug
trafficking and violence.
In the past year, ten more of the most wanted drug
traffickers, known as ``CPOTs'' by the Department of Justice
and otherwise known as ``kingpins,'' have been arrested. Six
were extradited to the United States, and among them was Daniel
``El Loco'' Barrera, who for more than 20 years led an
organization that distributed hundreds of tons of cocaine
around the world, leaving a trail of violence in his wake.
Barrera was considered one of the last true drug kingpins in
the Andean region.
Since we started tracking CPOTs in 2003, a total of 179
have been identified around the world, and of those, through
our enforcement efforts, 75 percent have been indicted, 55
percent have been arrested, and 31 percent have actually been
extradited to the United States, and this is a record that we
are very proud of.
By keeping the pressure on drug traffickers and stripping
them of almost $27 billion in revenue since 2005, we have
prevented the use of these funds to fuel the next round of drug
production and other nefarious activities. This is one of DEA's
contributions to the comprehensive national drug control
strategy, which has guided a decrease in the overall rate of
illicit drug use in America by 35 percent in the past 35 years.
And just like the efforts to eliminate cancer or poverty, the
fight against drug abuse is a generations-long struggle, and it
will not be won overnight.
Since 2006, the number of current users of any form of
illicit drug other than marijuana dropped 8 percent, and
regular cocaine use dropped 32 percent between 2006 and 2012,
and at the same time, methamphetamine use is down by 40
percent. But we still have areas of concern.
An estimated 6.8 million Americans regularly use
prescription drugs for non-medical reasons. As troubling, 80
percent of first-time heroin users started by using
prescription pain pills.
The availability of both heroin and marijuana is growing.
In 2012, 438,000 Americans were addicted to heroin, and 10
times that number were dependent on marijuana. From 2007 to
2012, the number of regular heroin users in this country more
than doubled, and not surprisingly, overdose deaths have
increased as well.
One trend we have seen over and over again is that drug use
rises as the perception of risk decreases. We are seeing that
now with marijuana. From 2008 to 2013, past month use of the
drug increased among all 8th, 10th, and 12th graders surveyed.
These increases parallel softening attitudes about the
perceived risk of harm and disapproval associated with
marijuana use.
Marijuana use is a very serious problem in this country,
and here are some of the facts:
Marijuana-related emergency room visits increased by 48
percent between 2007 and 2011. One out of every 15 high school
seniors is a near-daily marijuana user. In fact, since 2009,
more high school seniors have been smoking marijuana than
smoking cigarettes. And researchers have found that adolescents
who use marijuana at least 4 days per week lost an average of 8
IQ points.
These facts paint a picture of the choices we have to make
and of the future we will be facing. Drug abuse is devastating
on a personal level, and drug trafficking poses a serious
threat to society because of the violence and the hazards that
accompany it and the terrorist organizations that are often
funded by it.
So now is not the time to sound the retreat but, rather, we
should be redoubling our efforts. DEA will continue attacking
these threats using tools and techniques that have worked so
well for us in the past: close relationships with Federal,
State, local, and international partners, information sharing
and case coordination, and going after what drug traffickers
value most--that is, their money.
I have great confidence that DEA, with your support, will
continue to build on our gains and overcome the challenges that
lie ahead, and those challenges are not insignificant. Today's
drug traffickers exploit new and evolving technologies to
communicate, to launder ill-gotten gains, to facilitate the
smuggling of drugs and weapons, and develop new substances that
can be abused.
So thank you for your partnership, and I look forward to
continuing to work with this Committee and Congress on these
important issues, and I ask that my written statement be added
to the record.
Chairman Leahy. It will be placed in the record.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Leonhart appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. We do appreciate you being here. After all,
you are somebody with 30 years of law enforcement experience,
starting as a Baltimore City police officer, then as a DEA
special agent, so you can speak with firsthand knowledge of
many of these issues.
I am concerned with how prescription opioids have become
the drug of choice in America. I think we have seen it all over
the country. Demand for treatment has skyrocketed. Deaths from
overdose have far eclipsed all other drugs. Opioid addiction
all too often leads to heroin, as you know. We see this in
every State, including my own of Vermont. And that is why it is
concerning to see powerful new opioids without any abuse
deterrent technologies enter our communities.
The most recent example I have been told about is Zohydro.
What is DEA doing to monitor the use of this? And what will you
do if you find widespread abuse?
Administrator Leonhart. Thank you, Senator, for mentioning
the opioid problem. It is the Nation's fastest growing drug
problem, and it is not confined to large cities or the west
coast versus the east coast. It is across our country. So DEA
shares your concerns.
We also share the concern with any new opioids that come on
the market and are prepared and have to be prepared for
additional use to become additional abuse and----
Chairman Leahy. Does that include Zohydro?
Administrator Leonhart. We anticipate, because it is really
the first hydrocodone, pure hydrocodone product coming out,
that we will have addicts that will seek it out just because it
is pure hydrocodone. We are concerned because anytime you put a
new opiate on the street--we all remember the days of
Oxycontin, when that was released. This is a drug that is
coming out without any tamper-resistant ability to prevent it
being crushed, smoked, and snorted by addicts.
So we are very concerned, but we also believe that the
enforcement efforts that we have put forth and what we have
done to really move our agencies toward prioritizing
prescription drugs will help alleviate, will help confront any
additional use or abuse we see.
Chairman Leahy. I would hope also the manufacturer would
start cooperating with you; otherwise, they face the potential
for backlash from Congress, which is something they probably
would not want to face. So I hope they do cooperate with you.
