    [Senate Hearing 114-919]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 114-919

                            THE NEW ERA IN THE FIGHT
                        AGAINST METHAMPHETAMINE IN IOWA

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 13, 2015

                                   __________

                               Serial No. J-114-35

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            www.judiciary.senate.gov
                                www.govinfo.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    53-826                     WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                      CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman
    ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah                 PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Ranking
    JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama                   Member
    LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    JOHN CORNYN, Texas                   CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
    MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah                 RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    TED CRUZ, Texas                      SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    DAVID VITTER, Louisiana              AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
    DAVID PERDUE, Georgia                CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
    THOM TILLIS, North Carolina          RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut

                Kolan L. Davis, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
          Kristine Lucius, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page

    Grassley, Hon. Charles E.........................................     1
    Young, Hon. H. David.............................................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Feddersen, Paul..................................................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    35
        Responses to written questions...............................    62

    Hansen, Jay......................................................    14
        Prepared statement...........................................    43

    Lukan, Steve.....................................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................    33
        Responses to written questions...............................    64

    Moore, Denise....................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................    30

    Payne, Lieutenant Corbin.........................................    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    38

                                    APPENDIX

    Items submitted for the record...................................    29

                            THE NEW ERA IN THE FIGHT
                        AGAINST METHAMPHETAMINE IN IOWA

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2015

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., at
    Cowles-Kruidenier Auditorium, State Historical Building, 600
    East Locust Street, Des Moines, Iowa, 50319, Hon. Charles E.
    Grassley, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Also present: Representative H. David Young.
        Chairman Grassley. I call the meeting of the Senate
    Judiciary Committee to order for the purpose of a hearing, and
    welcome all of you who have come. Very thankful for the big
    turnout for a major problem that we have here in Iowa.
        For the witnesses that have had to prepare for this, we
    thank all of you for your preparation. I am glad that my
    colleague from the other House could join us; we are in his
    Congressional district, David Young.
        I have Chris, and Tim Kelly of my staff here will be
    sitting behind me, and whether it is now or a year from now,
    you have followed up on issues like we are talking about today.
    I hope you will take advantage of contacting my staff when you
    cannot contact me, but as some of you know, I have meetings in
    my office the weeks that we are in session, which are about 40
    or 42 weeks out of the year.
        I usually reserve Mondays through Thursdays for 8 15-minute
    appointments for those people that come to Washington, but
    sometimes those are telephone meetings that I have with people
    back here. I am in Washington and speaking to people back here
    as well. I hope you will feel free to be a part of this process
    of overseeing that laws are faithfully enforced, but also any
    changes that need to be made in the law.
        I am going to make an opening statement. Congressman Young
    will make an opening statement, then I am going to introduce
    each of the witnesses and we will have them testify in the
    order in which I introduce them. Then I will have questions and
    Congressman Young will have questions of these folks.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,

                 A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

        Chairman Grassley. Once again, I welcome all of you to this
    meeting. Today the Senate Judiciary Committee Field Hearing is
    focused on the evolving methamphetamine problem in Iowa. Some
    may think meth is yesterday's problem. Indeed, it seems like
    other illegal drugs often make the headlines more than meth.
    During my annual 99-county meetings, I have heard a lot from
    people recently about the persistence and changing nature of
    the meth problem in Iowa.
        I am told that meth-related treatment admissions are at an
    all-time high, and last year nearly half of all drug--related
    prison admissions in our State resulted from the trafficking
    and abuse of meth. Meth is obviously continuing to impact Iowa
    in terrible ways. Today I hope to learn more about the current
    trends relating to meth, promote awareness of the problem and
    learn how the Federal Government maybe can help more than we
    do.
        Meth is sometimes referred to as the world's most dangerous
    drug. It is highly addictive and can methodically destroy
    lives, families and communities. The children of meth users can
    face neglect or health risks from exposure to the hazardous
    chemicals that are used to create the drug.
        Indeed, one of the unique aspects of meth is that it can be
    made at home by those addicted, simply by using common
    ingredients found in hardware stores and pharmacies. When
    combined, these ingredients are highly toxic and combustible,
    posing a threat to the entire household.
        The risks that meth poses to families and children has been
    a concern of mine for many years. In 2006 I authored
    legislation that created a program to help support regional
    partnerships here in Iowa that provide treatment, services,
    counseling and skills training for families impacted by meth.
    The goal was to break the cycle of addiction and to help keep
    families together.
        In addition, Congress began erecting barriers to meth
    production in 2005 when it passed a bill entitled Combat
    Methamphetamine Epidemic, which I was proud to co-sponsor. The
    law placed limits on the amount of medicines containing meth
    ingredients, precursor chemicals like pseudoephedrine that a
    customer can purchase at great ease. It required pharmacies to
    sell these medicines from behind the counter and it instituted
    a system to track sales of these substances to prevent bulk
    purchases.
        Iowa also passed a similar State law. A few years later,
    one of the authors of the Methamphetamine Production Prevent
    Act, which became law--I was one of the authors of this Act
    that became law in 2008. This legislation made it easier for
    pharmacies to use the electronic logbooks to monitor sales of
    meth ingredients and for law enforcement to identify bulk
    purchasers.
        A few years later, the Combat Methamphetamine Enhancement
    Act of 2010, which I also co-sponsored, strengthened this
    regime even further. These laws have proven to be highly
    effective in drastically reducing the presence of meth labs in
    our communities. Today law enforcement seizures of meth labs is
    at an almost 20-year low. The success is a tribute to the hard
    work here of Governor Branstad and Director Lukan.
        Then, you may ask, how is meth still such a problem? Where
    is the drug products on our street coming from?
        Some have resorted to using what is known as shake and
    bake, or one-pot labs to cook meth. This is essentially using a
    single plastic bottle to mix the ingredients. The method
    remains highly dangerous, but can only produce small amounts of
    drugs, so this does not account for what is happening.
        No, this is the situation today: Most of the meth in our
    State now appears to be coming from the Mexican drug
    trafficking organizations. These organizations have entered the
    marketplace in response to increasing difficulty producing meth
    domestically, and they have virtually flooded the market with
    the product. Between 2009 and 2014, U.S. Customs and Border
    Protection reported a 300 percent increase in meth seizures at
    our Southwest border.
        The meth that these Mexican organizations are trafficking
    into our communities, often referred to as ice, is created at
    an industrial scale through a process that leads to a much
    higher purity than drugs produced in labs here at home. It is
    far cheaper as well, so it is no wonder the problem has not
    gone away.
        We need your help to keep looking for solutions at the
    local, State and Federal levels. In the Senate, I lead an
    annual effort to maintain crucial financial support for State
    and local law enforcements--you people out in the field every
    day dealing with this danger.
        Earlier this year, Senator Feinstein of California and I
    introduced the Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2015. If
    enacted, the bill would make it easier for the Department of
    Justice to prosecute Mexican cartels who harm our communities
    by trafficking in either meth or its precursor chemicals.
        I am pleased to say that after my Committee passed the bill
    out unanimously, it passed the full Senate last week. We are
    going to do everything we can to persuade the House of
    Representatives that they ought to act very quickly on this
    bill and send it to the President.
        All of our witnesses today have valuable experience and
    knowledge about the meth problem in Iowa. In particular, I am
    going to point out now but will introduce her later, the great
    work that our first witness is doing to support families in the
    crisis due to substance abuse here in Iowa.
        Denise Moore is a former meth addict herself. Her story
    should give hope to anyone struggling with this awful problem.
    Once again, I thank all of our witnesses for being here and
    look forward to hearing their testimony. I now recognize
    Congressman Young for any opening remarks he wants to make.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. H. DAVID YOUNG,

