<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:34235.wais]
THE METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC IN COLORADO
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 7, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-225
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-235 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JON C. PORTER, Nevada C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina Columbia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ------
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio (Independent)
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
David Marin, Staff Director
Lawrence Halloran, Deputy Staff Director
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman
PATRICK T. McHenry, North Carolina ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DAN BURTON, Indiana BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN L. MICA, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota DIANE E. WATSON, California
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
CHRIS CANNON, Utah C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio Columbia
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. Marc Wheat, Staff Director
Dennis Kilcoyne, Counsel
Malia Holst, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 7, 2006..................................... 1
Statement of:
Abrahamson, Larry, district attorney, 8th Judicial District;
Ken Buck, district attorney for the 19th Judicial District;
John Cooke, sheriff, Weld County; Lieutenant Craig Dodd,
commander, Larimer County Drug Task Force; Janet Rowland,
commissioner, Mesa County; Robert Watson, district
attorney, 13th Judicial District; and Ms. Donita Davenport. 36
Abrahamson, Larry........................................ 36
Buck, Ken................................................ 43
Cooke, John.............................................. 47
Davenport, Donita........................................ 65
Dodd, Craig.............................................. 53
Rowland, Janet........................................... 57
Watson, Robert........................................... 63
Sweetin, Jeff, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of DEA,
Denver Field Division...................................... 17
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Abrahamson, Larry, district attorney, 8th Judicial District,
prepared statement of...................................... 39
Buck, Ken, district attorney for the 19th Judicial District,
prepared statement of...................................... 45
Cooke, John, sheriff, Weld County, prepared statement of..... 50
Davenport, Donita, prepared statement of..................... 69
Dodd, Lieutenant Craig, commander, Larimer County Drug Task
Force, prepared statement of............................... 55
Musgrave, Hon. Marilyn N., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Colorado, prepared statement of............... 11
Rowland, Janet, commissioner, Mesa County, prepared statement
of......................................................... 60
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, prepared statement of.................... 5
Sweetin, Jeff, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of DEA,
Denver Field Division, prepared statement of............... 19
THE METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC IN COLORADO
----------
FRIDAY, JULY 7, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Loveland, CO.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m.,
Loveland Municipal Building, 500 East Third Street, Loveland,
CO, Hon. Mark E. Souder (chairman of the subcommittee)
presiding.
Present: Representatives Souder, Kilcoyne, and Musgrave.
Staff present: Dennis Kilcoyne, counsel; and John Dudley,
congressional fellow.
Mr. Souder. Good morning, and I thank you all for coming.
This hearing continues our subcommittee's work on the growing
problem of methamphetamine trafficking and abuse, a problem
that has ravaged communities across the country.
I'd like to thank my fellow Member of Congress, Marilyn
Musgrave, who invited us here to her district. She has been a
strong advocate in the House for an effective bipartisan anti-
meth strategy. I'm looking forward to working with her on new
legislation for this Congress, and I hope that the information
we gather at this hearing will help us achieve that goal.
Meth is one of the most powerful and dangerous drugs
available. It's also one of the easiest to make. It is perhaps
best described as a perfect storm, a cheap, easy-to-make drug
with devastating health and environmental consequences, which
consumes tremendous law enforcement and other public resources
and is extremely addictive and difficult to treat. If we fail
to get control of it, meth will wreak havoc in our communities
for generations to come.
This is actually the 15th hearing focusing on meth held by
the subcommittee since 2001. In places as diverse as Indiana,
Oregon, Hawaii, Minnesota and North Carolina, I have heard
moving testimony about how this drug has wreaked havoc on
people and their families.
I've also learned about the many positive ways that
communities have fought back, targeting the meth cooks and
dealers, trying to get addicts into treatment, and working to
educate young people about the risks of meth abuse.
At each hearing, then, we try to get a picture of the state
of meth trafficking and the abuse in that regional area. Then
we ask three questions.
First, where does meth in the area come from, and how do we
reduce the supply? Second, how do we get people into treatment,
and how do we keep young people from starting meth use in the
first place? And finally, how can the Federal Government
partner with State and local agencies to deal with this
problem?
The next question, that of meth supply, divides into two
separate issues, because the drug comes from two major sources.
The most significant source in terms of the amount produced
comes from the so-called superlabs, which, until recently, were
mainly located in California, but are now increasingly located
in northern Mexico.
By the end of the 1990's, these superlabs produced over 70
percent of the Nation's supply of meth, and today it is
believed that 80 percent or more comes from Mexican superlabs.
The superlabs are operated by large Mexican drug-trafficking
organizations that have used their established distribution and
supply networks to transport meth throughout the country.
A second major source of meth comes from small local labs
that are generally unaffiliated with major trafficking
organizations. These labs, often called mom-and-pop or clan or
nazi labs, have proliferated throughout the country, often in
rural areas.
The total amount of meth actually supplied by these labs is
relatively small. However, the environmental damage and health
hazard they create in the form of toxic pollution and chemical
fires make them a serious problem for local communities,
particularly the State and local law enforcement agencies
forced to uncover and clean them up.
Children are often found at meth labs and have frequently
suffered from severe health problems as a result of chemical
saturation in the houses used to make the drug.
Since meth has no single source of supply, no single
regulation will be able to control it effectively. To deal with
the local meth lab problem, many States, including Colorado,
have passed various forms of retail sales restrictions on
pseudoephedrine products like cold medicines.
Some States limit the number of packages a customer can
buy. Others have required that cold medicines be placed behind
pharmacy counters. Retail sales restrictions appear to have had
a major impact on this number of small labs.
However, retail sales regulations will not deal with the
large-scale production of meth in Mexico. That problem will
require either better control of the amount of pseudoephedrine
going into Mexico or better control of drug smuggling on our
southwest border or both.
The Federal Government, in particular the Department of
Justice, Homeland--State and Homeland Security, will have to
take the lead if we are to get results.
And I should point out I'm going to ask the question--we
have seen a major rise in Oregon and a couple of States of
Internet sales of pseudoephedrine, and I want to see if we're
seeing any of that in Colorado. And Oklahoma has another
variation of it. So the States that did the pseudoephedrine
control first are now finding that even their mom-and-pop labs
are starting to curve back up.
The next major question is demand reduction. How do we get
meth addicts to stop using, and how do we get young people not
to try meth in the first place?
I am encouraged by the work of a number of programs at the
State and local level, with assistance from the Federal
Government, including drug court programs, which seek to get
meth drug offenders into treatment programs in lieu of prison
time; the Drug-Free Communities Support Program, which helps
the work of community anti-drug coalitions to bring drug use
prevention education to young people; and the President's
Access to Recovery treatment initiative, which seeks to broaden
the number of treatment providers.
The final question we need to address is how the Federal
Government can best partner with State and local agencies to
deal with meth and its consequences. Currently, the Federal
Government does provide a number of grants and other assistance
programs to State and local agencies.