We also consistently hear from Vermont law enforcement that
a stronger DEA presence is needed in southern Vermont. You have
agents stationed in Burlington. Where are we toward the
possible permanent assignment in southern Vermont of DEA
agents?
Administrator Leonhart. Well, to help in Rutland--and I
have met with the police chief and met recently with members of
the Vermont Highway Patrol, we have been very active working in
Vermont. We have actually--even though Burlington is a small
office, we have actually sent agents temporarily, TDY on a
continuous basis, to help in Rutland and make sure that we have
an enforcement presence there.
I am hoping by the end of the week or even earlier next
week that I will be having a conversation with the U.S.
Attorney in Vermont who has been talking to our special agent
in charge. And as we make decisions about moving forward with
resources or reallocating resources, I will take into account
what his needs are and what he feels DEA could do to assist him
in his district.
Chairman Leahy. And by highway patrol, I assume you mean
the Vermont State Police, which do a lot----
Administrator Leonhart. That is correct.
Chairman Leahy [continuing]. More than patrolling the
highway. They handle many other things. I am very proud of what
they do.
I sent a letter earlier this year expressing my concerns
about certain DEA investigative techniques. Some of that
information remains classified. Some has been deemed law
enforcement sensitive. We do need more of a public dialogue.
Senator Whitehouse and I have both raised this. So will you
cooperate with our Committee's oversight? Will you advocate
within the executive branch for additional transparency with
respect to DEA's investigative efforts?
Administrator Leonhart. Senator, I am limited in what I can
talk about regarding those programs.
Chairman Leahy. I understand.
Administrator Leonhart. But just be assured we have had
oversight of those programs since 1992, and we will work with
you. I know that we have come up to brief some Members of this
Committee, and we will continue to look at ways to improve. And
if it is found that additional oversight is needed, we welcome
a look at what we have been doing.
Chairman Leahy. Well, Senator Whitehouse and I and others
will continue to ask questions about that. I always worry when
things are suddenly classified, and I realize that a lot of
things should be, but sometimes things are classified because
they do not stand the light of day. And we want to make sure
that is not the case. And I know that some of these practices
have been suspended by the Department of Justice pending
review, and that is what I mean about facing the light of day.
Sometimes they do not stand up for that. And without going into
classified matters, we will discuss this further.
I also sent last year a letter regarding the
counternarcotics operation in Honduras in 2012 that killed four
civilians, including a 14-year-old boy. In response to my
letter of last year, I received a response this week.
Have you changed at DEA these types of counternarcotics
operations as a result of the Honduras experience? Are you
doing things to minimize casualties, especially civilians?
Administrator Leonhart. Senator, I assure you that we have
looked at that operation from many sides to figure out, number
one, how to learn from that; number two, you know, working with
our Honduran counterparts, making sure that we are providing
them the best training that we can. I want to assure you that
we feel very, very bad about any tragedy, and this with the
loss of four civilians is included.
We going forward, however, have looked at ways that we
could improve operational planning, how we can improve the
training that we are giving.
Chairman Leahy. Considering the corruption and other
problems in Honduras, I would hope that you and your department
would put very strict controls because otherwise, we could have
real problems.
And, last--and I realize I have gone over my time--the farm
bill has provisions for hemp research by universities and State
departments. A lot of hemp is used in clothing and other
material. People want to conduct serious research, not only in
my State but a lot of other States. When are you going to
provide guidance to the public on how to conduct this research?
And will you work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
which is looking at the research here, on the commercial nature
of hemp in clothing and everything else?
Administrator Leonhart. Yes, Senator. With the passage of
the farm bill as well as directed from the Deputy Attorney
General from last August on priorities, use of resources for
the Department on marijuana cases, the Department is currently
reviewing both of those to better understand how we need to go
forward with hemp issues. And working with the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and other stakeholders, we will make sure that
once decisions are made by the Department, that we put out
guidance and that we work with those stakeholders.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you, and I apologize to Senator
Grassley for going over time, and I yield to him.
Senator Grassley. I do not complain because you go over
time because you always give me equal time.
Chairman Leahy. That is right.
Senator Grassley. I am going to repeat a sentence that I
gave in my opening statement. It is hardly surprising that a
senior DEA official recently told the Senate Caucus on
International Narcotics Control that what was happening in
these States--meaning Washington and Colorado and maybe also, I
think, by implication where there was medicinal marijuana--is
``reckless and irresponsible.''
So I want to go then to the Cole memo of last August where
the Department of Justice established a number of Federal
priorities to guide its marijuana enforcement activities in
States that legalized it. However, the memo also warned that,
``If State enforcement efforts are not sufficiently robust to
protect against the harms set forth above, the Federal
Government may seek to challenge the regulatory structure
itself.''
Now, I do not agree that the administration should be
talking about what they are going to prosecute or not
prosecute, but if they follow closely whether or not the State
is doing what the Justice Department said you had to do if they
were not going to have prosecution, then that makes it a little
more responsible.
So then leading up to my question, the first three
priorities listed in the Cole memo are: one, preventing the
distribution of marijuana to minors; two, preventing revenue
from the sale of marijuana going to criminal enterprises
involving drug-trafficking gangs and cartels; and, three,
preventing the diversion of marijuana to other States.
So a simple question: Could you tell us what the trends are
in Colorado in these areas?
Administrator Leonhart. Senator, on those enforcement
priorities you discussed, obviously DEA and our State and local
law enforcement partners are concerned about marijuana going
from Colorado or Washington to surrounding States. And we are
very concerned about what we see happening in Colorado.