               A U.S. CONGRESSMAN FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

        Congressman Young. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, and I want
    to thank you for the work that you have done over the years.
    You are somebody who saw a problem and addressed it at the
    Federal level. The work continues to go at the Federal level,
    and there will be some help that we need with the State and
    locals as well, regarding this blight on our communities. Thank
    you for your help and allowing me to be here today.
        I am not going to rattle off a bunch of statistics and a
    history of this, because that has already been said by Senator
    Grassley. I will just--I look forward to the testimony of the
    witnesses and the question-and-answer to help further bring
    awareness to this issue and then how we combat this awful
    blight in our communities, which rips apart families.
        This is not one of those drugs that you think about just
    the kids are doing, right? Adults are doing this. In their
    later years and for whatever reason, the hollowness in their
    hearts and their minds, they feel that they have to go this
    route. We have to be there to support them and help find a way
    to get them out of this. I look forward to your testimony.
        Thank you, Senator Grassley, for this opportunity.
        Chairman Grassley. I am going to introduce our witnesses. I
    suppose a lot of you folks out there in the audience know these
    folks all right, but it is our tradition in the Senate to
    introduce, maybe--I already said about Denise Moore,
    Coordinator for the Iowa Department of Human Services Parent
    Partner Program. The Parent Partner Program is an approach that
    links parents who have successfully navigated the child welfare
    system with families just entering the system, to provide
    guidance and support.
        In her work, Ms. Moore calls on her experience as a former
    meth addict who lost her children, but reunited with them after
    recovering. Subsequently, she earned a bachelor of science in
    human services degree from Upper Iowa. In 2011 she was awarded
    the Ruth Massinga/Casey Excellence for Children Birth Parent of
    the Year award for her exceptional service and commitment to
    birth parents.
        Our second witness, Steve Lukan, who I knew more as a
    Member of the House of Representatives--but he has been in
    touch with my office frequently in his present position as
    Director of the Iowa Office of Drug Control Policy. In that
    role, as I am sure all of you know, he coordinates anti-drug
    efforts in Iowa and manages Federal grant programs focusing on
    reducing drug abuse and related crime. Besides serving 5 terms
    in the House of Representatives, he has a degree in political
    science from Loras College.
        Our third witness, Paul Feddersen, is Assistant Director of
    the Iowa Department of Public Services Division of Narcotics
    Enforcement, a position he has held now for 3 years. Mr.
    Feddersen has worked in law enforcement for 21 years, largely
    focusing on narcotics investigation. He has an undergraduate
    degree from the University of South Dakota and a master's
    degree in public administration from Drake.
        Our next witness, Lieutenant Corbin Payne: Lieutenant Payne
    has worked for the Waterloo Police Department for 20 years. He
    is currently assigned to the Tri-County Drug Enforcement Task
    Force, where he supervises narcotics investigations. Before
    that, he was a patrol officer and a member of both the Drug
    Crime Unit and the Citizens Response Unit, focusing on major
    crime problems in Waterloo. He has an undergraduate degree from
    Wartburg College and is a graduate of the FBI National Academy,
    Quantico, Virginia.
        Finally, I introduce Jay Hansen. Mr. Hansen, executive
    director, Prairie Ridge Integrated Behavioral Health Care in
    Mason City, a position that he has held for a long, long time--
    if I am right, since 1980. He currently serves on the State
    Board of Health, where he chairs the Substance Abuse and
    Problem Gambling Committee. A past president of Iowa Behavioral
    Health Association. His writing on the treatment of
    methamphetamine abuse was published in the National Institute
    on Drug Abuse Journal way back in 2007. He is a graduate of my
    alma mater, the University of Northern Iowa.
        We will start with you, Ms. Moore.

                 STATEMENT OF DENISE MOORE, DES MOINES

               SERVICE AREA COORDINATOR, IOWA DEPARTMENT

               OF HUMAN SERVICES PARENT PARTNER PROGRAM,

            CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF IOWA, DES MOINES, IOWA

        Ms. Moore. Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to share
    my experience with you today. My name is Denise Moore. I am
    Service Area Coordinator with the Iowa Department of Human
    Services.
        Chairman Grassley. Maybe you should pull the microphone
    closer to you, please.
        Ms. Moore. Is this good?
        Chairman Grassley. Maybe down just a little bit?
        Ms. Moore. Is this better?
        Chairman Grassley. Good.
        Ms. Moore. I am a Service Area Coordinator with the Iowa
    Department of Human Services Parent Partner Program, employed
    by Children and Families of Iowa, here in Des Moines, Iowa.
    Parent Partners are parents that have successfully navigated
    the child welfare system and reunited with their children, and
    then are trained to assist and support families that are
    entering the child welfare system.
        The majority of the families that come to the attention of
    child welfare system are due to neglect, and many of these
    families are affected by substance abuse. These families are
    often treated with a one-size--fits-all approach, no matter the
    severity of their addiction, resulting with their children
    being removed from their care. These interventions are often
    traumatizing for both the children and their families.
        Parent Partners take a different approach. Our personal
    experience and training ensures a trauma-informed approach.
    Parent Partners have the ability to communicate and empathize
    with parents, building trust and helping resolve the family
    issues, including achieving sobriety more quickly.
        I am a mother of 7 children, and had my children removed
    due to my methamphetamine use. From that experience, I would
    like to add a different perspective on today's discussion and
    hopefully shed some light on the desperation and hopelessness
    of parents affected by methamphetamine and the children that
    are left behind.
        As a Service Area Coordinator of the Parent Partner Program
    in Iowa, we see families that are being destroyed by meth every
    day. Statewide, the Parent Partner Program is working with over
    1,600 parent partners today and with the anticipation of 1,800
    by the year-end.
        As a parent partner, I understand the experience--the fear,
    the concern, the panic--but I also understand how to move
    beyond and achieve the goals that work, most importantly for
    the kids, but also for the community and the best outcomes. As
    a country, it makes sense to invest to help and support
    families at the front end. We need trauma--informed care, which
    is just an understanding of where people are and where they
    come from and what they deal with.
        It is real and used well, which changes the dynamic for
    families, including those suffering from addiction. We can and
    should help families like my family move from crisis to
    recovery to giving back to our community. I would like to focus
    today's discussion on creating systems that support recovery
    and allow families to heal together as a unit. To best
    understand this, I would like to share my personal experience.
        In 2003 I was arrested for conspiracy to deliver meth after
    living most of my life addicted to multiple substances. I had
    grown up in a world of substance abuse, domestic violence,
    sexual abuse and drugs, and it was the only world that I knew.
    It was my norm. Although I wanted something different for my
    life, I had no idea how to accomplish that. At first it was a
    casual using, but then it escalated into selling drugs to
    finance my habit and support my family.
        All the while my children were subjected to everything that
    I swore I would never do, including drug traffic in their home,
    seeing me beaten unrecognizable and being ashamed and worried
    about their mother's activities. My children have lost so much
    by seeing the people they love become incarcerated due to their
    addiction, but they still needed me, loved me and accepted me
    for all that I am.
        When I was arrested, my family proceeded to immediately get
    me out of jail because we knew that the Department of Human
    Services was coming and that my children would be removed and
    mostly likely be sent to multiple foster homes. DHS did come,
    but an angel came to my door that day, and she saw my family as
    a unit and that my children need to be together. My mother was
    allowed to come into my home and I was removed in a matter of
    minutes. This intervention was critical to the success of not
    only me, but also my children.
        At this time in child welfare, it was unheard of to have
    relative placement and for the children to remain in a drug
    home, but it was critical to the success of my family. My
    children were together; they were attending the same schools;
    they had the same teachers, coaches, friends. The only thing
    that was missing was me.
        I was sent a case plan in the mail. I was homeless, with no
    education, no driver's license, no money, no job, and was
    completely alone. I continued to do what I've always known to
    do, and that was to continue to get high on meth. I continued
    on that path for approximately a year and half until I was at
    termination of my parental rights. My caseworker lined all my
    children up on the couch, including my brand-new baby, and I
    had to tell them that I was going to lose them forever.
        My oldest son, who had loved me no matter what, had
    followed me, believed in me and was absolutely crushed because
    I was choosing drugs over him. I left that meeting and cried
    for the first time for as long as I could remember for all that
    I had done to my children, for all the pain from my own
    childhood and all that I have lost due to my drug addiction.
        I had a meeting with DHS following that day, and I begged
    for one more chance. To my surprise, they said yes, since all I
    had heard was that once you become involved with the
    Department, that you will never get your kids back.
        Looking back now, I see that I have seen parents' rights be
    terminated for much less than I have done. I vowed to stay
    clean, started attending AA meetings, started going to college,
    got a job, slowly had my children returned to me, and I have
    been clean from drugs for over 10 years. I was successfully
    reunified with my children after being away from them for 18
    months, and my case was closed after 2 years. Since then, my
    children and family have overcome challenges and withstood many
    barriers and have become outstanding members of society.
        My children have broken the cycle of addiction and they
    have gone on to have amazing and wonderful lives. They have
    healthy relationships. Four have graduated high school. They
    are going to college, buying houses, and building families.
        Unfortunately, these outcomes and interventions are the
    exception, and not the rule. We need more substance abuse
    treatment programs that focus on keeping families together.
    Support also is needed for relatives that step in to take care
    of our children. My hope is that we will recognize that
    incarceration and removals leave a trail of destruction for
    families in their path. I am proof that parents with meth
    addiction can recover and create nurturing and stable homes for
    their children.
        No one wants to be addicted to meth, but most people do not
    know how to stop. Through my work with parents and families,
    both across the State and Nationally, I have seen many children
    that are growing up without their parents or extended families
    and have been taken away from their communities.
        It is critical that we start looking at these families as a
    whole, and wrap services around them so they heal together and
    have healthy, stable lives that are drug-free. Thank you for
    all your time, and I would be happy to take any questions.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Denise. You are a brave
    person. Thank you for your story, and I hope it is an
    encouragement to other people as well. Now, to Director Lukan.