In addition to the programs I mentioned earlier, the Byrne
Grants and the COPS Meth Hot Spots programs help fund anti-meth
law enforcement task forces. The DEA and other agencies assist
State and local agencies with meth lab cleanup costs. The Safe
and Drug-Free Schools program and the National Youth Anti-Media
Drug Campaign help schools and other organizations provide
anti-meth education.
However, we will never have enough money at any level of
government to do everything we might want to do with respect to
meth. That means that Congress and State and local policymakers
need to make some tough choices about which activities and
programs to fund and at what level.
We also need to strike the appropriate balance between the
needs of law enforcement and consumers and between supply
reduction and demand reduction.
Fortunately, I believe a big step forward was taken in
March, when Congress passed and the President signed into law
the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. This comprehensive law
is designed to tackle meth trafficking in every State, from
precursor chemical control to international monitoring, from
environmental regulation to child protection.
There was a strong bipartisan cooperation. The legislation
moved through Congress quickly as Members got the message from
the grassroots that meth doesn't respect State boundaries. We
will be closely watching the implementation of this law and
looking for new ways to thwart meth traffickers and help those
individuals, families and communities that have been devastated
by this drug.
We have an excellent group of witnesses today who will help
us make sense of these complicated issues. For our first panel,
we are joined by Mr. Jeff Sweetin, assistant special agent in
charge of the DEA's Denver Field Division.
For our second panel, we are joined by the Honorable Larry
Abrahamson, district attorney for the 8th judicial district;
the Honorable Ken Buck, district attorney for the 19th judicial
district; the Honorable John Cooke, sheriff of Weld County;
Lieutenant Craig Dodd, Commander of the Larimer County Drug
Task Force; and the Honorable Janet Rowland, who is a
commissioner from Mesa County; and the Honorable Bob Watson,
district attorney for the 13th judicial district.
We are also joined by Ms. Donita Davenport, who has a
painful story to tell us about how the meth epidemic has
affected her family.
We thank everyone for taking time to join us today, and we
are looking forward to your testimony.
I'd now like to yield to our host and a good friend,
Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.003
Mrs. Musgrave. Thank you, Mr. Souder.
Well, good morning to all of you. I look out on the
audience, and I just want to tell each one of you that I
respect and admire you for the work you do in our communities,
and I'm very glad you're here this morning.
Mr. Souder, I'd just like to thank you for coming to
Colorado. The chairman has a real heart for this issue,
combating meth. And it's an honor to have you in Loveland, CO
today.
First, you know that meth is a central nervous system
stimulant. It's a very highly dangerous drug that is causing
enormous problems for families and communities. And the drug
use is spreading across the United States. The meth production
is increasing domestically and internationally.
We are here to hold this hearing today to hear from law
enforcement officials and members of the community who deal
with this meth problem firsthand.
Methamphetamine abuse, production and trafficking presents
unique problems that are not associated with most drugs.
According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, in 2004, 1.4 million persons aged 12 and older
had used meth in the past year, and 583,000 have used it in the
past month. Since this study, the problem has only gotten
worse.
Chronic meth use can lead to irreversible brain and heart
damage, psychotic behavior, and rages and violence. Withdrawal
from the drug can induce paranoia, depression, anxiety and
fatigue. Because of the seriousness of this problem, Congress
has been working to address illegal meth abuse and production.
The precursor chemicals necessary, as the chairman said,
for producing meth are commonly found in over-the-counter cold
and sinus medicines that have legitimate uses and are available
in retail quantities from any drug store.
The local small laboratories that are used to produce meth
can create substantial public safety and environmental
problems. They create the possibilities of explosion, toxic
waste dumps, and serious child endangerment.
The dangers of production and the toxic nature of meth labs
are serious and can affect innocent people in unsuspecting
apartments and motels. We are just beginning to discover the
negative effects of these toxic meth lab sites.
Legislation has been passed to further regulate meth
precursor chemicals, enhance penalties for drug trafficking,
and increase funding for meth-specific law enforcement
programs.
I am a proud co-sponsor of Mr. Souder's bill, the
Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act, which restricts
access to over-the-counter drugs that are used to make meth in
home labs. I'm happy to report this bill was signed into law by
our President this year.
Regulation of these meth precursor chemicals have done much
in addressing this problem. There have been over 1,300
methamphetamine lab seizures in Colorado since 2001.
Another step taken by Congress has been the creation of the
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program within the Office
of National Drug Control Policy. This program designates 28
areas around the country as high-intensity drug trafficking
areas.
And these designations are meant to help Federal, State and
local law enforcement agencies cooperate, share information,
and coordinate their strategies and drug-enforcement
activities.
Colorado is part of the Rocky Mountain High-Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area, a program that works hard and has realized
many positive results in the fight against drugs.
The scourge of methamphetamine use is threatening the
qualify of life in communities across Colorado. According to
the Drug Enforcement Administration, most of the meth in
Colorado comes from large-scale laboratories in Mexico and
California.
Local meth production has been decreased because of the
crackdown on precursor chemical supplies, as the mayor and I
talked about this morning, but Mexican drug trafficking
organizations are increasing the presence and distribution of
meth in Colorado.
According to the Rocky Mountain HIDTA, manpower and
resources previously allocated to investigations of local meth
production are now being shifted to investigation of major
Mexican drug trafficking organizations.
Meth abuse not only affects the individuals that are using
the drug. It affects families and entire communities. The
increased availability and abuse of meth has led to an increase
in drug-related crimes. The growing meth problem is increasing
the burden faced by local and State law enforcement officials.
Local law enforcement has seen an increase in robbery,
domestic violence, forgery, and currently counterfeiting in
areas where meth abuse is rampant. Arrests related to these
crimes are overburdening our court systems, treatment
facilities, and prisons and jails.
I am also a co-sponsor of the Combat Meth Act, which would
fund training for State and local prosecutors and law
enforcement agents to investigate and prosecute meth offenses.
It would also provide grant funds to hire personnel and
purchase equipment to assist in this endeavor.
I was happy to work to bring important grant money to
Larimer and Weld counties this year to assist them with their
law enforcement initiatives, including dealing with the meth
problem.
We have a responsibility to our State and local law
enforcement agencies and our communities to work toward a
solution to this serious problem. The meth epidemic deserves
our full attention because of this drug's incredible
destructive potential.
Beyond the law enforcement aspect of this problem, there
are treatment centers and programs to help people with their
addictions. One such group is the Denver Rescue Mission. I have
met with representatives from the mission and some of the
people they have helped. I have heard first-hand the horrors
that this drug creates.
One of the most touching things that I had in my office was
meeting with a young woman who had been a meth addict. And she
had her little daughter with her. But she told me the story of
her drug addiction, of what she was like when she used
methamphetamine and how she lost custody of her daughter.
And the incredible part of this story was this woman had
overcome this addiction with a great deal of help, and she had
regained custody of her daughter. But the heartbreak that goes
along with the scourge of methamphetamine is just enormous.
In my own community, there was a young woman that died
because of her meth use, and she left three little children
that were being raised by their grandparents, because this
beautiful young woman, who had been an honor student and been
an athlete, just had her very existence taken away by the use
of methamphetamine.