Take, for instance, Kansas, and we have talked to our
partners in Kansas, and they have already been seeing a 61-
percent increase in marijuana seizures coming from Colorado,
and these seizures were destined for 18 other States. They have
also seen an increase, a 49-percent increase in money seizures
of money going back to Colorado that they assume were a part of
the proceeds coming back from marijuana loads. So that is of
great concern to us, as is the first priority, which is
preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors.
Senator Grassley. Now, on that latter point, you have seen
some of that very much advertised on recent news reports about
4th graders selling marijuana for $11 as an example. When you
said you are concerned about sales to minors, have you observed
sales to minors like I think I have heard in the news reports?
Administrator Leonhart. Well, not only in Colorado, but
other States that have marijuana dispensaries, where we have
seen that, those instances give us reason to take action, and
we have. We have closed down dispensaries. We have done
investigations, and especially, you know, I am thinking of one
in particular in California where we got a call from a school
principal who warned us that a local dispensary had put notices
on the cars in the high school parking lot advertising, you
know, ``Stop by.''
We also have complaints from citizens about their kids
being stopped on the way to school and being given--or asked to
come into the store and being given samples. So those are what
causes most of our investigations.
Senator Grassley. Maybe as a matter of a summary, would you
say that the trends are moving in the right direction or the
wrong direction?
Administrator Leonhart. The trends are what us in law
enforcement had expected would happen.
Senator Grassley. Okay. So it does not end up being a
surprise to you.
As a follow-up to that, and my understanding is that you
are not involved in the prosecution--I mean, in carrying out
the Department of Justice's recommendations on prosecution, but
have you talked to anyone at the Department of Justice who is
monitoring what is happening in Colorado for the purposes of
re-evaluating its decision not to challenge the State law? And,
second, do you know whether anyone there is actually doing so?
Administrator Leonhart. Well, I can tell you we have been
talking with the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney in
Colorado. In fact, on Friday, we were able to--based on an
indictment, we made arrests for exactly what we have been
concerned about. These were Colombian nationals who had
invested in a marijuana business in Colorado. We took action.
Part of the investigation went down last fall, and we were able
to obtain indictments and make arrests, and there is more to
come.
So we have been working with the Department and working
with the U.S. Attorney's Office to bring cases that we at DEA
feel are significant and violate those eight factors.
Senator Grassley. Do you think that some of the things you
just told me have led to any discussion about revisiting the
decision not to challenge the State law? Has it gone that far?
Administrator Leonhart. I am not aware of any discussion. I
know the stakeholders within Government--ONDCP, HHS, and
others--you know, we are finding a way to look at the data that
is coming out from those States so that we are in a better
position to assess what is going on.
Senator Grassley. But then is that information being
accumulated to advise people in prosecution whether or not
these States ought to be left alone or not? That is what I was
getting at. Do you think it is being revisited by the people
that originally made the decision as a result of some of the
things you can tell them if they listen to you?
Administrator Leonhart. I believe that they are assessing
it. To what extent they are assessing it, I do not know.
Senator Grassley. Okay. Let me go to the heroin epidemic. I
am sure you would agree that enforcement of our drug-
trafficking laws is an important component of the Federal
response to our country's heroin epidemic, so I ask a question
about heroin trafficking.
First, I want to be clear about whether mandatory minimums
are applicable to heroin users or dealers. The law currently
applies a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for possessing with
the intent to distribute 100 grams of heroin. So my first
question is: How many hits does 100 grams of heroin contain?
And is that number of hits consistent with someone who is just
a plain dealer?
Administrator Leonhart. Well, Senator, to answer your
question, this packet is a 1-gram packet, so 100 of these.
Depending on the experience of the user--because it will
change. If you are a novice user, you will not need as much. If
you are an experienced user, you will need more. And this is
not taking into account what type of heroin it is or what part
of the country this is coming from. But, on average, with one
hit being about 30 milligrams, this one packet--100 of these
would produce about 3,300 to 3,500 uses.
Senator Grassley. Okay. Well, then, is that number of hits
consistent with someone who is just a plain user?
Administrator Leonhart. That in our world would be dealer
quantities.
Senator Grassley. Okay.
Administrator Leonhart. Traffickers.
Senator Grassley. I will have to end with this because my
equal time is just about up. As I mentioned earlier, our
Federal prosecutors making these cases on the line every day
have told us that the system of penalties in place now is a
critical tool for them to be able to dismantle drug-trafficking
networks to keep our communities safe. Do you and your DEA line
agents find the mandatory minimum sentence to be a valuable
tool? And if so, explain why you consider it a valuable tool?
Administrator Leonhart. Having been in law enforcement as
an agent for 33 years, a Baltimore City police officer before
that, I can tell you that for me and for the agents that work
for DEA, mandatory minimums have been very important to our
investigations. We depend on those as a way to ensure that the
right sentences are going to equate to the level of violator
that we are going after.
Senator Grassley. Tell Senator Leahy he can have 23 more
seconds. I went over that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Grassley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Whitehouse [presiding]. Thank you very much,
Senator Grassley.