            STATEMENT OF STEVE LUKAN, DIRECTOR, IOWA OFFICE

                OF DRUG CONTROL POLICY, DES MOINES, IOWA

        Director Lukan. Thank you, Senator Grassley, and thank you,
    Congressman Young, for being here today. I particularly want to
    thank you, Senator Grassley, for all your clear and consistent
    leadership on drug issues. You have been a leader in Congress,
    and the work that you have done has really been beneficial to
    so many Iowans, but also so many Americans as well.
        I want to talk a little bit today about one of the big
    challenges I think we face in the whole battle against drug
    abuse, and meth in particular, is that there is a relaxed
    attitude, or seems to be more of a relaxed attitude, in the
    general public that the battle against drugs is unwinnable and
    deserves rethinking.
        [Inaudible]--can understand the concerns of many, I do want
    to share one example similar to Denise about how things have
    gone right. Several years ago I had the opportunity to meet a
    man who was addicted to meth. The drug had crippled his ability
    to earn a living. He resorted to breaking and entering to
    support his habit.
        Distraught and fed up, his wife kicked him out of the home
    and he had lost all contact with his child. Still this drug
    held so much power over him, and he could not see a reason to
    change. Time and time again, people told him he needed help, he
    needed to change his ways. He had lost so much, but nothing
    sunk in until he was actually arrested and placed in handcuffs
    and sat in the back of a police car. It was then that he told
    me he finally realized he needed to change.
        He dried out in jail for several months. He committed to a
    treatment program that eventually had successful outcomes, and
    today this man holds a full-time job as a computer technician.
    He has got the love and support of his family again, and he
    actually goes and does things on the weekends, like enjoys long
    bike rides.
        I think that this is an example that when we do have strong
    laws and law enforcement working together with access to
    quality treatment, we can defeat this and many other drugs.
    Another area of success I would like to share is the prevention
    programs that are out there working in our State. I am very
    happy to report that Iowa youth roundly and soundly reject
    experimenting with methamphetamine.
        Statistics show that approximately 1 percent of Iowa youth
    have experimented with the drug, and while I believe that this
    number should be zero, I am pleased that educators, parents and
    the prevention professionals work hard each day out there to
    teach young people about the dangers of this drug.
        I believe when children and young people are fully informed
    about what this drug can do to their bodies, they will choose
    to avoid it. They will choose to live healthy lives, and this
    can greatly improve their ability to be successful in life.
    Even so, we must recognize that meth is arguably the most
    problematic drug in Iowa. It is closely linked with cases of
    child abuse and neglect, crime, gun violence and incarceration
    in our State.
        Our office uses Federal Byrne JAG funds to partner with
    multi-jurisdictional drug task forces around the State of Iowa.
    These task forces serve as the front line of defense against
    the powerful drug methamphetamine.
        Last year these task forces seized hundreds of firearms
    that were involved in meth activity, and also referred hundreds
    of children to the Department of Human Services for care
    because of neglect and abuse in the home, much of which was
    linked to meth abuse.
        As Byrne JAG dollars coming to the State of Iowa and other
    States has decreased, these task forces have had to ask for
    more support from local governments. Thus far, many local
    governments have stepped up and helped support these efforts,
    but I would like to stress that only so much can be done from
    the local level.
        The Federal Byrne JAG dollars that come to our State have
    proved to be the crucial glue holding many task forces
    together. I would ask for continued consideration of these
    dollars, because they do prove to be a crucial multiplier
    effect in the battle against meth.
        Other challenges we face in the battle against meth include
    legal rulings which make it more challenging for law
    enforcement to disrupt drug trafficking organizations and
    confusion in the public about the best approach to defeat drug
    abuse.
        I believe it is time to reaffirm our opposition to this and
    other harmful drugs, while at the same time ensuring access to
    treatment programs that can help people turn their lives around
    and become productive citizens once again. We also need strong
    prevention programs that educate and empower young people to
    make healthy choices for their future.
        We should also applaud combined efforts which have helped
    decrease meth labs in our State from over 1,500, as you noted,
    to well below 200. This is not an insignificant achievement,
    and we have many partners to thank.
        However, as you will hear others express, cartel activity
    that spans Mexico and the United States has helped to fill the
    void with very pure and powerful forms of meth being found
    across our State that has been trafficked in from south of the
    border.
        The United States should revisit the issue of meth
    precursor control agreements with Mexico, as it appears the
    current system has not been effective in thwarting production
    of the drug in Mexico. We also need the commitment of Federal
    partners to help stop the flow of this dangerous drug across
    our Nation. Let me end by again thanking you, Senator, for
    holding this hearing to gain insight into the challenges we
    face. I appreciate Congressman Young being here as well.
        I believe that strong law enforcement efforts, coupled with
    quality prevention and treatment programs can work to defeat
    the menace of meth in our State. I look forward to being a
    resource to you and our Federal partners as we face this
    challenge together. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Director Lukan.
        Now, Mr. Feddersen.

                 STATEMENT OF PAUL FEDDERSEN, ASSISTANT

                  DIRECTOR, IOWA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

               SAFETY, DIVISION OF NARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT,

                            DES MOINES, IOWA

        Director Feddersen. Thank you. I am just going to go
    through and kind of tell everybody where we have been with
    methamphetamine and where we are at today.
        Domestic manufacturing of methamphetamine in Iowa still
    remains a threat. As stated before, State and local
    methamphetamine clandestine laboratory responses for calendar
    year to this date is approximately 113. This is a significant
    decline since the peak in 2004, where there were approximately
    1,500 annually.
        As stated before, in 2005 the Iowa Legislature passed
    legislation limiting the availability of pseudoephedrine, which
    is a key ingredient in the illegal manufacture of
    methamphetamine. Currently the problems of methamphetamine labs
    is the emergence of the one-pot cooks. These methods generally
    use less pseudoephedrine, produce methamphetamine in smaller
    quantities, but are no less dangerous than other production
    methods.
        Toxic chemical fires and explosions are significant health
    and safety risks associated with these methods. The remnants
    can easily be transported in a vehicle, disposed of in
    neighborhoods and ditches. Aside from its environmental impact,
    serious hazards exist for children who come in contact with the
    waste, or families impacted by the flash fires from these
    cooks.
        The average cost of a clandestine laboratory cleanup, paid
    for by the Drug Enforcement Agency's hazardous waste
    contractors nationwide, is now approximately $2,700 per
    laboratory. There are also hidden costs as well. For example,
    State and local law enforcement agencies that seize these
    laboratories must leave personnel onsite until the laboratory
    is cleaned up, and often resulting in overtime expenses and
    lost productivity in other areas.
        To assist our local law enforcement partners with the
    financial burden of the cleanup of clandestine laboratories,
    the Division of Narcotics Enforcement implemented the DEA's
    Authorized Central Storage Container Program.
        This program is sponsored by DEA and allows trained,
    certified law enforcement officers to remove gross
    contamination from clandestine laboratory sites safely, package
    the waste pursuant to Federal, State and local laws and
    regulations, and transport it to the secure storage container
    where it is stored until a qualified hazardous waste contractor
    can remove it for disposal.
        The DEA provides storage containers, safety equipment and
    cleanup materials at no cost to Iowa law enforcement. The
    Division of Narcotics Enforcement coordinated this program and
    is partnered with local law enforcement agencies to
    strategically place 5 of these containers on law enforcement-
    controlled properties throughout Iowa. This program is very
    effective in saving law enforcement time and money in the
    cleanup of methamphetamine laboratories.
        Although domestic manufacturing of methamphetamine remains
    a threat, the majority of the methamphetamine is produced in
    Mexico and smuggled across the Southwest border. Major drug
    trafficking organizations, also known as DTOs, are undoubtedly
    the largest contributing factor to the supply of
    methamphetamine in the State of Iowa.
        Mexican DTOs are the primary organizational threat to the
    State. They are responsible for the management of sophisticated
    smuggling, transportation and distribution networks for
    methamphetamine, not only in Iowa but throughout the U.S.
        The Division of Narcotics Enforcement has experienced a
    significant increase in major cases involving large quantities,
    meaning kilo quantities, of seizures--appear more potent than
    methamphetamine smuggled into Iowa from Mexico and other
    states. The Division of Narcotics Enforcement is on course to
    seize double the amount of methamphetamine that was seized last
    year.
        The most recent report for the Iowa Division of Criminal
    Investigations Crime Lab reports the average purity level of
    methamphetamine confiscated in Iowa today to be 98 percent.
    That compares with an average purity level from 10 years ago of
    14 to 40 percent.
        With the large quantities of high-purity methamphetamine
    flooding Iowa, there has been a significant decrease in the
    price of meth. In 2009, one pound of methamphetamine could cost
    anywhere from $27,000 to $32,000. Today the price for one pound
    of methamphetamine is $10,000 to $14,000.
        The State of Iowa sits in the heart of the Midwest,
    crisscrossed by the Interstate 80 and 35, connects the east and
    west coastal regions of the United States and provides an
    international corridor for the drug importation and
    distribution for DTOs.
        A recent example of this is a trooper from the Iowa State
    Patrol was conducting traffic enforcement on the Interstate
    system and recovered approximately 37 pounds of
    methamphetamine. The Division of Narcotics Enforcement and our
    local drug task force partners in Iowa have also identified
    drug-endangered children as a priority. Officers have received
    drug-endangered-children training, also known as DEC, and most
    task forces have implemented formal multi--jurisdictional DEC
    teams.
        The DEC teams incorporate the principles of substance
    abuse, prevention, intervention, treatment, child protection,
    prosecution and drug enforcement to protect children from drug
    users, dealers and manufacturers. The DEC program, coordinated
    by the Office of Drug Control Policy, features law enforcement
    officer working side by side with DHS workers, prosecutors,
    court officials and health care providers toward a common goal
    of protecting children.
        DEC is the model that is being adopted by Iowa communities
    helping interested entity stakeholders join together as a
    safety net for children, and a way of encouraging custodial
    parents to deal with their addiction so that families can be
    reunited in healthy ways.
        The Division of Narcotics Enforcement--for most joint
    cooperative investigations that often cross jurisdictional
    lines. Experience clearly demonstrates combining the knowledge,
    expertise and resources of many agencies and jurisdictions are
    the most effective and cost-efficient methods of conducting
    large-scale investigations of major traffickers.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Feddersen. Now,
    Lieutenant Payne.