She went from a beautiful young woman to someone whose
teeth were literally rotting in her mouth. And her appearance
dramatically was altered. And then of course, she ended up
dying. And her parents work as much as they can to tell their
tragic story so that other families will not have to suffer the
same fate.
I look forward to hearing testimony from people today
that--again, that I respect and admire for the job that they
do. And I hope that we can raise public awareness and come up
with solutions as to what we need to do in Colorado to address
this issue.
Thank you all for being here, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Marilyn N. Musgrave
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.006
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Before proceeding with our testimony, we need to take care
of some procedural matters. First, all Members have 5
legislative days to submit written statements and questions for
the hearing record. Any answers to written questions provided
by the witnesses will also be included in the record without
objection if so ordered.
Second, I ask consent that all exhibits, documents and
other materials referred to by Members and witnesses may be
included in the hearing record and that all Members be
permitted to revise and extend their remarks without objection
if so ordered.
Finally, I ask consent that all Members present be
permitted to participate in the hearing without objection if so
ordered.
Let me briefly explain for those of you who haven't been at
a hearing or watched on CSPAN a little bit what we're doing
today. What I just went through is a process that is somewhat
rare, because in the--particularly as we approach an election
year, it is harder and harder to get bipartisan cooperation.
This committee has worked in a very bipartisan way. And our
ranking Democrat member, Elijah Cummings, who has occasionally
attended some of the field hearings but has let me conduct
these hearings and allowed us to go forward--as has Henry
Waxman, the ranking Democrat in the full committee, and
Chairman Davis--in a bipartisan way.
Because we really don't have differences on how--major
differences; we have some differences--on how we're approaching
particularly methamphetamine right now.
Congressman Cummings represents Baltimore. His problems are
mostly cocaine and heroin, marijuana. He hasn't really had meth
in Baltimore, but he's attended a number of these meth
hearings, because he knows it's a big part--in other parts of
the country.
We've just done a series of hearings related to some of his
concerns that he's been having in some of the east--with a
number of the members there. But it's relatively unique. And
what I just went through was a procedural matter that, in
effect, enables us to go forward in how we do documents.
Now, this is an oversight committee. I'll have to swear in
each of the witnesses--that you will now be part of the same
committee's record--as says Mark McGwire, who didn't want to be
sworn in during the steroid hearings. And as all the attorneys
here will understand--moved to multiple cities so he didn't get
a subpoena to our hearing to duck being called, because he
didn't want to put up his oath.
And then he simply didn't want to talk about the past,
because if you don't tell the truth to a congressional hearing,
you're subject to prosecution for perjury--and that if he told
the truth, he might be subject to prosecution for other things.
So hopefully today, I want to make a couple things clear.
We're here to talk about the past, because we can't learn about
the future without talking about the past. We expect you to
tell the truth, and we'll try not to ask you too many
embarrassing personal questions that would make you
uncomfortable.
But our committee has oversight responsibility. In
Congress, you have three types of committees--the first two
that were created in the Constitution where the House was
giving the appropriation and tax powers. So all tax and funding
legislation originates in the House of Representatives.
The second group of committees that were formed were
actually oversight, to see whether the early Presidents were
spending the money the way Congress wanted it spent.
The third group that was created were authorizing
committees. So if you take something, say, for Rocky Mountain
National Park, the authorizing committee would, if there was a
question of--let's say somebody who had an in holding, just to
pick a sore subject--somebody who had an in holding--and that
would go through the resources committee.
There would have to be an appropriations question. And then
this--in fact, my subcommittee has oversight over the national
parks--would review to see whether the administration is
following through that.
Now, what's unusual about this committee was--is that so
many committees deal with narcotics. In addition to oversight,
we actually do the authorizing part of the legislation too for
the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which was put
together--the so-called drug czar--to coordinate national
policy.
We've also picked up a number of other things that puts us
directly over the national ad campaign. But also the community
in a drug coalition CADCA went through our subcommittee in
authorizing as well as oversight--and as well as a number of
other programs so that we only had--we have 23 different
committees with drug jurisdiction, but we are trying to
consolidate some of that in our committee.
So I wanted to give you a little bit of what we do. We have
Washington hearings just last--was it last week we did the
meth-treatment hearing--in the District of Columbia. Now, you
also heard me--in Washington, DC, is where those field
hearings--you also heard me say--ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to submit written statements
and questions. Now, I want to make this clear more for the DEA
with the comment that we submitted written questions--and you
heard me say 5 legislative days, which is what we always say--
on November 18, 2004.
And on June 27th, we got the answers back. That's June 27,
2006. We don't consider that a timely response to written
questions. That--we've expressed that to the assistant attorney
general. We understand that there are several things in this.
And I'm actually going to ask the reporter to insert the
full answers to the questions into the record. Because I
understand--but I want to make this clear in the record, and
I'm sure it will get passed back up to Washington--what I've
said here.
Our hearings are going to take a lot longer if I have to
ask all the questions at the hearing rather than wait a year
and a half to get the responses. I understand from looking at
the questions what some of the problem here is. And the reason
I want this inserted into the record is there are some
questions here that have come up at about six or eight hearings
that are very--were very difficult and required a lot of cross-
analyzation.
Now, a year and a half's a little long. But one was are we
finding alternatives to pseudoephedrine that we're seeing.
Because we heard, I believe in Ohio, a rumor about one
alternative.
Also about the Glotel product--of which the answer was very
short. That probably could have been done in say 6 months
rather than a year and a half.
That--in the--but a number of these questions are
repetitive questions that come up at the hearings, and I think
having them in the record will be a backup. But--and I know not
all this, for those who are in attendance, is the problem with
an individual agency.
In this case, we had a number of controversial questions
that, once they appear in a hearing like this in front of our
committee--it more or less becomes the official position of
DEA. So they wanted to make sure that they had enough coming up
from the grassroots to make sure of their answers.
But then we go through another whole process, which is, in
this oversight committee, an increasing exasperation. And that
is that everything that has to run up to the attorney general's
office. So it has to run through everybody's opinion up at the
headquarters.
Then it goes over to Office of Management and Budget,
because one of the questions here is do you need additional
funding for anything. Well, that's like a nightmare in the
administration, because that means it's got to run through
every budget person.
They got to run up and down over to the political office,
ask--oh, they might want to spend another $100,000 on meth--and
that it holds up the process. But I know you are not directly
involved in this. And I have a very good relationship with DEA.
But Congress is getting increasingly exasperated with lack
of timely responses when we're trying to figure out how to deal
with this question. And I know that we have had a very bitter
internal battle--of which DEA has been, quite frankly, one of
our only allies, as well as the HIDTA program--at the Federal
level in trying to focus on meth.
This is just a little minor irritation, but it--that--it
came up just on June 27th. And needless to say--first off, we
were thankful we got answers in a year and a half. It's almost
better if we let us forget about--that we asked the questions,
because it just added insult to injury last week to take this
long to get a response on a major issue and, by the way, not
get the response until after we passed the bill.