I have two questions that I will address now with the
Administrator. The first has to do with the development of your
policies as prescription drugs, and the abuse of prescription
drugs, and particularly opioid prescription drugs, increasingly
dominates America's drug abuse problem. My worry is that as you
direct more law enforcement attention to that problem and more
regulatory attention to that problem, you may intrude on the
legitimate and proper use of those prescription drugs. And I am
wondering what the structure is within DEA for evaluating those
concerns, because while it is definitely a concern that we
address the abuse of these prescription drugs, it is also a
concern if an 80-year-old woman who is alone in the world and
living in a nursing home is in terrible pain at 2 o'clock in
the morning and there is no way for her to get relief from her
pain because we have made it such a fortress of regulation
around her bedside that you have to get a doctor up at 2 in the
morning to go do that, and that is not likely to happen.
How does the sensitivity to the concerns of the elderly and
other needy users of these drugs, legitimate users of these
drugs, play into your calculation?
Administrator Leonhart. Senator, at DEA, you know, we have
the Office of Diversion Control, and working with them, it is
very important to strike that balance. It is very hard, but it
is very important to us because----
Senator Whitehouse. Who is the advocate for that balance
within DEA?
Administrator Leonhart. Well, I am the advocate for the
balance, but so are the men and women that are working not only
in the Office of Diversion Control but even with our special
agents in charge, and I can give you an example. We have----
Senator Whitehouse. I mean more specifically, in terms of
the development of this regulation, there are people who are
going to be involved in it. Is there somebody in that who
actually has the task of trying to look at this from the
legitimate user's point of view and make sure that that point
of view is brought into the discussion?
Administrator Leonhart. Several different levels, and it
depends on what regulation, but regulations that require
rulemaking always have a comment period, and so the regulations
that we have put out as interim or as proposed rulemaking, all
of those comments have come back, and we have had some that
have come back with 200-plus comments. All of those comments
are taken into consideration and addressed. And so those
comments and concerns are looked at by the Office of Diversion
Control in coming up with a final rule, but they are also
looked at----
Senator Whitehouse. So the comment process is really key to
that, because it is outside voices coming through the comment
process that are really the advocacy voice on this side of that
balance.
Administrator Leonhart. It is outside voices, but as the
rule moves within the agency at the chief of diversion control
level, he is looking at it, and he has done a very good job
making sure that there is that balance. And then before it gets
to the Deputy Administrator or myself, there is discussion
about impact on any rule that we sign with the Office of
Diversion Control.
Senator Whitehouse. Okay. As this goes forward, just do not
forget the elderly lady alone and in pain as you are trying to
crack down, very legitimately, on these abused but regulated
and lawful prescriptions.
The other question is on electronic prescribing. The agency
and I have had a long back-and-forth on this subject, and after
a considerable effort and considerable time, ultimately you
changed the regulations to allow electronic prescribing of
controlled substances, which I think was a huge step forward.
One of the values of that is allowing for law enforcement
access to data that the system produces so that you know if a
podiatrist is prescribing lots of hydrocodone, maybe that is
worth looking into. If the same individual is going to five
different doctors and five different pharmacies and getting
prescriptions filled for oxycodone, maybe that is worth looking
into. And if somebody goes from 50 prescriptions a month to
500, maybe that is worth looking into.
But I do not see that developing very effectively between
DEA and the States, and I am told that the Office of the
National Coordinator for Health Information Technology is right
now working to develop consensus standards for exchanging this
kind of information with the prescription drug monitoring
programs. I am not aware that DEA is actually involved in that
conversation. Similarly, there is a White House initiative
called the ``National Strategy for Trusted Identities in
Cyberspace,'' which helps deal with authentication and other
issues when you are dealing with electronic information. And I
am not aware that DEA is involved in that process either.
Are you involved in those processes, and should you be?
Administrator Leonhart. Senator, I will go back and check
on the first one you mentioned. I am not aware of, and we very
well could be. On the second one, I know we have been involved
in the certification process, if that is what you are talking
about. We have certified the companies that then go in and
bless whatever technology is going to be used. So we are often
involved in the conversation. But having been involved with the
trusted IDs, as you--the conversation as you have just
described, I will need to get back to you on that.
Senator Whitehouse. Okay. Well, I look forward to working
with you. I think that the value of moving toward electronic
prescribing for controlled substances from an enforcement point
of view is to be able to identify peculiarities and outliers
for further law enforcement investigation. And if you are not
engaged in getting that done, you are not helping the program
go forward.
I will stop right here and end the tradition of going well
over time and yield to Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I agree with
you that prescription drugs, as we described in Mobile a number
of years ago, the illegal use of prescription drugs is a
winnable war. I mean, it is something that can be controlled,
and I believe a united effort can make real progress in that. I
hope you will continue to work at it.
Isn't it true that a number of illegal prescription drugs
that are found on the streets may actually have been paid for
by Medicaid, Medicare, or private insurance and, indeed,
represent a fraud on those companies and the taxpayers?
Administrator Leonhart. You are absolutely correct,
Senator. In fact, a number of our cases we work with other
agencies who are investigating Medicaid and Medicare fraud.
That is quite common in our diversion investigations.
Senator Sessions. Our little plan was simply with the
police department that everybody arrested with an illegal
prescription drug, the case would not be plea bargained until
they told where they got the drug, and we ended up forfeiting
two drug stores who were distributing drugs out the back door
illegally.
My experience in this area came when President Reagan
appointed me United States Attorney in the early 1980s, and we
commenced a community-wide effort to create a climate of
hostility to drug abuse. At that time, according to the
authoritative University of Michigan study, over 50 percent of
high school seniors acknowledged that they had used an illegal
drug within the last year. That was a dramatic statistic. It
threatened the future of our young people in every community in
America. Groups came together to educate, to try to reverse
that trend. As a part of that, those experts told us law
enforcement, effective prosecution, arrest of drug dealers, as
well as an effort to create a climate of hostility to drugs
were all part of the goal. And within 10 years, the percentage
of high school students using illegal drugs had dropped below
25 percent. That was a tremendous achievement.
