[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Page 7820]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               NEXT STEPS: MA AND PA METHAMPHETAMINE LABS

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today after hearing several 
reports of the continued problem of methamphetamine production in rural 
America. Law enforcement must dedicate more and more resources to the 
small, ``ma and pa'' meth labs. These small labs pose a threat not only 
because of the drugs they produce, but also the serious health and 
environmental risk caused by the production process.
  In years past, methamphetamine production was controlled by skilled 
chemists or well-educated individuals who were paid significant amounts 
of money to manufacture the narcotic. Methamphetamine production at 
times took an entire day to produce. Today, with modern technology and 
the help of information readily available over the Internet, 
methamphetamine production can be accomplished within a very few hours. 
Production no longer takes a highly skilled individual or chemist. 
Recipes for producing meth can be downloaded off the Internet, complete 
with step-by-step instructions anyone can follow. These recipes use 
products available at any number of local retail outlets as 
ingredients, first reducing them to the needed chemical components and 
then recombining them to produce meth.
  Small cooks, often producing only enough meth for themselves and a 
few friends, dominate the concerns of rural law enforcement 
organizations. Several of the narcotics task forces in Iowa report that 
while they believe over 80 percent of the meth within their 
jurisdiction comes from outside the State, they spend 80 percent of 
their time and resources on these small cooks. If we are going to get 
ahead of this problem, we must change this ratio.
  Several years ago we took some important steps in limiting access to 
many of the precursors needed for meth production. These were good 
steps, and have proven somewhat effective. But more needs to be done.
  Officers from the Southeast Iowa Task Force will tell you stories of 
suspects they have followed all over the county, stopping at each 
convenience store, supermarket, and drug store they passed to pick up 
as much cold medicine as they could. Not because they were sick, but 
because they needed the ephedrine in these drugs to cook meth. 
Sometimes it is purchased, but just as often it is stolen. These 
suspects were followed back to apartments, farm houses, motel rooms, or 
even deserted areas of gravel roads where the cold medicines were 
combined with other chemicals like starter fluid, anhydrous ammonia, 
and drain cleaner solvents for a ``cook'' of methamphetamine. This is 
all too common anyplace we find meth being cooked by amateurs using 
recipes off the Internet.
  There are several different recipes for cooking meth. In rural areas, 
many of the small cooks use a recipe calling for anhydrous ammonia, 
which is a fertilizer readily available wherever farming occurs. Other 
recipes call for the use of red phosphorous, the common ingredient in 
emergency road flares. But all of these recipes need some form of 
ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, a common ingredient in cold medicine.
  If we make it more difficult for meth cooks to acquire ephedrine, 
then it will be more difficult for them to manufacture this poison. 
Several proposals have been put forth by the DEA and others which would 
help control access to ephedrine products. Many of these have merit, 
and I hope we will continue to pursue these proposals.
  One method that could be very effective would be to put products 
containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine behind the counter, such as is 
currently do with cigarettes. Other proposals would increase the 
penalties for possession of excessive amounts of precursor chemicals 
for meth. Some quarters have suggested collecting names or even social 
security numbers for everyone who purchases products containing 
ephedrine or pseudoephedrine. Clearly, each of these proposed solutions 
brings its own set of challenges.
  But new steps need to be taken. Spending 80 percent of the time on 20 
percent of the problem is not a way to get ahead. Increasing the 
difficulty of getting the products needed to do a small ``cook'' of 
meth decreases the likelihood these ``cooks'' will take place at all. 
While none of these proposals will stop all of the ma and pa meth 
operations, the status quo is not acceptable. Our cops are being 
overwhelmed, and our kids are dying--we cannot remain silent.

                          ____________________