That is just part of the frustrating process. Now, aren't
you glad you got to be the Federal representative on the panel?
We also have Mr. Tom Gorman in the audience today, who
heads the Rocky Mountain HIDTA and the national association.
And if I don't summon him up to the table today, we may ask you
some additional followup questions on the region, depending on
what comes up.
Our first witness today is Mr. Jeff Sweetin, assistant
special agent in charge of the Denver district office of DEA.
If you'll stand and raise your right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that the witness responded
in the affirmative.
Thank you very much for coming. Without DEA's help at the
grassroots level, we wouldn't have made the progress we've made
on methamphetamine. And let me first thank DEA for that--and
look forward to hearing comments today.
STATEMENT OF JEFF SWEETIN, ASSISTANT SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE OF
DEA, DENVER FIELD DIVISION
Mr. Sweetin. Chairman Souder and distinguished Members of
Congress, my name is Jeffrey D. Sweetin. I am the special agent
in charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration's Denver field
division. On behalf of the DEA Administrator Karen Tandy, I
appreciate your invitation to testify regarding the DEA's
efforts in the Colorado region to combat methamphetamine.
We have witnessed a rapid evolution of the methamphetamine
trafficking situation in Colorado. However, the drug is not new
to the Colorado region. Law enforcement has been combating
methamphetamine for well over 20 years, and we have seen first-
hand its devastating effects.
In Colorado and across the Nation, we have led successful
enforcement efforts focusing on methamphetamine and its
precursor chemicals and have worked with our Federal law
enforcement partners to combat this drug.
Methamphetamine found in the U.S. originates from two
principle sources. Most of the methamphetamine found in the
United States is produced by Mexico and California-based
traffickers--Mexican traffickers whose organizations control
superlabs. Current data suggests that roughly 80 percent of the
methamphetamine consumed in the United States comes from these
large labs.
The second source for methamphetamine is small toxic labs.
These labs produce relatively small amounts of methamphetamine
and are generally not affiliated with major trafficking
organizations. The precise breakdown is not available, but it
is estimated that these labs are responsible for approximately
20 percent of the methamphetamine consumed in America.
Methamphetamine is a significant drug throughout--in the
Colorado region where demand, availability and abuse have
increased in all areas of the State. The market for
methamphetamine, both in powder and crystal form, is dominated
by Mexican poly drug trafficking organizations.
Small toxic labs producing anywhere from a few grams to
several ounces of methamphetamine operate within the State.
These labs present unique problems to law enforcement and
communities of all size.
The DEA, both nationally and in Colorado, focuses its
overall enforcement operations on large regional, national and
international drug-trafficking organizations responsible for
the majority of the illicit drug supply in the United States.
The Denver field division's enforcement efforts are led by
DEA special agents and task force officers from State and local
agencies, who, along with our diversion investigators and
intelligence research specialists, work to combat the drug
threats facing Colorado.
During the last year, our efforts in Colorado have resulted
in significant methamphetamine-related arrests, some of which
occurred as part of investigations conducted under the OCDETF
program and DEA's Priority Target Organization program. The
DEA, to include the Denver field division, is working with
other law enforcement agencies in a campaign to fight
methamphetamine.
In response to the hazardous nature of clandestine
laboratories, DEA offers training to investigate and safely
dismantle these laboratories. Since 1998, DEA's office of
training has provided training to over 12,000 officers from
across the country. Our office of training has provided
clandestine laboratory training to more than 128 officers from
Colorado since fiscal year 2002.
The DEA's Hazardous Waste Cleanup Program is designed to
address environmental concerns from the seizure of clandestine
laboratories. This program, with the assistance of grants to
State and local enforcement, supports and funds the cleanup of
the majority of laboratories seized in the United States.
The program promotes the safety of law enforcement
personnel and the public by using companies with specialized
training and equipment to remove hazardous waste. In fiscal
year 2005, the cost of administering these cleanups was
approximately $17.7 million. The DEA administered 436 lab
cleanups in Colorado during fiscal year 2004 and 2005 at a
total cost of $553,588.
The DEA, both nationally and within Colorado, is keenly
aware that we must continue our fight against methamphetamine
on multiple fronts. Our enforcement efforts are focused against
methamphetamine trafficking organizations and those who provide
its precursor chemicals.
We also are providing vital training in lab cleanups to our
State and local counterparts who are outstanding partners with
us in combating this problem.
Law enforcement has experienced some success in the fight,
though much work remains to be done. Thank you for your
recognition of this important issue and the opportunity to
testify here today, and I'll be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sweetin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.014
Mr. Souder. The number--it looks like the number of labs in
Colorado that you've--have been reported have dropped steadily
since 2002.
Mr. Sweetin. That's correct.
Mr. Souder. In the EPIC statistics, which we'll talk about
locally, have you seen a shifting in--does it appear that
they'll be lots of labs in one area; they'll go down, but
another area will pick up, and that what we're seeing is the--
in other words, were these labs in basically the same counties,
or do you have any idea of that?
Mr. Sweetin. If you look at the statistics by county, which
we can provide to you for Colorado, there seems to be several
counties that stand out in terms of the numbers. Denver County,
El Paso County, I believe Adams County, and I believe one of
the northern counties--I believe it's Weld County.
I can provide that as a breakdown. But in reference to your
question about reductions in areas and then increased labs in
the other area, I have not seen that in this region. Typically
what we've seen is reductions in small toxic labs that pretty
much occur across the board on a percentage basis--that it's
rare that we would see an increase in a certain area.
We really just haven't see that. So the reductions have
pretty much been across the board.
Mr. Souder. That--I'll have some followup questions with
that with the local prosecutors, whether that's some--that
we've locked the people up--whether we've actually stopped the
labs and changed the attitudes as opposed to putting them in
jail.
That--the--a second question is that--have you--are these
statistics similar in Wyoming, Utah and Montana?
Mr. Sweetin. I believe they are. As far as the reductions,
they are, certainly.
Mr. Souder. Do you--has--what we tend to see around the
country is that most of the labs--they like to operate in more
rural areas, because it's harder to smell them; it's harder to
be detected. And often, they start in national forests, which
is why--happened heavily in California, Oregon and Washington.
That pattern--is that why the--most of the counties you
named--since I don't have a total geographical understanding,
though I have a rough understanding of where those counties
were--they seem to be in--near national forests.
Mr. Sweetin. Well, I've never seen that correlation made.
I--looking at the counties, my assumption has always been that
it's population centers throughout Colorado. If you look at El
Paso County down toward Colorado Springs, you look at Denver
County and then in the northern region up here that is seeing
major growth--I think that's one of the factors that
contributes to it.
I think the other thing is the education. People now know
what a methamphetamine laboratory is, whereas, you know, 5, 10
years ago, people may have been encountering methamphetamine
laboratories and not known it. So I think the added pressure of
some of these jurisdictions in enforcement as well has caused
some of those lab seizures.
Mr. Souder. And now, in talking about the labs again, not
crystal meth, the--you're saying you're finding these in
cities.