The murder rate in 1980 per 100,000 was over 10; whereas,
it dropped to under 5 today. And we have seen a continual drop.
I think that even violence, would you not agree, is often
connected to drug use and drug abuse?
Administrator Leonhart. You are absolutely correct. I think
that there is a correlation between the fact that we did
approach the drug issue not only from enforcement but also from
a demand reduction and messaging point. I think there is a
correlation there. A 35-percent reduction in overall drug use
since 1979, the same with high school seniors, and we see that
same drop in violent crime. So I do see a connection.
Senator Sessions. And you are seeing it edge upward now in
recent years in drug use among young people?
Administrator Leonhart. We were doing very good, we were
doing very good until the messaging changed, and we started to
see--we had an exploding prescription drug problem, and that
has now become a heroin problem as well. But all the other
numbers were dropping. Like I mentioned in my opening
statement, we have seen cocaine use drop to all-time lows in
this country. We have seen meth use drop by almost a third. So
I believe that it is the holistic approach, you know,
prevention on the front end, treatment, and enforcement,
because a lot of people are not going to treatment without that
nudge from law enforcement. It is important.
Senator Sessions. Without that nudge from law enforcement.
That is what the treatment people and the experts I dealt with
said, some of the best. You have to be able to arrest people,
and then you are intervening in their destructive habit, and
you have a chance then to change their lives many times. And I
have seen that with drug courts and other type ideas.
But I have got to tell you, you said the messaging changed,
and I think some people are irresponsible in what we are
hearing about particularly marijuana. I thank you and some of
your officials in DEA for speaking out and telling the truth
about the dangers of marijuana. This is not a non-dangerous
drug. And I got to tell you, in terms of messaging, the
President's statement to me, I spent 12 years working with
grassroots citizen groups to change the approach to drugs and
the climate of drugs and to make it a hostile climate for drugs
and explain the dangers of drug use.
For 1 year, we met every single week--the mayor, the chief
of police, the head of mental health--and we discussed these
issues.
This is why it is so painful to me and to every person who
has dedicated themselves and given time, effort, and money to
reversing drugs, for the President of the United States to say,
``As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid. And I
view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from
cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big
chunk of my adult life. I do not think it is more dangerous
than alcohol.''
That is the President of the United States gratuitously
making a statement of extraordinary importance. It has the
potential to eviscerate the work of thousands of Americans,
hundreds of thousands really, to try to explain the dangers of
drugs.
So let me ask you, did the President consult with you
before he made that statement?
Administrator Leonhart. I have not talked to the President
about that interview.
Senator Sessions. Do you know if he talked to the drug
czar, the Office of National Narcotics and Drug----
Administrator Leonhart. I do not know who he talked to.
Senator Sessions. I do not think he talked with medical
experts either, who tell us repeatedly of the dangers
particularly to young people from marijuana use, much less
others.
Isn't it true that you do go through trends where we have
seen a move from prescription drugs to heroin?
My time is up. I will stop there, but maybe I will submit a
written question. We need to find out more about the abuse and
growth of heroin. In Alabama, we have seen a 400-percent
increase in deaths in Birmingham from heroin use, from 14 in
1910 to the upper 70s last year. That is a dramatic increase in
deaths from heroin in Birmingham, Alabama.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Sessions. And we all
appreciate the experience that Senator Sessions brings to this
equation as the former U.S. Attorney for his State.
Senator Sessions. As the Chairman has been himself.
Senator Whitehouse. I now recognize Senator Klobuchar, and
before we start her clock, let me express my appreciation to
her for the work that she has done, I think really leading this
Committee, on synthetic drugs, bath salts, and so forth, and
trying to improve the scheduling response to that. Senator
Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
and thank you for holding that all-day meeting yesterday with
Senator Portman about addiction and the work that needs to be
done. I was pleased to take part in that.
And we welcome you, Administrator Leonhart. You spent many
years in Minnesota--how many years?
Administrator Leonhart. Most of my childhood.
Senator Klobuchar. Yes, well, we are proud to have you in
this job. As you and I talked about last week, I recently led a
delegation to Mexico a few weeks ago on the topic of sex
trafficking as well as heroin, and I think we asked every
single official there, including the Attorney General of Mexico
and the head of the Federal police, about what was going on
with heroin. I was there with Senator Heitkamp and Cindy
McCain, wife of Senator John McCain. And as you know, about 50
percent of the heroin is grown in Mexico and 60 percent of the
heroin that we have come into the U.S. is either grown or
distributed through Mexico.
Just as Senator Sessions was talking about, we have seen a
lot of overdoses in Minnesota. In the first half of 2013
alone--this is the first half--91 people died of opiate-related
overdoses in Hennepin and Ramsey County alone. It was a
significant increase. Hospital visits for heroin nearly tripled
from 2004 to 2011. And in the 7,000-person community of St.