                 STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT CORBIN PAYNE,

                 WATERLOO POLICE DEPARTMENT, TRI-COUNTY

              DRUG ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE, WATERLOO, IOWA

        Lieutenant Payne. Thank you, sir. I just want to get my
    opportunity to speak here. Thanks for that and the support you
    have given our task forces over the years and, hopefully,
    continue to do.
        I am just going to give you a little background about the
    Tri-County Drug Task Force and how methamphetamine is affecting
    the Northeast Iowa communities that we deal with. A little
    history of the Tri-County Drug Task Force: The Tri-County Drug
    Task Force was developed in 1991 to combat illegal drug
    trafficking in Black Hawk and Bremer County areas. The Task
    Force is federally funded by the Byrne JAG Assistance Program
    Grant since its inception.
        The Task Force agency involvement in coverage areas: The
    assigned area is a rough responsibility for the Task Force,
    comprised of a lightly populated rural area with a densely
    populated urban areas contained within a geographical area of
    approximately 200 square miles and a population base of nearly
    170,000, with a diverse mixture of ethnic, cultural and
    socioeconomic backgrounds, these areas include the cities of
    Waterloo, Cedar Falls and supported cities within the Black
    Hawk County and Bremer County areas, which also include the
    following cities of Waverly, Hudson, Evansdale, La Porte City
    and also the University of Northern Iowa.
        The Task Force is comprised of full-time investigators, a
    supervisory staff from the Waterloo Police Department,
    investigators from Cedar Falls Police Department, Black Hawk
    County Sheriff's Office--and an analyst with the Iowa National
    Guard provides excellent resources for these investigators
    involved. Task Force investigators maintain a close working
    relationship with Iowa Division of Narcotics Enforcement, the
    Department of Corrections, and continuous dialogs with the
    Department of Human Services to better track child endangerment
    and treatments as it relates to illegal narcotics offenses in
    our area.
        Investigators with the Tri-County Drug Task Force maintain
    a constant working relationship with several Federal law
    enforcement agencies, including ATF, ICE, DEA, U.S. Postal
    Inspectors, the U.S. Attorney's Office and, in particular, the
    FBI, due to the fact that the FBI maintains a regional office
    in the Waterloo area that provides great resources and support
    in many of the Federal drug cases the Task Force investigates.
        Duties and operations of the Tri-County Drug Task Force:
    These investigators of the Drug Task Force investigate multi-
    areas of major narcotics trafficking and manufacturing at both
    State and Federal levels. These areas include, but are not
    limited to, the illegal sale and distribution of
    methamphetamine, crack cocaine, cocaine, high-grade marijuana,
    heroin, hash oil, prescription drugs and the investigation of
    firearms commonly associated with the distribution of illegal
    narcotics.
        Because of the number of cases being investigated,
    considerable resources are needed to investigate, apprehend and
    prosecute the subjects involved. Different law enforcement
    agencies and enforcement techniques, strategies and operations
    are required as the type of drug being investigated changes.
        Through use of combined resources and technology, the Task
    Force continues to advance our success rate in crippling and
    destroying criminal drug distribution organizations and
    networks. The destruction of these criminal organizations
    successfully disrupts the importation of significant amounts of
    methamphetamine--in particular, ice, high--grade marijuana,
    crack cocaine and cocaine into our area. The shared
    intelligence, investigation and partnership continue to reap
    benefits in our efforts against the drug distribution networks.
        Methamphetamine in Iowa: Over the last 10 years, the method
    of methamphetamine manufacture and distribution has changed
    significantly in our area. Home-based methamphetamine labs have
    experienced a drastic decline in recent years, due in part to
    the enacted State statute limiting the sale of precursors,
    specifically pseudoephedrine. Labs do still present a
    significant threat to local communities when they are
    discovered. When the decline of large home-based labs began to
    decrease, the more transportable and concealable one-pot
    methods of methamphetamine began to rise.
        This is a more convenient way of making meth quicker and
    does not require clandestine lab-type items to make the meth.
    This type of cooking results in a lower-yield meth with a lower
    purity level. These one-pot-cooks-all also have become more of
    a hazard to the public because of the way these chemically--
    laced vessels are discarded, due to the fact these
    transportable items are often discarded in public areas and
    streets, ditches and parks.
        The Tri-County Drug Task Force methamphetamine lab
    seizures, as far as what were submitted, and far as the
    pseudoephedrine act law--and I will determine those when I get
    to them--but in 2003, the Tri-County Drug Task Force seized,
    reported 112 methamphetamine labs submitted; 2014, 117 labs.
    This is just in Black Hawk and Bremer Counties alone.
        Due to the Pseudoephedrine Control Act enacted in the
    middle of 2005, we decreased down to 74 labs. In 2006, there
    were 30 labs submitted. In 2007 to 2011, those numbers stayed
    about the same. In 2012, 72 labs, the increase mostly due to
    the one-pot methods that were on the increase because of the
    decrease in the larger labs. 2013, also 31 labs, also mostly
    one-pot methods. As to 2014, we have in our area only 8 labs
    reported due to obviously the increase in ice methamphetamine,
    that I will get into.
        Methamphetamine ice continues to be one of the largest
    problem drugs in our area in recent years. The Task Force is
    very active investigating large Mexican drug trafficking
    organizations. These organizations have been a major threat not
    only to our area, but to Iowa and the Midwest as a whole.
        During the meth investigations, we have determined that
    massive amounts of ice methamphetamine has either been
    transported by vehicle or shipped to the Black Hawk County and
    surrounding areas for organizations within Mexico and
    California. During our investigations from 2012 to present, the
    Task Force has seized over 70 pounds of ice methamphetamine,
    with a street value of over $4 million.
        This task force is currently working these investigations
    along with a number of agencies, including the DNE, Homeland
    Security investigations, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's
    Office.
        During our investigation we have learned through the State
    crime lab that the test results coming back from this type of
    methamphetamine test at a rate of 97 to 98 percent pure
    methamphetamine, which is no difference between the home-based
    labs that we had a--result in investigating back in--about--70
    percent methamphetamine purity level.
        The price consistent with the sale of ice methamphetamine
    or regular methamphetamine that we deal with in our area is ice
    methamphetamine's worth about $120 to $150 a gram, and the
    home-based, one-pot anywhere from $60 to $100 a gram. In
    conclusion, as I have indicated, clandestine labs and one-pot
    methods still pose a significant threat, not only to the
    investigators working these cases, but also to citizens in the
    community that may come across them and have contact with them.
        Toxic chemicals, fires and explosion remain a constant
    concern for the safety of the community and anyone involved
    that are exposed to these types of situations. It is evident
    that the importation of ice methamphetamine to Iowa has become
    a major issue, not only to the law enforcement community, but
    the community as a whole.
        The large amounts of money being made, weapons being
    seized, along with the huge supply and demand in this area of a
    highly addictive drug requires a continued funding of these
    supports and the vigilant efforts of not only treatment but for
    law enforcement. Thanks for the time and the opportunity to
    present this information.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you. Now, Mr. Hansen.