Mr. Sweetin. Well, in--Denver County has statistics on
seizures. But we're finding them pretty much everywhere. But I
would say by and large, these would be in the suburban or more
rural areas throughout the State.
Mr. Souder. The examples you have here are the Wind River
Indian Reservation, Grand Junction, Cheyenne-based ring,
Boulder County. If--and here in Loveland. If you have examples
of clandestine labs in a more major urban area--we're seeing
some in motels where they'll take a wing--in Dayton, OH, the
first one was a string of seven houses.
Because of the smell detected, generally speaking, we
haven't seen these in urbanized or even suburban settings. I'd
be interested if you have some specific examples of where the
cooking was done in some urban areas.
Mr. Sweetin. Well, I'll be happy to check that and submit
that. I'll see what we can come up with in the cities.
Mr. Souder. That would be a change in pattern, which we're
starting to see--Minneapolis/St. Paul. But a lot of that moves
to crystal meth.
Now, in the Indian reservations--we had testimony from the
U.S. attorney for northern Minnesota, who had the northern
Indian nations--says that meth has been a bigger problem in the
Indian reservations now than alcohol. Have you seen that or----
Mr. Sweetin. Well, we've been meeting with our Native
American law enforcement and tribal leaders for about the last
2 years on this issue. I have not seen that reported, nor have
they reported to me that this has eclipsed alcohol.
I will say that it is identified by most of them as their
biggest problem. Throughout our region, the reservations that
we cover, methamphetamine is seen as the No. 1 problem.
In a recent case that you may be aware of, it is our--based
on our investigation, the traffickers actually--the Mexican
traffickers actually identified a Native American reservation
and went there and purposely used what they thought were
jurisdictional confusion to help expand their retail market.
So when you look at these--I will tell you that small toxic
labs--they've been very limited on the reservations that I
cover, but methamphetamine itself that's trafficked in by
Mexican groups is extensive, and they would identify that as
their biggest problem.
Mr. Souder. Before I yield to Congressman Musgrave, I just
spent the last 2 days on the southwest border, in Texas 1 day
and New Mexico the other. And they're not getting any crystal
meth. And we also met with ICE, and they're not getting any
crystal meth.
And I'm trying to figure out--and we'll pursue this at the
national level. But I wonder--we have received testimony in
every hearing that 67 to 80 percent--now in the current
testimony--that we get is made in superlabs increasingly from
Mexico. Then why aren't we getting it?
Mr. Sweetin. Well, I'm not sure why that is. And I'm--as
you're asking the question, I'm trying to search back and
determine in our region what are we seeing. We're seeing a lot
of meth that isn't crystal meth in this region. My thought
would be that there would be superlabs creating methamphetamine
that was not crystal meth.
Mr. Souder. OK. I shouldn't have used crystal meth. They're
not getting any meth at the border that--we're claiming there's
an increase in non-mom-and-pop labs, and it's coming across the
Mexican border. But they're not getting anything.
At Neely's Crossing, where I was the other day, they had a
load of 10,000 pounds of marijuana that they only got part of.
Most of it got away. They're getting 55 pounds of heroin the
other day--but no meth.
That--are we sure we don't have some other kind of lab
construct working inside the United States? I mean, this is
really disturbing if this is holding--unless it's all moving
over to Tijuana in the California side. Because if it's not
coming across the other three States--we've got some kind of
mismatch that we've got to figure out here, because we see the
labs dropping, meth use not dropping, meth use increasing at
emergency rooms, and a transference of this kind of usage, but
we don't seem to have a handle where it's coming from.
Mr. Sweetin. Well, I don't know--I'm not a border expert,
and DEA doesn't do really border interdiction per se along the
border. But I will tell you, based on the investigations--I
believe some of those are cited in my written statement--we
are, in fact, seeing--now, mind you, these are poly drug
groups. These are groups that had inroads into this region
before meth became the commodity.
But we are, in fact, seeing strong, well-funded Mexican
drug trafficking organizations moving methamphetamine from
Mexico into the United States.
Mr. Souder. So when you talk to them, they say this came
across. Would you identify what--when you take down a group, do
you ask them what border it crossed at?
Mr. Sweetin. We--in some cases, we're able to determine
where it crossed. In most of the cases that we're working, we
work them in conjunction with the Mexican authorities so that
it's obvious that the drug is beginning in Mexico. Some cases
we never know.
But there are cases where we can determine pretty sure that
it's coming across the border and which border crossing it's
coming across.
Mr. Souder. And the amount of pounds in meth--would you say
it's more when they're moving this in a group? Apparently the
quantities are less than marijuana. The quantities are less
than cocaine. Is that correct?
Mr. Sweetin. It's certainly been our experience in this
region that you would typically find--there's no typical
seizure, but most of what we're seeing is movement across the
highway system, the interstate highway system, which provides a
great access up I25 into this region.
So when you look at seizures made in that atmosphere,
oftentimes you are seeing a mix. You're seeing typically
cocaine and some methamphetamine. But the amounts of
methamphetamine by volume do tend to be, by and large, less
than the other drugs we're encountering.
Mr. Souder. Because one of the questions is are they moving
this on individuals, because the price is high and you don't
necessarily need a dump truck with 10,000 pounds in it that--
are they moving it on individuals, and then those individuals
may be picked up as part of even a human trafficking group--
consolidated it--is a decent load.
Because this area probably has a pattern mostly coming
through El Paso or straight north as a major trafficking group,
possibly as far over as Laredo, maybe as far as Nogales. It's
not likely to go far west up in--I'm not saying it doesn't,
because it moves depending on the trafficking organization, but
I would assume most of your trafficking is coming fairly
straight north and south.
And I just spent 2 days with them, and they don't have any
busts. And they're trying to figure out where it is, because if
it's moving in a different way, it might suggest more pat-down
strategies or more things like heroin swallowers at airports.
Because there's a disconnect. Any thoughts on----
Mr. Sweetin. Well, I agree with you. I--you know, we
believe, based on the cases we see, that I25 north/south
corridor is the primary route. So the assumption is that it's
coming across at that port of entry.
Have we ever established in numerous cases that's a port of
entry? We have not. Really, that hasn't been our focus. Our
focus has been trying to get back to the Mexican ownership of
those narcotics.
But again, our intelligence here and our cases suggest that
clearly this is coming across the southwest border somewhere. A
lot of our interdiction efforts are focused on--and that of our
counterparts--focus on that corridor, the I25 corridor, because
I25 is a perfect highway to lead you to numerous major east/
west interstates.
Where we sit in the traffic is that a lot of that
contraband comes to this region, and then it's moved further
east. So most of that methamphetamine that comes through here
isn't bound for here. It's bound for places east of here.
Mr. Souder. There is a theory, of which I am one possible
proponent, that based on what's happening in the midwest and in
Georgia, that it's coming from Canada and the northwest, and
that the Mexican trafficking groups we're working with may have
ties. It may be coming in the swapping with the B.C. bud and
cocaine and out of Yakima.
If you watch for that trend, if you start to see any of the
Yakima type things--we may have a big trading zone up there,
and we may be--we got--40 percent of the known meth in the
United States was a DEA bust in Detroit at one point.