Francis, Minnesota, three young people have died of opiate
overdoses since May, just to give you a sense of why this was
important to me, why it was one of the reasons I went down to
Mexico. And the things we learned there was, as you know--and
you and I talked about the prosecutors there and the police
working with our law enforcement and DEA are really ramping it
up on the cartels. They were able to capture--Mexican police
captured El Chapo in Mexico, long-time boss of the powerful
Sinaloa drug cartel, which dealt in heroin. And talking to
them, it appears there are still many issues with some of this
now, with taking on some of the leadership of the cartels, we
now have smaller gangs dealing in some of these drugs. We have
lower-level kidnappings, express kidnappings for a day, and
talking to the Mexican authorities, three things: one, that
they are trying to beef up their southern border as they are
seeing that pure heroin coming up from other countries down
there, something we do not always think about; second, we
pushed on the eradication issue, which has been successful in
parts of Colombia, as we are starting to see not just the black
tar heroin coming out of Mexico but some of their own white
powder heroin; and then, of course, the third is the continuing
coordination with our own DEA and law enforcement in going
after these cartels.
This comes at a time where Mexico is so eager to partner
with not just the United States but Canada as part of the New
Day in North America, and there is so much potential for our
economies to work together. And I actually see some potential
in a major way for us for exporting things down there if they
can grow a middle class and take care of some of this violence
which has really prohibited them from getting--reaching their
full potential.
So if you could talk a little bit about your efforts with
Mexico.
Administrator Leonhart. Thank you, Senator, for sharing
what you discussed on your trip, and thank you for the
interest, especially bringing up the heroin issue on your trip.
The relationship between officials in Mexico and the DEA
and the greater U.S. Government law enforcement community is
still at an all-time high, very, very good collaboration, and
that is why we have the success of being able to, you know,
take into custody Chapo Guzman and how that impacts drug
trafficking around the world, because he was such a big figure.
We have a number of operations and a number of initiatives
that we are working jointly with our Mexican counterparts and
the other Government agencies, and this is starting to pay off
in dividends, not just with El Chapo's arrest but also the
arrest of other leaders and mid-level leaders of Los Zetas, of
the Gulf cartel, of the Beltran-Leyva organization, and all of
these organizations that really are responsible for most of the
cocaine, most of the heroin, most of the drugs--meth--that are
landing in our communities.
So when Senators take an interest in pushing for good
relationships with our Mexican partners, we need to thank you
for that.
Senator Klobuchar. Another issue which you and I have
discussed at length is the bill--and this does relate to
heroin, since four out of five heroin users now got their start
with prescription drugs and got addicted to prescription drugs
and then turned to heroin when they cannot find the
prescription drugs, and oftentimes end up dead or addicted for
life. One of the things that we passed 4 years ago, Senator
Cornyn and I, passed out of this Committee and was signed into
law, was the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act. The idea
here is to change some of the rules to make it easier for drug
takebacks, not just have them once every 3 months in
communities where we know they are collecting tons, but try to
find more permanent arrangements in long-term care facilities
as well as potentially pharmacies if the pharmacy is giving
them the opportunity, not required but to take back these
drugs, how easy that would be as we no longer want to tell
people to flush these drugs down the toilet because of the
water supply or my favorite, grind them up with coffee grinds
and put them in the garbage, because I do not have a lot of
coffee grinds in my house.
So I think that is not realistic for busy families, and I
am hopeful that we can get these done. You know, we have been
frustrated by how long it took, and I heard a little rumor that
maybe you got some comments back from the Office of Management
and Budget this week, and that that means it is then back in
your court, if that were to happen, how long do you think it
will take to get these rules out?
Administrator Leonhart. Well, I can tell you that we did
get them back, and we have already taken care of a couple of
the concerns. There is still a concern that we need to address,
but we are hoping that we can do that very quickly. We remain
optimistic, because I know we have all been waiting a very long
time to have these regulations in place so that people can have
kind of a 24/7 way to dispose of the medications that have for
year languished in their medicine cabinet.
Senator Klobuchar. Well, I appreciate that, because every
time I see one of the public service ads, which I think are
very good, showing someone open the medical cabinet and then
seeing their kid's face because their kid is taking the drugs
that should not be in there anymore, I always think, ``Okay,
this is great. We are doing this. It is going to stop people
from getting addicted and then moving on to heroin.'' But if
they do not know what to do with the drugs and they have no
real place to put them, we have a problem. So I appreciate that
and urge you to get these rules done as soon as possible.
Thank you very much, Administrator.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
Now we turn to Senator Hatch who, among other things, is
the lead on the Designer Anabolic Steroid Control Act with me.
Senator Hatch. Well, thank you. It is certainly a pleasure
always to work with you and other Members of this Committee. I
appreciate the effort you put forward.
Welcome, Ms. Leonhart. We are so grateful to have you here.
I first want to raise the problem of marijuana cultivation on
land in my home State of Utah that the Federal Government
currently owns. The Federal Government owns a majority of land
in only five of the 50 States, and that figure is actually
around 70 percent of my home State of Utah.
Now, people in most of the country do not know what that
means, but Utahans certainly do. It means that the Federal
Government has the responsibility to address issues and
problems related to the Federal land itself. And this is not
the first time I have addressed the Federal Government's
failure to live up to that responsibility.
Last year, for example, I offered an amendment to the
immigration bill that would enhance penalties for marijuana
cultivation on Federal land. Now, this Committee adopted my
amendment by unanimous consent. These activities pose a direct
threat to public safety in and around our communities.
Do you agree that this is a serious problem and that it is
the Federal Government's responsibility to solve it?
Administrator Leonhart. I do, Senator, and, you know, we
have worked with our State and local counterparts in Utah and
have done a number of cases, just as you have mentioned, that
have been on public lands.
Senator Hatch. I appreciate that.
