[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]