              STATEMENT OF JAY HANSEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

                        PRAIRIE RIDGE ADDICTIONS

                  TREATMENT SERVICES, MASON CITY, IOWA

        Mr. Hansen. Senator, Congressman, thank you for this
    opportunity to testify. Before I do start my remarks, I do want
    to thank you, Senator Grassley, for the work that you have done
    with the Drug-Free Communities grant.
        I was contacted by several people prior to coming here, and
    they wanted me to express their happiness about what you have
    done in our area. Even though the grants have run their course,
    coalitions are still operating, doing a lot with environmental,
    and the data is there to back it up. You have laid a foundation
    for the future, and I just wanted to thank you for that.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you.
        Mr. Hansen. Addiction is difficult to understand. It is
    very complex. When I was going to the University of Northern
    Iowa as a social work student, a friend of mine was living in a
    family with alcoholism. I had never seen anything like it
    before. It certainly was not like my family.
        The tears and the difficulties and the losses and the
    employment issues and the conflict and the heartache in that
    family really kind of grabbed me, and I wanted to go in that
    direction in my career.
        As people continue to use substances in spite of negative
    consequences--that is a powerful statement. Continue use in
    spite of negative consequences kind of says that the
    punishments or the negative things do not seem to make a
    difference with the addicted person. That mystery, I was
    interested in trying to find that out.
        In the past 15 years, largely through the work of the
    National Institute on Drug Abuse, Dr. Nora Volkow and others
    have done a lot of brain imaging and studies of the brain. I
    think we have the answer to that mystery at this point, and I
    think it was important for me to talk about that today.
        Dr. Volkow focused on the limbic and the reward system of
    the brain. It is the place where it is the most primitive part
    of the brain. It is responsible for helping us survive
    throughout life by rewarding important activities that will
    help us survive as a species.
        Food tastes good because it needs to be rewarded so that
    people do not starve. Procreation is pleasant because we need
    to continue to have babies in this world, if our species is
    going to survive. Water tastes good when you are thirsty
    because you have to have water to live. Nurturing newborn
    children feels good because we want that to happen. This is a
    very powerful but primitive part of the brain, and what NIDA
    has found is that the culprit is a neurotransmitter called
    dopamine. Dopamine is responsible for most of the pleasurable
    feelings we experience, and substance use and addiction involve
    action releasing amounts of dopamine in one form or the other.
        In essence, addiction is a brain disease. It is, I think,
    when families experience people using, in spite of negative
    consequences, they do not know the answer to that mystery and
    oftentimes they will say things like, ``They must care more
    about that drug than they do me,'' ``How could you give up your
    kids to methamphetamine?'' ``You must be a weak-willed
    person.'' Unfortunately, that sometimes is the characterization
    of persons with substance-use problems, without that question
    answered.
        Dopamine is the grandfather of all reward drugs. Studies
    done with animals set a baseline level of dopamine at 100.
    Having sex produced a change from 100 to 200, cocaine from 100
    to 350 units, and methamphetamine 100 to 1,250 units of
    dopamine. It is hugely rewarding. People trying meth for the
    first time describe it as going in a casino for the first time,
    pulling the lever one time and winning the super jackpot. That
    is how powerful and rewarding it is.
        The reason we have problems with drugs in this country is
    that they work. They make people feel good. That reward makes
    it difficult for them not to return to that process.
        When the dopamine is being flooded in an addict person's
    brain, it is so interesting that the brain will immediately try
    to heal itself through homeostasis. The brain says, ``Whoa,
    this is too much of a good thing. I need to do something about
    this,'' and immediately will begin killing off production of
    normal dopamine and reducing receptor sites where the dopamine
    locks in and creates those pleasurable effects.
        Once a person starts using methamphetamine, their natural
    production of dopamine is lowered and their receptors that pick
    up dopamine are also lowered. What they get is less dopamine in
    their system than they had when they started using. Then you
    have this compulsion to start seeking more dopamine because
    your body has added this level of drug to those primal issues
    of food, procreation, water and nurturance. There is another
    layer that they are having to deal with with an extreme drug
    hunger.
        It is one thing to try substances because you like them.
    You try them and it feels good. Most people end up in a drug
    career where it is not about liking drugs; it is about wanting
    drugs, from a biochemical standpoint. The best definition of
    addiction that I have come across is ``an irresistible urge to
    perform an irrational act.'' If you take some time to think
    about that, it is a very powerful statement: irresistible urge
    to perform an irrational act.
        While I know it is not the right thing to do, I cannot help
    myself from doing it. It is really good and, I think,
    indicative of this issue of continued use and responsible for--
    in negative consequences.
        Imagine you are underwater 200 feet, and you are beginning
    to make your way to the surface, and you know that if you
    breathe underwater you are going to die. Yet you breathe,
    because it is irresistible to do so. That is not a perfect
    analogy, but it is a good analogy for this compulsion in
    addiction.
        What moderates addiction and treatment? Treatment is really
    about dealing with that primitive brain area and the executive
    function up here. The reason the description of what exactly
    executive function does is actually a battle between the reward
    system and the executive function.
        That is what treatment really ends up being. We are trying
    to help people learn skills, understand biochemistry in their
    situation, their health, put skills in place, put supports in
    place, put relapse prevention skills in place so that we can
    make the irresistible desire to do something resistible. In
    treatment, that is what we are trying to get to--make
    irresistible resistible so that people have the skills and
    tools to resist that brain that now has another hunger to it.
        I think sometimes substance use-disorder clients get kind
    of a bad rap that they are not motivated or they are not
    responsible or interested. Let me tell you, folks--and I am
    sure this is the case with Ms. Moore--is people who overcome
    this hunger on a daily basis are some of the most courageous
    people that I have ever met in my life.
        The good news is in Iowa, Iowa has done outcome studies for
    many years. Methamphetamine treatment is a little bit more
    effective than even other kinds of treatment. People do
    recover, and in this process of treatment there is also now, I
    think, some exciting additional tools to use, moderating the
    primitive side of the brain that moderates some of those
    cravings and urges.
        Those things will change over time, and cognitive
    functioning will improve. It does take time. That is really the
    biggest difference in methamphetamine treatment, is people need
    time to rest and get sleep and eat and get a toehold so that we
    can start providing them with skill building and other kinds of
    therapies.
        It is also important to look at their recovery environment.
    People will need people in their life that support them, and
    that is one thing that we focus big on in treatment. That is
    where Parent Partners is such a valuable resource for us in our
    specialized methamphetamine treatment programs. With that, I
    think I will conclude my remarks and turn it back to the
    Senator.
        [Applause.]
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you. Thank you all very much. I
    appreciate your testimony.
        I have a lot of questions. Some of my questions have been
    answered by some of your testimony, and some of my questions
    might refer to your testimony in asking for a greater expansion
    on some of the things you said in the short minutes that we
    gave you.
        Also, so I do not forget it at the end of the meeting, we
    put out an announcement in the press when we announced that we
    were having this hearing, that we had the witnesses that we
    have, but anybody that wants to submit written testimony to the
    Committee can do that. We usually give how many days? [Staff
    speaks off mic.] About 10 days from now. If anybody wants
    anything in the Committee record, and the Committee record will
    be printed and available for distribution, then in 10 days
    submit that to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
        I am going to start with Ms. Moore. Obviously, you have an
    incredible story. Meth is an awful drug. Your presence here
    today and the work that you are doing shows that there is hope
    that meth addiction can be overcome. My first question has
    several parts, but I am going to read them all at once. Can you
    walk me through how the partners program works here in Iowa?
    When does a parent partner enter the process? What sort of
    things can they do for a parent whose children have been placed
    in foster or kinship care, and how do they interact with other
    players in the child welfare system?
        Ms. Moore. Okay. I will kind of walk you through a case in
    how it works in Des Moines, and it is similar throughout the
    whole State, how we get referrals. As soon as a child is
    removed, the worker notifies a Parent Partner coordinator and
    we try to match a parent partner with the same culture and
    whatever issue has brought them into the system.
        In Des Moines, we have an initial family team meeting, and
    it is called a pre-removal conference. Sometimes they are kind
    of changing that now. At that meeting, either the family has
    just had their child removed or they are just going to have
    their child removed. It could be pre-or post-.
        At Parent Partner we get an email and the Parent Partner
    comes to the meeting. There is like no identifying information
    that is given to us, because we have not had a release signed.
    Then the Parent Partner meets with the family. They have an
    instant connection with the family because of the shared
    experience of having their child removed.
        Also, as we match similar issues, so whether it was
    domestic violence, they understand that kind of process. In
    substance abuse, of course, they know what the next steps are
    and they understand that process as well.
        Families come in very scared and fearful of the system.
    Everybody looks the same. Everybody looks like workers to a
    family that is coming into the system, and a Parent Partner can
    just come in and say something, for example, like I have had my
    child removed due to my substance abuse. Today, I have all my
    children back with me, and I want to walk through this process
    with you.
        The Parent Partner then walks through the entire life of
    the case with the family. They are going to court hearings,
    they are doing face-to-faces, they are going to family team
    meetings, they are helping them to have more interactive family
    interactions with their children, they are connecting--to
    community resources, they are helping them to understand the
    process.
        The process for families is very confusing, and it is
    somewhat of a different language when you are sitting in a
    court hearing or you are sitting around a family team meeting.
    Parent Partners are able to kind of relay what that information