Administrator Leonhart. It seems that we each year are
seizing more and more plants until recently. We have almost
seen a shift off of public lands, though, to indoor grows, but
the importance of continuing to go after the growing on public
lands is, number one, it is an enforcement priority for the
Government because that is Government property; growing on
public lands, there is a lot of concern because we see Mexican
trafficking groups take hold on a number of those grows. We
also are concerned because of the dangers, you know, someone
hiking through the woods coming across a grow. There have been
instances, not just in Utah but instances in other States,
where there have been booby traps, and it is dangerous.
So we have continued our efforts. We continue to run an
eradication-suppression program. We continue to fund State and
local authorities who pledge to go and take enforcement on
public lands. And we will continue to do so, and I know you
have been very supportive in our efforts, and I want to thank
you for that.
Senator Hatch. Well, thank you. The problem I just
described is getting worse for two related reasons:
First, with the second-highest percentage of Federal land
ownership in my home State, Utah sits next to Colorado, which
now has legalized marijuana. The international drug cartels
that already had been invading Federal land to cultivate
illegal drugs will inevitably work to increase supply to meet
the increased demand.
And, second, even though your prepared statement says that
the administration ``continues to steadfastly oppose marijuana
legalization,'' the Justice Department announced that it will
not challenge the legalization of marijuana in either Colorado
or Washington. In addition, the administration says it wants to
lower sentences for drug offenders and even invites those now
in prison to apply for clemency.
Now, to me, those are not welcome developments in a State
like Utah where the Federal Government should be doing more to
prevent its land from being used to fuel the problem.
Now, do you agree that legalization of marijuana will
increase the demand for marijuana and possibly other drugs as
well?
Administrator Leonhart. Senator, the administration opposes
legalization of marijuana, and I believe one of the reasons it
does oppose it is we know that where we see marijuana
legalized, you should expect more use.
Senator Hatch. Okay. Your prepared statement details some
of the evidence that marijuana is, in fact, harmful to a
person's physical and intellectual development and may very
well impair their quality of life. Now, research also shows,
however, that whether a person will use drugs depends very much
on whether that person believes that the drug is harmful.
According to the Monitoring the Future Study, the
perception of harm for regular marijuana use among 12th graders
has steadily declined. Young people increasingly see marijuana
as legal and medicinal rather than harmful. And now we see
innocent-looking edibles such as what appear to be cookies or
even candy that ABC News has reported can be exponentially more
potent than when marijuana itself is smoked.
I have here in my hand an Alert Bulletin from the Colorado
Information Analysis Center dated March 19, 2014. It says that
there has been an increased amount of marijuana-infused
products sold to the public and that these products include
fruit chews, cupcakes, and even butter and banana bread--in
fact, more than that.
Mr. Chairman, I ask consent to place this bulletin in the
record at this point.
Senator Whitehouse. Without objection, it shall be included
in the record.
[The bulletin appears as a submission for the record.]
Senator Hatch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Now, Ms. Leonhart, I think the inevitable result of this
trend will be increased use, abuse, and addiction. Do you share
my concerns on this?
Administrator Leonhart. You have a right to be concerned,
and as law enforcement officers, we are very concerned about
that, especially when we see some of these edibles--the people
who are making them and selling them are calling them ``adult
gummy bears,'' but you cannot even tell the difference between,
you know, kids' gummy bears and those laced with marijuana.
So we are very concerned, and it is one of the reasons why
the Department of Justice in the August 29th memo with the
eight factors--and they have, you know, factors in there
related to kids, selling to kids. It is another reason why they
put that memo out in anticipation that the States that pass
legalization will put in place aggressive--not just on paper
but real aggressive oversight, regulatory systems to take care
of that. And we are very concerned about those edibles and
about the high concentration. You know, a person you heard
about, the young student who jumped out a window after eating
the cookie, which was, you know, seven or eight servings, not
just one. We are concerned about all of that. The marketing,
when these packages look like they are marketed for kids, they
look like candy bar wrappers. We share your concern.
Senator Hatch. Well, I appreciate it.
Mr. Chairman, can I ask one other question?
Senator Whitehouse. Of course. It is just the two of us.
Please proceed. Take the time you need.
Senator Hatch. See what a great Chairman he is?
I mentioned earlier what I consider to be the
administration's misguided invitation for Federal prisoners to
seek clemency in these cases. Now, the President has the
authority to grant clemency in individual cases, and I would be
the first to stand up for that right, and I think it should be
exercised from time to time, and I decried some of the former
Presidents not exercising clemency a little more than they do.
But I cannot remember a President using that authority to
change sentences for an entire category of Federal prisoners
simply because he does not think that they should be in prison.
Now, Congress alone has authority to determine sentencing
policy, but I do not think the President appears to understand
that. He is, in effect, trying to set sentencing policy on his
own.
Now, I do not expect you to comment on the President's
decision, but I did want to state for the record that I think
he is going too far, that he is misuing his authority. And I
will help him on clemency because I think sometimes we do not
use that power enough as President. But I think he should work
with us in Congress rather than against Congress, and I think
that I would just recommend that to the President as part of
this hearing.
But States choosing to legalize marijuana will in some way
regulate that to commercial activity. But as you know, the same
criminal organizations that profit from selling marijuana deal
also in drugs such as heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, as well
as engaging in human trafficking and other drug-related crimes.
Now, law-abiding citizens and legislators may distinguish
between such things, but traffickers and other criminals do not
distinguish between them. They simply follow the money.
What is the DEA doing to ensure that stores and
dispensaries that legally sell marijuana do not act as fronts
for illegal activities? And, further, how are you monitoring
that marijuana being sold in these dispensaries is not obtained
from criminals?