It may be coming a different way, and we've got our focus
wrong, and we need some kind of looking at the trafficking
patterns too, so we don't make false assumptions. Have you
heard anything coming from----
Mr. Sweetin. We've actually looked at that as a probable
area, just based on pressure placed at the southwest border. We
have not seen that. We have had several sporadic cases of drug
trading in the northwest. We believe it was actually coke for
B.C. bud marijuana. But in terms of meth, I'm not aware of any
investigation that has shown that.
But I will tell you that we are--we do see the link with
the Yakima region, and we're constantly looking. I also cover
Montana as my area of responsibility. So the northern border is
seen as an issue, and we do keep a close eye on it, but we have
not seen that yet.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mrs. Musgrave. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sweetin, I too am mystified by the--you know, we're
told that possibly 80 percent of the drugs come from the
southern border, and I don't understand why we don't have--you
know, I was in El Paso. I talked to individuals about what
happened at Neely's Crossing and talked to local law
enforcement there--and what is going on right there at our
southern border.
And their--you know, the crime rate is low in El Paso. And
I talk to Federal law enforcement folks, they say, Well, what's
happening? What--are these drugs coming across the border, and
are these people getting into our country with them without
being apprehended?
I am mystified by, you know, what we hear about the
southern border and then how little methamphetamine has been
seized. So I don't understand that either.
I guess what we could move on to is how effective have
these State laws--you know, now that we have in over 30 days--
in regard to the sale of over-the-counter medications that are
used to make meth--how effective have these things been?
I had breakfast with the mayor of Greeley this morning, Tom
Selders, talking about, you know, how the city council there
has passed restrictions on the sale of these. What effect does
this really have?
Mr. Sweetin. Well, if you look at the decline in small
toxic labs over the last 5 to 8 years throughout the west, I
think most of the credit goes to chemical control, that the
pressure that creates--the answer to your question--it's been
very effective in--certainly in this region.
When States initially started passing these laws, the law
enforcement counterparts would say, right now, the best we can
do is move them to another State by passing this law. As other
States come on line, I would say that the pressure is quite
impressive, and that's why we're now looking at the shift that
the chairman spoke about in his opening.
The shift is now what we need to be looking at and worrying
about with the majority of our time is the Mexican connection.
So I'd say that the chemical--all chemical control, when
it's factored in--the chemical control on shipment of
precursors, large bulk shipments, the gray market, those things
combined--we don't know which one had more than the other.
But I will tell you that chemical control has had a very
large effect on this region in terms of making small toxic labs
even more difficult to operate.
Mrs. Musgrave. The chairman alluded to Internet sales of
these precursors. Could you comment on that? What do you see in
regard to Internet purchases of these things?
Mr. Sweetin. We have numerous Internet cases. Our--I have
not seen Internet cases in this region for purchase of
pseudoephedrine or ephedrine or phenylpropanolamine. We see
primarily diversion-related cases on diversion of illicit
painkillers.
But we have not seen Internet investigations where people
are ordering these--those three chemicals online in this
region.
Mrs. Musgrave. I think that concludes----
Mr. Souder. OK. I have some followup. How would you find
it? In other words, an individual orders from a Canadian
pharmacy--what they assume's a Canadian pharmacy--about--the
majority of which are actually in Mexico masquerading as
Canadian pharmacies.
All you have to do is go to the border and see all the
pharmacies--that they order, you know, 20 bottles. Would you--
is anybody even monitoring that?
Mr. Sweetin. Well, it depends on--now, how we would find it
would depend on where the lab was. If----
Mr. Souder. It would have to almost be a superlab, wouldn't
it?
Mr. Sweetin. Well, it--I don't know if necessarily it
would.
Mr. Souder. Oh, I see. You're saying if you see an uptick
in local labs and you don't find the names on the registers,
then they probably would be an Internet. Would that be a safe
assumption?
Mr. Sweetin. Yes, sir. And I think the other thing is a lot
of the work we've done on identifying gray market and shady
chemical suppliers starts at the lab and works backward.
Because, you know, if you look at bulk ordering of
pseudoephedrine or ephedrine, it's very obvious when you go to
a lab scene that wasn't a blister-pack guy sitting around
popping pills out of blister packs.
You have containers. Containers are trackable. And we've
done some great work on--some of the best cases that have been
done in the country by tracking those chemicals back to where
they came from. So that would be the first step. It would be
very rare that we would start at the Internet end.
We would actually have to--if the lab was occurring in
Mexico, then working with them, we would track that lab. But
one of the overall difficulties with these Internet sites is
they could be located anywhere. The supplier can be in one
State. And we're seeing this with our other Internet
investigations.
The broker can be in one State. The actual person that
fills the order can be in another nation. So the Internet's
made that a little bit more difficult.
Mrs. Musgrave. Mr. Chairman, if I may, coming from an
agricultural area, can you address the anhydrous ammonia? Do
you see a great deal of theft with chemicals like that?
Mr. Sweetin. We were receiving quite a few reports at one
time. We don't hear a lot of reports any more. I'm not sure
whether--first of all, reports of anhydrous theft--our theory
is that there's a lot more thefts than we ever know about,
based on the methods of theft.
I think the education has done a great job with that. We
don't--you know, a lot of people that--a lot of the
agricultural community is now aware of the fact that what they
once thought was a fairly innocuous chemical used as a
fertilizer is now a necessary component to some methods of
methamphetamine.
So we don't hear as much about that, about anhydrous. But
our assumption is--you know, many of the labs that we find--
there is anhydrous involved that we assume has been stolen from
some agricultural setting.
Mrs. Musgrave. What about methods of theft? Could you
address that?
Mr. Sweetin. The typical methods of theft, depending on the
region--in this region have been actual thefts from holdings
tanks in rural environments. That's the predominant method--
would be some of the larger agricultural areas.
And I obviously didn't grow up in the agricultural world,
and I'm about to make that clear. An upbringing in the suburbs
of D.C. But my understanding is that it's a fairly easy theft
method if you can get to the storage facility in a farmer's
field.
And prior to this education, there was no safeguards on
anhydrous. But I will tell you that the education of the
agricultural committee seems to have had an effect, at least in
terms of what we hear is being stolen.
Mr. Souder. And you believe, based on the EPIC numbers,
that what we're going to hear is that the number of people
going to emergency rooms in this area with meth is down, and
the number of people in drug courts with meth is down, and the
number of people in prisons are down, or not.
Mr. Sweetin. I don't know if you'll hear that. I'd be
interested to see what you hear. What my point was is that the
actual small toxic lab situation is decreasing. In terms of
meth use, I think you have some people here that can certainly
answer that question, but I wouldn't predict that's what you'll
hear.
Mr. Souder. And--but you will predict that the number of
people going to emergency rooms, the number of people going to
prisons, the number of people in drug courts, the number of
people in treatment due to lab arrests--that historically,
almost all the people in prisons, drug courts, in the legal
system have been from the labs, because they have to be picked
up.