    is for the families, so they are able to understand what is
    actually happening and what the next steps need to be.
        Our Parent Partners are really do it for do it from the
    heart. A lot of their giving back is part of the recovery, so
    they really provide hope for families. I think that is the most
    important thing that we do.
        Families are very hopeless and feel very hopeless when they
    come to the doors of the Department, and Parent Partners can
    shed some light on that and inspire families to start moving
    forward. They really are just connecting them with the system,
    helping them to engage with their workers. We know it is
    critical to families being successful and being reunified with
    their children, so we are constantly engaging.
        Parent Partners do not report to the courts or DHS workers,
    so there is that foundational trust between families and Parent
    Partners.
        Chairman Grassley. How long has Iowa had this program, and
    do other States do it?
        Ms. Moore. We have been--started in 2007 in four pilot
    sites across Iowa, and then we have implemented it. We started
    with an implementation center, a Midwest Child Welfare
    implementation center in 2008, I believe. Then we started
    spreading the program. It was a lot of years of building trust
    within the Department, that we are not trying to triangulate or
    do anything with families that would hurt them or hurt the
    system. We did a lot of trust building for years.
        In 2013 Iowa Department of Human Services put it into a
    Statewide contract with Children and Families of Iowa in that
    we are in all 99 counties across the State. What was the other
    part of the question?
        Chairman Grassley. Do you have data on--oh, the other
    States, have adopted it?
        Ms. Moore. Oh, yes. Yes. We are currently working with, I
    believe, 9 states. We have worked previously with around 13
    states. It is really a National movement, and Iowa is looked at
    as a leader in this work. A lot of States have modeled their
    Parent Partner Programs after ours.
        We have developed all of our documents, all of our
    programming policies has all had the parent voice incorporated
    into it. It is a model for the rest of the States, and States
    all across the Nation are looking at it.
        Chairman Grassley. Okay. Do you have any data on the
    effectiveness of the program?
        Ms. Moore. Yes. We have added evaluation by the University
    of Nebraska. It was a 5-year evaluation. They took--it was a
    quasi-experimental design, and so there was many facets to our
    evaluation. One of them was they were developing a data base we
    put data in. We have surveys, entering and exit surveys that
    measure protective factors of families and parents.
        Then they did focus groups within our Department all the
    way up from our Child Welfare administrators, our frontline
    workers. Focus groups are our parents and our families, and
    then they took administrative data from the Department and
    matched it with our data base, our families that do not have a
    Parent Partner. It was found that families that have had a
    parent partner are more likely to reunify and they are less
    likely to come back into the system.
        Chairman Grassley. Okay. I would like to ask Director Lukan
    a question and then I will turn to David. I do not sit on the
    Senate Appropriations Committee, but as I mentioned earlier,
    each year I lead a bipartisan effort to help maintain the Byrne
    JAG funding that helps your efforts in the State of Iowa and
    local efforts.
        Obviously in these times when the Federal Government is
    running huge deficits, it is an uphill battle each year. I want
    to give you an opportunity to explain to Congress the
    significance of the funding for your program and what you know
    about it throughout the State, how critical is it, what types
    of things does it pay for, and is the Federal Government
    getting its money's worth with these dollars?
        Director Lukan. I will maybe, take the last question first.
    I know that certainly all dollars have to be used very wisely,
    especially with the way the Federal deficit has grown. We want
    to make sure we are making effective use of taxpayer dollars.
        I think the numbers from what we do at the Byrne program
    really speak for itself. For example, Statewide last year we
    had over 400 drug trafficking organizations that were
    interrupted, that were dismantled or interrupted. We had almost
    600 firearms that were taken off the streets that were used in
    illegal activity and drug trafficking and in other crimes.
        I feel like this is a very wise use of the resources, and I
    think that the numbers are speaking for themselves, not to
    mention also the number of children that our Task Force has
    referred to Human Services. Over 300 kids that were living in
    very dangerous situations were referred to help to try to get
    them moving in the right direction, as Denise and others have
    shared, get the families the help that they need. I feel as
    though the money is used wisely.
        By and large, what--and others that work on the ground,
    feel free to jump in--but oftentimes what we see is I think the
    value of these task forces is the multi--jurisdictional
    approach. What I mean by that is you have multiple counties in
    a region instead of one community thing. This is my problem
    here; they are working together. There is an incentive to get
    together; the funding can come in and help.
        They actually have to apply to our office, the competitive
    program. And we have become much more competitive in the last
    few years that the dollars have gotten tighter. It is a
    competitive grant program. I think it gives an incentive for
    communities to come together and say, let us fight this in a
    regional approach. Again, I think that there is a lot of value
    there. There is information sharing. I think that is a real
    important tool.
        More and more today, my understanding is it is trying to
    work things up the chain. It is not just making the small
    arrests by the roadside; it is trying to find out where are
    these coming from, who is pushing them into our communities,
    how do we disrupt this organization? So, the multi-
    jurisdictional approach, I feel, is very effective.
        What I would say as far as the dollar values, a number of
    years ago I sort of likened this to being the cake that was the
    incentive. Our office would provide a KCU to get together. The
    local governments would then have to put the icing on that. By
    that I mean some of the overtime dollars, equipment dollars,
    overhead costs.
        Today, as the funding has gone down, that role has
    reversed. A lot of times the local governments will be
    incentivized to put a cake together. They apply to our office
    for the icing. We are sort of taking on more of that role of
    helping pay for the overtime costs and other things.
        We have had a lot of challenges, as I have mentioned, as
    the dollars have gone down. Certainly we support your efforts
    and the Congressman's efforts. I know that without your action,
    we would be in probably even a tougher position.
        Maybe the last thing I would share is that it does not
    always have to be increased dollars. I think just being able to
    know that there is sustainability is an important thing. We
    have actually had a number of task forces disband because the
    numbers did not work anymore. I think having stability is
    important. Also, there is a number of ways that we can maybe
    work together to find further efficiencies on the Federal
    level. Maybe there is things that could be rolled into the
    Byrne formula is an idea that we have shared in the past too.
        Chairman Grassley. Okay. Congressman Young. I will have
    questions after he gets done.
        Congressman Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Being on the
    House Appropriations Committee, I take note of your support,
    your support as well of the Byrne program and its
    effectiveness. Thank you for that. Mr. Hansen, you spoke of the
    irresistible urge to perform an irrational act, and folks
    continuing to use, despite the negative consequences.
        You went through that, Ms. Moore. That monkey was on your
    back for a longtime. Your story is very compelling, your
    personal story. You went through this without a partner, right?
        Ms. Moore. Right.
        Congressman Young. How did you do that? How did you make
    your way through this without that support that a lot of folks
    are getting through your partnership program that you are
    involved with? How did you do this?
        Ms. Moore. I think for me ultimately it came down to the
    love I have for my children. When it came to the point that I
    was going to lose them forever, I finally realized that I was
    going to lose something more important to me than
    methamphetamine, at that point. That was my motivator and that
    is how I changed.
        When I first came into the system, it was not like I just
    said, Okay, I am going to get clean now. I languished out there
    for a long time, and that is why I feel so strongly about
    working at the front end of cases, and even before that in some
    preventative services, because we need to become that
    connection from the very beginning to help motivate our
    families to get clean.
        Because if we give them a chance, they are going to go
    right back and do the same thing that they have always done.
    That is what I did for a year and a half. I wasted a lot of
    time that I could have been working in recovery, and I was just
    out getting high again. I think ultimately it was the
    motivation of loving my children so much and losing them.
        Congressman Young. This may be the exception rather than
    the rule in these instances.
        Ms. Moore. Absolutely. I would say even in 2003 it was
    really an exception in the rule because at that point there was
    not really a big push for relative placement. My hope was
    considered a drug home.
        For them to kind of look out the box and see what is the
    best thing for this family and think and look at my children
    and see that the needed to be together, they needed to be in
    their schools, they needed each other, was huge. Because I had
    so many kids, they would have been split and put in different
    foster care homes.
        That was the critical piece for them. They needed that
    piece to be who they are today, to break that cycle.
        Congressman Young. It is testament to the power of love.
        Ms. Moore. Yes, it is.
        Congressman Young. Mr. Hansen, in listening to all this, it
    seems like the recipe of empathy seems to be important when it
    comes to treatment and counseling. That is, having somebody
    involved in the process who has been there. Tell me about that
    effectiveness--it is more successful than not.
        Mr. Hansen. I do not believe any treatment is successful
    without someone having a relationship with another person that
    expresses hope for the person and genuinely care for the
    person. We spend a great deal of our time at Prairie Ridge
    focusing on that initial relationship. We measure it, from time
    to time. Is the person engaged? Are they getting better? You
    are exactly right. Human being to human being.
        What I tell our counselors is I am not worried about any
    other outcome when people come here for the first time, that
    when they leave their office they have a sense of hope and they
    want to come back. That wanting to come back is about that
    relationship.
        Congressman Young. Thank you for that. Can I ask another
    one?
        Chairman Grassley. Yes.
        Congressman Young. Lieutenant Payne, you talked about the
    traditional labs as we have known them as kind of going down,
    decreasing. We are seeing these new, almost portable shake-and-
    bake labs, right? You can do them anywhere, on the go, wherever
    you want.
        I think you talked about ice. Do we know for sure that this
    is being transported in? The purity that you talked about, this
    97 to 98 percent, do we know for sure that this is coming over