Administrator Leonhart. Senator, we are concerned about
that. On the first part, we have continued--where we see in
Colorado or Washington, where we see these dispensaries that
are impacting the eight factors in the August 29th memo, we are
taking action. Just the action--and I am not sure if you were
here, but I mentioned earlier about an action that we took in
Colorado on Friday. Concerns for us were that the money that
went into this business came from Colombia and Colombian
nationals. So we took action and we will continue to take
action where we see violations of those eight Federal
priorities.
Senator Hatch. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you
giving me this extra time.
Senator Whitehouse. I am delighted to do it.
Senator Hatch. Thank you, Madam.
Senator Whitehouse. The topic of the mandatory minimums has
come up on several occasions, and I just wanted to close with a
comment on that. I have been the U.S. Attorney for Rhode
Island, and I have been the Attorney General of Rhode Island,
and clearly from a law enforcement perspective, there is
enormous value to mandatory minimums. But as I think both
courts and prosecutors agree, they also represent a shift of
power from the court to make sentencing decisions to the
prosecutors and to law enforcement to have sentencing decisions
implicitly made through charging decisions. And the power that
gives prosecutors can be very helpful. I have used it myself,
because the threat of how you charge a case can turn a
defendant in to a cooperator, and a cooperator can turn into a
valuable witness against an even more dangerous defendant.
So as we approach this issue, I think we have to recognize
that this was an important tool in the hands of law
enforcement. But at the same time, I think we also have to
recognize that, from a cost-benefit equation, some people who
ended up in prison for very lengthy terms for relatively minor
offenses were not--the effort was not serving the public, was
not serving the public safety, and it was not serving the
taxpayer.
And so we are clearly in a conversation on that right now,
particularly in the Judiciary Committee, as it relates to the
Durbin-Lee Smart Sentencing Act. I think that is a conversation
that is well worth having, and I think there is room for
progress there.
There are clearly two sides to the equation, but I wanted
to make sure that the record of this hearing recognized the
other side of the equation, which is that, from a public safety
and effectiveness point of view, these mandatory minimums have
their downsides as well as their upsides.
I also wanted to express concern with something, Madam
Administrator, that you said to Chairman Leahy with regard to a
program that has been of interest to Members of this Committee.
You indicated, if I wrote it down correctly, that you all have
briefed Members of the Committee. I do not believe that has
actually taken place. I think what has taken place is that
Members of the Committee asked to be briefed, and we were told
that that was not possible because of an ongoing agency review.
And then when we pressed, we were allowed a law enforcement-
sensitive staff briefing, which consisted of the staff being
told that they could not be briefed on this because there were
not Members present.
So I think that was a not entirely satisfactory turn of
events given that Members had been excluded from the meeting.
The only thing that was offered was a staff briefing at that
point.
So we are working our way through that, and I think we are
going to get our briefing, but I do want to do two things: one
is a question for the record to the Drug Enforcement
Administration for whatever constitutional basis you think
there is for a claim that congressional oversight is limited by
ongoing agency review. To me that is a constitutional
proposition that has no support and no substance. It appears to
have been the basis for delaying the member briefing, and so
perhaps you are aware or your general counsel is aware of
constitutional principles I am not aware of, and I would like
to have them put on record as a response to a question for the
record in this hearing how they would answer that question.
Pushing for that briefing has been kind of a challenging
experience. Pushing to try to get the e-prescribing rules
changed, which took 3 years, was a challenging experience.
Senator Grassley and I helped referee the battle between DEA
and GAO over GAO's inquiries into drug shortages. That was kind
of a challenging experience. And as I look at the e-prescribing
connection to prescription drug monitoring programs, once again
it seems that we see challenges. I do not know if that is
representative of a larger, ongoing bureaucratic culture of
non-cooperation at DEA, but as these individual events begin to
stack up, episodes begin to look like a pattern. And perhaps in
response to a question for the record, you could explain DEA's
position with regard to those different instances, because I do
not think that the agency wants to develop a reputation as an
agency that does not cooperate and does not work well with
others.
Administrator Leonhart. You are absolutely right.
[The information referred to appears as a submission for
the record.]
Senator Whitehouse. I assume that you have no concern with
first responders getting access to naloxone for overdoses
when----
Administrator Leonhart. We are very supportive of that, in
fact, helped raise that with the International Association of
Chiefs of Police who passed a resolution so that their members
were aware that that is a very good way for police departments
and first responders to attack the heroin and opiate overdose
problem.
Senator Whitehouse. Good. And I think we all applaud
Attorney General Holder for having made the statement that he
did and pushed this issue forward from local first responders,
whether law enforcement or EMT or Fire, to be prepared for the
circumstances as we are presented with them more and more. I
had a hearing--I should not say a hearing--a conference
yesterday, Senator Portman and I did, on addiction and
recovery, and one of the statistics that emerged from that is
that 105 Americans die every day from overdoses. And to the
extent we can stem that toll of death and tragedy by having our
first responders properly prepared, that seems like a good
thing to do.
So I thank you for appearing before the Committee. I thank
the DEA for their courage and their vigilance in executing
their law enforcement responsibilities. You and I have a friend
in common who is a DEA agent whose career includes a particular
instance of very great bravery, done for a very important
purpose, and I think of DEA in those terms very often. So we
wish you well in the work that you do, and we look forward to
continuing a healthy and robust relationship between this
Committee and your agency.
The record of this hearing will remain open for one
additional week if anybody wishes to add anything, and subject
to that, the hearing is closed.
Administrator Leonhart. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
A P P E N D I X
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]