They're blowing up their neighborhoods. They're endangering
their families. They're--they--and so that's where the touch
comes usually with local law enforcement. And the disconnect
I'm having is the EPIC numbers with the actual medical
reporting.
Now, some of that could be people--judges are behaving
different. I'm just wondering, because it's something we're
having trouble reconciling. We believe that the association at
counties is going to possibly report again that meth is their
No. 1 local problem, that the drug courts seem to be rising as
a percentage in meth.
We heard last week in treatment that it's a rising
category--and doesn't appear to be crystal meth or non-mom-and-
pop lab. And yet the administration position is it's a
declining problem.
Mr. Sweetin. Well, I'm not prepared to adopt what you said
earlier, that there would be an automatic correlation between a
reduction in small toxic labs and the problems affiliated with
methamphetamine use. Methamphetamine use is--the people that
are using methamphetamine--in recent cases that we've had, that
methamphetamine use is at the street level.
These are danger--you may see some of the articles and
press clippings from the region where our task force in Grand
Junction hand a shootout with a man in a bowling alley, and I
think you may hear some more about that case in a minute.
But that use would appear to people around it to be small
toxic lab use, but by the time this methamphetamine makes it to
the street, I will tell you that it's very hard to determine--
the assumption that it's obvious, even at the treatment level,
to determine where that lab--that dope came from--I would say
that would be very difficult, that it would be hard to make the
correlation that as small toxic labs decrease and, you know,
methamphetamine use continues--it just continues on smuggled
methamphetamine--I'm not sure you're going to see that.
Mr. Souder. OK. I wasn't saying they could identify it by
the type of--to some degree, you can make some estimates based
on purity and composition, but they're making it based on where
they arrested them. In other words, they arrest the guy--I
don't know the bowling-alley case, but if they arrest the guy
in a bowling alley and they go to his house and they find a lab
there, he obviously didn't get it from Mexico.
Is one thing here--are the small--are the mom-and-pop nazi
labs, all the--that mix--are they making more? In other words,
are--is part of this they're declining in number, but they're
getting bigger?
Mr. Sweetin. I don't--I haven't seen any data to support
that. Our--most of the labs that we see are not very
sophisticated labs. They're very, they're low volume labs.
They're really bad chemical operations, fortunately and
unfortunately. They're more dangerous that way, but they're
not--the yield is not very good.
We're not seeing increased sophistication with these labs.
We're seeing a reduction in them overall, but we're not seeing
them look any better than they did several years ago.
Mr. Souder. I don't want--the one comment I want to make
with this--and I'm not making an accusation. I'm saying
something that we're going to have to deal with as a practical
matter and why DEA and our Federal agencies need to look at the
nexus that I was just discussing as we go through this
process--because in my own district--Indiana was fifth highest
in the number of labs--we're seeing a drop in labs but an
increase in the pressures. And it's hard to sort through. And
we need an explanation for that.
Because one of the things that I'm worried about
politically in a sense--of a disconnect between the Federal and
the State and local--is that the Federal Government has
downplayed from the beginning, with the notable exception of
DEA--because you were involved in the cleanup--and quite
frankly, when I've followed through DEA over the years is the
grassroots DEA agents knew there was more of a problem than the
Washington headquarters did.
Director Tandy started to correct that. Director Tandy, in
her meetings with other government agencies that were still
poo-pooing the meth problem, argued internally--don't take this
personally at DEA, but there is a vested interest in the
Federal Government to prove that it's Mexican organizations,
because then they can propose cutting the Byrne grants, cutting
the HIDTA programs, cutting the local and State law enforcement
task forces, because now it's a Federal problem we have to deal
with.
And there's a disconnect if we can't establish how the
transfer is occurring and what's happening at the local level,
because it seems to be working in the self interest of those
who are making the argument--and that--I'm not arguing that the
labs aren't dropping. We see the labs dropping.
And October 1st, when we do the national pseudoephedrine
regulation, presumably we're going to see more dropping. But
when you can't find it at the border and you can't find it--
whether it's on the Internet, and we're seeing the problems at
the local level--the pressure is increasing. People want an
explanation.
And I know that's not the normal way we do this. But
because of the history of how this drug epidemic has grown and
the battle that's occurred around it, the Federal Government
has more explaining to do than just making assertions. And
that's the challenge.
Mr. Sweetin. Well, I would just tell you it's in DEA's best
interest to look at that and to make sure that we are using the
correct numbers and the correct correlation. So I will tell you
it is important to us as part of the administration and even to
us in the field to make sure that we are seeing it right. So
I'm sure those comments will be passed up to my bosses.
Mrs. Musgrave. I just would like to ask you, in conclusion,
how successful Operation Wildfire was.
Mr. Sweetin. Well, nationally, Operation Wildfire was very
successful. One of the things that was most successful about
Operation Wildfire, if you go beyond the obvious statistical
successes, was that it was a--you know, we've always prided
ourselves in our ability to cooperate--particularly DEA has--
that we don't look at cooperation as a luxury. We look at it as
a necessity.
And what Wildfire did was it--across the country on--in one
time window, we all focused on focused methamphetamine
enforcement with our counterparts. So I--from my standpoint, I
see it successful in a couple ways.
It was a great success against those people that are moving
methamphetamine to our kids and to our communities. But more
so, from my standpoint, it was a success in that what we found
and what we really highlighted, I think, during that period of
time was that if we all focus on something--you know, if you
look at the post September 11th days, we all focused on certain
things. If you focus on a problem, you stop other things that
you're doing, which is ultimately what we do when we focus on
those things, as do our counterparts--I think you have great
success.
And I think it was a credit really to our counterparts,
who--you know, they have--DEA's single mission--I have one
primary thing that I have to do. Some of the speakers you're
going to hear from have thousands of missions. And so when I go
to them and I say, we want to do this; we think it's good for
the country, and they do it, that's a good example of what we
can do when we cooperate. So I think it was very successful.
Mrs. Musgrave. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Well, thank you very much for your testimony,
and we'll try not to give too many written questions, so we can
get a timely response. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sweetin. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. If we can get the second table set up so we can
get all the witnesses for the second panel.
[Recess.]
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that each of the witnesses
responded in the affirmative.
I appreciate you all coming. I'm looking forward to your
testimony. And we'll start with--let me make sure I have our--
that the order that they're on the--Mr. Abrahamson, start
first.
STATEMENTS OF LARRY ABRAHAMSON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 8TH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT; KEN BUCK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE 19TH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT; JOHN COOKE, SHERIFF, WELD COUNTY; LIEUTENANT CRAIG
DODD, COMMANDER, LARIMER COUNTY DRUG TASK FORCE; JANET ROWLAND,
COMMISSIONER, MESA COUNTY; BOB WATSON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 13TH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT; AND MS. DONITA DAVENPORT
STATEMENT OF LARRY ABRAHAMSON
Mr. Abrahamson. Thank you, Chairman Souder, Congresswoman
Musgrave. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning
in an issue that is of great concern to communities in
Colorado. This issue of methamphetamine is an epidemic in
Colorado and is truly one that we are seeing.