    the border or from out West somewhere, or could this be being
    developed here in the heartland and we just do not know about
    it?
        Lieutenant Payne. No. Through our investigations, it is
    particularly coming from over our borders. Investigations and
    the cooperation we have had from several of our people during
    their investigation we have come in contact with are associated
    with it being transported in over our borders--the California
    area.
        Congressman Young. Okay. Thank you. Senator, go ahead.
        Chairman Grassley. Okay. Mr. Feddersen, you know that meth
    labs, even small one-pot labs, contain toxic chemicals that are
    harmful to the health of those around them and to the
    environment. My question, I understand that the DEA container
    program has been instituted here in our State to help dispose
    of labs that are encountered in the field. Would you describe
    how the program works, step by step? Is it operating
    effectively today?
        Mr. Feddersen. Yes. I will tell you what. DEA has been a
    great partner for the State of Iowa, not only on the meth labs,
    but in the methamphetamine investigations that cross borders.
    They are a link to follow up on these cases.
        Regarding the meth lab container program, that container
    program, they make it easy, DEA. We contacted them; they want 1
    Representative from the State for their contact, and we
    contacted them. They provide the storage facilities. It is a 7-
    by-7, basically a moving container that several local law
    enforcement agencies volunteered to put on their property.
        DEA provides the training to package this material and put
    it in these containers, and also the items used to package
    those. It has been great here in Iowa. We have got 5
    strategically placed throughout Iowa. Any law enforcement
    agency can come and utilize those labs to drop those remnants
    off, package them and put them in that container program.
        We have had it--I misquoted on my written documentation. I
    put 2014, but it was actually implemented in 2015. We started
    the process in 2014. Since July to currently, this date, we
    have had about 52 labs that have been put into these container
    programs.
        By doing the numbers, that would cost local law enforcement
    about $140,000 on average to clean up those labs, and that is
    just on the cost of the lab. That is not on the cost of the
    overtime, waiting for a contractor that would come out of St.
    Louis in the past to clean up those meth labs.
        It is so easy for law enforcement to get that lab, take it
    to a container, put it in there, and then once that container
    is full, one of the agents with the Division of Narcotics
    Enforcement has a contact at DEA. DEA calls a contractor, and
    those containers are emptied out, no cost to local law
    enforcement. It has been a great project for the State of Iowa
    and local law enforcement and for the taxpayers. It has been
    working great so far.
        Chairman Grassley. Mr. Hansen, I understand that the
    medication assistance treatment holds some potential promise on
    meth addiction, so I would like to have you explain what this
    kind of treatment is, where it is in the development, and how
    it could act on the brain to treat meth addiction.
        Mr. Hansen. I talked about the executive function being
    more treatment. We have not had much to help us with that
    brain, mid-brain function. In the past years there have been a
    number of drugs developed--naltrexone, which is an antagonist,
    which actually goes in and fills those receptor sites that
    would release dopamine, effectively blocking the drug from
    being absorbed. You can take it daily by pill or you can
    actually inject it monthly.
        Naltrexone also is an opiate antagonist where--so if you
    have naltrexone in your body and you take opiates, there is no
    effect. It is also used--naloxone is the spray that they are
    giving people who are overdosing, which will immediately bring
    them out of the overdose. Campral is a drug that reduces
    cravings by acting on those neurotransmitters.
        Suboxone is a drug that we are having very much success
    with. It is a partial agonist mixed with naltrexone, so it can
    be of use--so persons with serious opiate problems can take
    this drug. It is a partial synthetic narcotic, but it does not
    have any--it just gets rid of the cravings.
        I have seen people come from our program that were writhing
    in pain, having a disorganized life, stealing, and the next day
    after getting their suboxone, get up and go to work and
    function perfectly. Unfortunately, we do not have a drug for
    stimulants yet. I know Dr. Volkow at NIDA is working on it, and
    so one thing that the Federal Government could do would maybe
    have someone check into what the status of that is.
        There is some research on developing vaccines where a
    vaccine will be produced and given to a person at some point,
    and the effect of drugs would not be occurring. That is
    exciting, because it acts on those neurotransmitters and gives
    us, the research says, about a 26 percent improvement in
    outcomes.
        Everyone at Prairie Ridge, if they are eligible, they are
    getting informed of the availability of those drugs, either
    through our prescriber or their primary care physician.
        Chairman Grassley. Okay. Director Lukan, foreign drug
    trafficking organizations do not just distribute finished meth
    products; they also manufacture and distribute precursor
    chemicals. You mentioned in your written testimony the idea of
    revisiting the issue of meth precursor control agreements with
    Mexico. I think that has merit.
        One of the things that my bill, the Transnational Drug
    Trafficking Act of 2015, would do is establish penalties for
    criminals in other countries who traffic in meth precursor
    chemicals known or having reasonable cause to believe that meth
    made from those chemicals will then be imported into our
    country.
        A question: Can you explain the role that international
    traffic in precursor chemicals plays in the distribution of
    meth here in the United States? Is shutting down this
    trafficking important? Do you think the legislation I have
    described will help?
        Director Lukan. I think it certainly is important and can
    help. Maybe I will use the example of what we have done here in
    Iowa a number of years ago. Recently, we expanded our own State
    precursor list, and I think that there has been some--there was
    some apprehension, and it took a while to work with the
    legislature to fully inform people on what all the mechanisms
    were.
        I think that are some concerns on the civil liberties side,
    if you will. I think that some people misunderstand that just
    because you have camping stove fuel or you might have a certain
    type of fertilizer for your lawn, there is fear that the State
    troopers are going to come and knock on your door and you are
    going to be arrested.
        That is far from the truth. I think what we have had to
    help people understand is you have to prove the intent. It is
    about putting all the clues together to say this person is
    doing something outside the norm, and we need to go and have a
    conversation with them about that.
        We think it has also helped drop the number of labs down
    here in the State because, again, it is a tool, again I think,
    that law enforcement can use to disrupt the manufacturing. I
    can only believe it is going to do similar effects on the
    international level as it has done here at the State level. I
    think there is a real value in pursuing that, and I think there
    could be some positive consequences.
        Chairman Grassley. Okay. I have another question for you.
    You also mentioned in your testimony, quote, ``the commitment
    of Federal partners to help stop the flow of meth from Mexico
    to our State. Obviously, border control is a Federal
    responsibility.''
        Have you taken this issue up directly with this
    administration? If not, is this something that would be helpful
    for us to do? I think that they need to know how much meth
    coming across the border is affecting states like Iowa. Perhaps
    it makes sense to work jointly on that issue.
        Director Lukan. That does make sense, and probably
    something that we need to do a better job of, directly
    communicating with the administration, with the National Office
    of Drug Control Policy and others, just what type of a problem
    it is. It is my understanding we do share that where we can. We
    have talked to members of the administration, but I do not know
    that we have done it in a formal sense and tried to put anyone
    on notice, so to speak.
        Chairman Grassley. If I could be of any help in that area,
    let me know. [To Rep. Young.] Would you like to ask more
    questions?
        Representative Young. I have 1 more question.
        Chairman Grassley. Okay. Go ahead now.
        Representative Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is
    really for all witnesses. You talked about the Mexican meth and
    the purity of it all, the high percentage of the purification
    of it, and how that obviously is going to make a more powerful
    drug, obviously.
        Can you talk about what is the impact of this purity, this
    potency, on the illegal drug market, law enforcement, and then
    treatments with those who are addicted?
        Mr. Hansen. I think I am less worried about the purity. I
    think people usually dose-adjust. I think there might be some
    benefit, to be real honest about having pure, because there may
    be less harmful additives added to it.
        I am not sure it is automatically a negative, because I do
    think most users will adjust to dosing and those kind of
    things. I guess I do not have any empirical evidence, but I am
    sure it is absolutely wreaking havoc. I would be interested in
    some of the other panelists' views on that.
        Congressman Young. Thank you.
        Lieutenant Payne. I would probably tend to agree with what
    he said, as far as the physical attributes of the people using
    this higher-grade methamphetamine. I know from the one-pot
    methods and kind of the home-based meth labs that we were
    dealing with five, 10 years ago, a lot of the physical
    characteristics of people were kind of losing teeth, the
    sunken-in faces, people, quote, ``geeking'' where they would
    start scratching at themselves, and paranoia.
        I think in the last--dealing with some more of this pure
    methamphetamine, we are not seeing, that I have seen or some of
    my investigators, not quite the--like he said, as far as the
    chemicals not being--it is a more pure form.
        It is not using the chemical, just throwing in one thing
    and get it done. It is more a process here of cleaning it out
    more and not having those remnants of lithium batteries and
    muriatic acid and things like that in the type of
    methamphetamine. I think as far as we have seen, as far as the
    physical aspects of people and as far as the way they look.
        Congressman Young. Okay.
        Mr. Feddersen. I guess, reference to purity and the
    quantities that are coming in--and I do not know if more people
    have been going to treatment because of the purity or not. Back
    in the day, when I was on the street, the purity levels were so
    much lower. I mean, at one time it was 15 percent, 20 to 25
    percent. I guess my feeling is if the purity is higher, I do
    not know if more people are going to become addicted.
        I agree with Mr. Hansen, people probably do adjust once
    they determine the product that is out there. It has been
    pretty consistently, it has been in the 90's the last several
    years, as opposed to back in 2005 when it was lower.
        The big thing that is different, and take the purity out of
    it, is the quantities that are coming in that we have never
    seen before. These individuals are setting up shop not only in
    Des Moines, but they are picking out rural areas, like a farm
    near Indianola or a farm outside Fort Dodge, where they store
    this product, where they try to evade law enforcement.
        There is so much product there that when we go out to try
    to work an investigation, you are not just buying one ounce at
    a time. There is so much product, they are, like, here, you
    take 4 ounces and I will give you 4 more. Just pay me for 4;
    you can pay me back. That was not happening back in the day.
        They are actually fronting the drug to us and then for us
    to pay them back later. They are pushing so much more weight
    because they have so much of that product. It is so easily made
    in Mexico and they get it across the borders. There is so much
    of it.
        This is not just Iowa. I met with other law enforcement
    officers in my position 2 weeks ago. In other States, it is the
    exact same thing. Same story. We all share our stories about
    the quantities that are coming in. I have never seen the
    quantities of meth that is here today. It has never been that
    prevalent.
        Mr. Hansen. I have heard the same thing, Paul, about the
    gifting. You are a valuable customer, so I will throw an extra
    ounce in for you.
        Mr. Feddersen. That just spurs that addiction. To give you
    that much more, even without having to pay for it up front, to
    have that money.
        Congressman Young. Thank you. Director Lukan.
        Director Lukan. I think the one concern that is similar to
    what Paul has said is any time you have supply, there is going
    to be demand, unfortunately. That is, from our perspective, all
    these sides have to work together.
        You have to have law enforcement working together with
    treatment, with prevention, all working together to solve these
    issues. That is definitely a concern. If you see more being
    trafficked in, obviously we are going to have related problems
    to that.
        Congressman Young. Any comments, Denise, on this?
        Ms. Moore. I would just agree with what everybody said. I
    think the meth labs were just much more dangerous for people's
    health and families that were raised around it. I think there
    was crazy additives in there that you did not know what you
    were taking. There is also risk, I guess, dealing with Mexican
    drugs, if that is where they are coming from.
        I would agree with everybody about the [inaudible] and
    stuff being very dangerous for your health. I do not--I have
    kind of been out of the scene for a minute, so----
        Congressman Young. That is good.
        Ms. Moore. Yes.
        [Laughs.]
        Congressman Young. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am done with
    my questioning, and I would just like to thank the witnesses
    for coming by today and informing us and educating us. Thank
    you.
        Chairman Grassley. If you would wait a while, I have got 3
    more questions and then I think we will wind down.
        I am going to talk to Lieutenant Payne. You noted in your
    written testimony various laws that were passed, helping
    decrease the case of clandestine labs, beginning in 2006.
    Unfortunately, as we have heard, Mexican drug trafficking has
    strongly stepped in to supply the drugs.
        Please tell us how this development has changed the nuts
    and bolts of your investigations in meth. Do your
    investigations now require more manpower, more coordination
    with other law enforcement partners? Or do you now have to rely
    more on electronic communication evidence, and if so, why? Are
    there more weapons or violence associated with your
    investigations now than previously?
        Lieutenant Payne. Thank you, sir. Yes, back in 2003, 2004,
    as I was an investigator at the Drug Task Force, as an
    undercover agent before I became assigned lieutenant there, we
    dealt with a lot of the stores as far as your larger department
    stores where they sell the pseudoephedrine. Those times, we
    would actually speak with those representatives at those stores
    and actually conduct surveillance inside their businesses and
    watch people steal methamphetamine--ended up stealing it or
    else buying it, over the substantial amount that a normal
    person would a normal prudent person would buy at a store.
        When we ended up catching them stealing it, we were able to
    determine more information through probable cause if they had
    more than just the pseudoephedrine pills and were able to
    conduct our investigation that way and corroborate all the
    evidence and determine these larger labs where we were able to
    determine where these larger labs were. Through that way, our
    investigations took us to where we had investigators that would
    work this information as it developed.
        It is to the point where the technology and the resources
    that we use now are spending so much man--hours on telephones,
    cell phones that we get cell phone records off of, different
    types of investigations techniques as far as surveillance,
    different types of agencies involved with over-the-border.
        California agents we have dealt with here, as of recent,
    the FBI, the DEA. As far as the information we have established
    here in Iowa, to corroborate our sources over back, over in
    Mexico or even in California where some of our sources are
    coming from. In all, yes, our resources and manpower have
    increased dramatically as far as the type of resources that we
    need to investigate and in the technology, the way it has
    changed.
        Before, we would sit and do surveillance and arrest the guy
    on conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. It is a much
    larger chain where you start here and continue to buildup to
    the larger resources and larger suppliers across the border and
    in these different states.
        You--the mail--the Postal Service, as far as this stuff
    being transported in, different delivery companies that are--we
    track the resources with delivery packages that are being
    shipped in. In cooperation with other State and local agencies
    as far as traffic stops and things being--and the people being
    stopped, and investigation techniques that we are using to
    corroborate their evidence, and continue our investigations
    with them.
        Chairman Grassley. Okay. Mr. Feddersen, kind of the same
    question, but in terms of State law enforcement, with the rise
    of Mexican drug trafficking, have you had to rethink the way
    you combat the supply side problem? How, if at all, has your
    strategy changed now that you essentially have transnational
    organized crime at the heart of what is happening?
        Mr. Feddersen. Several things have changed. We talked about
    the methamphetamine laboratories. In the early 2000s, we used
    to have with the Iowa Division of Narcotics and the Department
    of Public Safety, we had an actual meth lab team that traveled
    around the State. Whenever a meth lab was discovered, we would
    be contacted. That was 8 to 10 agents, and that took a lot of
    resources. We worked with local officers and our Federal
    partners to dismantle those labs.
        There was so much manpower and resources put into these
    meth labs where there really was not very much methamphetamine
    produced, but the hazards that they caused made it a priority
    that we take care of that.
        Since 2005, after pseudoephedrine was put behind the
    counter and some other laws were enacted for some of the other
    ingredients to manufacture meth, to possess them with the
    intent to manufacture, the labs going down has really gave us
    an opportunity to focus on the Mexican drug trafficking
    organizations.
        Where it has changed a lot is in law enforcement. Those
    changes over the last years is there is so much cooperation
    between our local law enforcement partners and our Federal
    partners, DEA, ATF and Immigration.
        That is what is so important about the local drug task
    forces, is that really promotes information sharing and
    collaboration. With the drugs coming in from out of State, it
    is so important that we work with our local partners to work
    that case backward, to get to that source in Mexico or
    California, wherever that source may be, because if we take
    somebody off here in Iowa, they just replace that person. They
    send somebody else out, or a group, to distribute that
    methamphetamine here. Our goal anymore is to work with our
    Federal partners, DEA and some other ones to backtrack, to do
    that investigation and go back as far as we can to eliminate
    that meth to continue to come to Iowa.
        Chairman Grassley. Yes. My last question would be to you
    too. You mentioned about drug-endangered children, or the DEC
    training, as you call it. You also explained how they are
    integrated into the multi--jurisdictional DEC teams. Could you
    explain the training, what types of personnel comprise teams,
    and how are they deployed in order to make a difference in the
    lives of children who are exposed to the effects of drugs?
        Mr. Feddersen. Yes, law enforcement officers are now
    trained--when I was a drug enforcement agent on the street, we
    went through training where we--as a drug enforcement officer,
    you have got to put a different hat on. When you go into a
    house, you are looking for evidence, for drug activity.
        When you find that evidence, well, the next thing to think
    about is, okay, is there children in this house? How safe are
    they here? What do they have access to, and are they being
    taken care of? You have to turn that hat around and not
    necessarily be on the law enforcement perspective, but look at
    it as the human resource perspective.
        That is what DEC has done, where that training, they come
    out and talk to us about that. DEC has eliminated the silos
    between medical, prosecution, law enforcement, DHS. Because
    when law enforcement officers go to a house now and they find
    drugs, we contact DHS and work hand-in--hand with that DHS
    worker. The come out to the scene and they try to find a place
    for those children and they go through their process.
        I know DHS is also communicating with the medical field,
    because doctors in the day would just look for physical abuse.
    Now, they have to look at developmental abuse and making sure
    these kids are developing at the rate they should. Are they
    eating on time? Are they going to bed, and things like that.
    That that person who is addicted to meth is actually caring for
    that child.
        DEC has really come a long ways to eliminate those silos
    and get everybody communicating on the same page. Once somebody
    enters that system that we come in contact with them, other
    entities involved in that are all included and there is a
    communication ring that takes place.
        Chairman Grassley. Okay. Thank you. Before I adjourn--[off
    mic]. I just asked my staff that if you are interested in
    following this or have other people follow it, this thing will
    be posted on the Committee website, the Senate Judiciary
    Committee website, probably shortly. I do not know whether that
    is hours or days or--but not very long from now.
        I thank our panel for your hard work being here, because I
    know you have to prepare for this. I thank Congressman Young
    for coming as well. All of you folks who are here.
        I hope that you understand that representing government is
    a 2-way street. Those of us elected have a responsibility to
    listen to our constituents, but I hope you also realize you
    have a responsibility to contact us.
        This is a formal way of doing it, but it does not end here.
    I hope, since representative government's dialog between those
    of us elected and the people we serve, that you will continue
    this with us, one way or another.
        Remember I said written testimony in the next 10 days would
    be accepted. Once again, thanks all for coming and the hearing
    is adjourned. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

                                A P P E N D I X

    Submitted by Senator Grassley:

     Augustine, Nancy, Letter.........................................    68

     Four Oaks Testimony, October 13, 2015............................    66

     Grassley, Charles E., Statement..................................    60

     One Program's Transition to Research-Based Strategies for
        Treating Methamphetamine Abuse................................    51
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]