My name is Larry Abrahamson. I'm the district attorney for
the 8th judicial district, which includes both Jackson and
Larimer Counties. And I've been prosecuting in this
jurisdiction for over 34 years.
Some of my comments had--were directly in relation to some
of your comments earlier about methamphetamine and the nature
of the drug and its effect on the Nation as well as our
community. So I'm not going to reiterate those things that you
have already addressed as areas that you have full knowledge
of.
So I'm going to move on to some areas of particular concern
to our community and some statistics that we're seeing that
affect that we do. Obviously, the cost to communities
throughout the country is huge.
Vanderbilt Burn Center reported in Newsweek in August 2005
in an article that they took on a $5 to $10 million
uncompensated burden associated with meth burns. They reported
that one third of all burns they treated were from meth.
Mississippi Firefighters Memorial Burn Center suspended new
admissions in May 2005 and may need to shut down permanently,
according to their report. Part of the reason they indicated
was that the financial strain in treating meth burns was more
than they could handle.
According to the adult drug courts that we have in Larimer
County, 85 percent of the adult offenders listed
methamphetamine as their drug of choice in 2004. This is a 34
percent increase over the previous 3 years. In 2005, 28 percent
of juveniles listed meth as their drug of choice. In 2000, no
one in the juvenile court--juvenile drug court listed
methamphetamine as a drug of choice.
Meth is the primary drug threat in the State, and it is
readily available in most population areas. Most
methamphetamine available in Colorado, as you had indicated, is
produced from Mexican cartels and criminal groups in California
and Arizona.
As a result of these active groups, the U.S. Customs
Service reports that Federal meth incarcerations in Colorado is
greatly ahead of the national average. I believe it's 30
percent in Colorado--were Federal meth incarcerations, compared
to the national average of 14 percent.
We cannot allow ourselves to play a catchup game when it
comes to a drug that is insidious as meth. Once the community
falls behind the drug problem, it is difficult if not possible
to again gain the upper hand. We must be proactive, and we must
be relentless.
One of the most concerning threats in our community is the
effect it's having on children. 256 meth-related cases were
investigated by child protection services in Larimer County.
Also during the first 9 months of 2005, 52 children were
actually placed outside of their homes directly because of the
meth connection they had in that particular home with their
parents.
Child protection received 388 referrals in which it was
alleged that children were living in homes where their parents
used methamphetamine. Sixty-five dependency and neglect
petitions were filed in district court, and these were as a
result of meth use of parents.
The government's primary role has historically been public
safety, and we need to continue to remind ourselves that is a
function that is paramount to all other functions when we look
at how our tax dollars are being spent. When citizens do not
feel safe in their own neighborhoods, it makes little
difference whether the jogging trails are well maintained or
the opera houses are in operation.
Although these are important to a growing and healthy
community, they all must be put in perspective when
prioritizing public needs. Public safety must be the primary
function of government, and it must occupy the top spot on our
priority list.
The battle not only requires financial resources. It also
involves legislative authorization for communities and law
enforcements to act.
And we need your help and support. And I have listed in the
statement that I presented to you eight different ways that we
feel that the Federal Government can be of assistance to local
agencies when it comes to attacking the meth problem.
The first one I mentioned was the Federal financial support
for drug courts. Drug courts have proven to be very effective
and one of the most effective ways of dealing with the meth
problem after a person has been charged and is before--in the
court system. It's my understanding that some of the funds have
been cut from that program this year, and that needs to be
reexamined.
We need to establish Federal and local partnerships to
increase community education on the dangers of meth and the
effective methods of intervention.
We need to have a stronger DEA and Federal law enforcement
intervention and coordination with local sheriffs, police and
drug task forces.
Legislation for financially supported drug enforcement
through fines, fees and forfeiture actions taken against drug
dealers must be examined.
Stronger border and Coast Guard support to control the
illegal flow of drugs into this country, which has been
addressed and commented on by the earlier speaker.
Sanctions against countries who are not actively trying to
control the cartels that control international drug traffic.
Incentives to encourage States and local governments to
make public safety their primary concern.
And the continuation of support to encourage the earmarking
of funds to assist local governments with criminal justice and
public safety concerns.
And again, I thank Congresswoman Musgrave for the efforts
that she has put forward in that regard.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. If you
have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Abrahamson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.018
Mr. Souder. Thank you for being one of the first witnesses
to ever publicly endorse earmarks.
Next, Mr. Buck.
STATEMENT OF KEN BUCK
Mr. Buck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. I
heard your questions earlier, and I'd like to allow others the
opportunity to talk and maybe just address a few of the answers
to some of the questions that you had.
Meth--I am the Weld County district attorney of the 19th
judicial district, and meth is truly a human tragedy in our
area. It is not just a human tragedy for the addicts whose
lives are often ruined. It is also a human tragedy for the
families of the addicts.
And Donita Davenport from the Christian organization--
you'll hear from her later. But there are--there is so much
need in our community for support groups because of what this
terrible drug has done.
It's also had an adverse effect on employers because of
lost time. And the economy is suffering in Weld County as a
result of meth.
And the victims of crime--not just the direct impact, but
the indirect impact of meth--the folks that have had their
identities stolen and used to take money from them and banks
and other organizations, the folks that have had their cars
stolen, folks that have had other things stolen so that these
meth addicts who are so dangerous and so needy can get the
money that they need for their addiction.
There are several things that I think the Federal
Government can do to help Weld County and to help others in
America. The first thing is to shut down the Federal border. It
doesn't surprise me at all that the Federal Government hasn't
gotten much meth across the southern border recently.
If 12 million people, most of whom can cross the southern
border in this country--I'm sure that folks can figure out how
to get packages of methamphetamine into this country. And that
is--that effort has to be redoubled to make sure that people
and drugs are not coming across that border.
There are ways that the Federal Government can help prevent
identity theft, which is a source of income for meth addicts.
My son recently turned 18, and I went down to the post office
with him and got this pamphlet so that he could register for
the selective service.
In this pamphlet, there is a postcard, and on the back of
the postcard he is required to fill out his date of birth, his
Social Security number, and his name and address, and then to
drop this in a post office box. There will be probably 10 to 15
people that have come into contact with this card between the
time he puts it in the post office box and the time it reaches
the selective service.
I've talked to a number of senior groups, and in those
senior groups, I have heard consistently how they are concerned
about their Medicare cards, because they are told that they
have to keep those Medicare cards in their purse or on their
person. If something happens to them and they're brought to the
emergency room, somebody will be able to find out that
information.
Well, on those Medicare cards, their name, their Social
Security number, and their date of birth appear. And they're
very concerned about that. If their purse is stolen, their
identity is stolen.
There are a number of Federal forms that I think the
Federal Government should examine--ways to try to reduce the
identity theft.
You mentioned efforts to prevent especially young people
from getting involved in meth. One of the county commissioners
from Weld County, Glen Vaad is here, and Mr. Vaad is heading up
a project in Weld County that is similar to the Montana Meth
Project. And it has been very successful in Montana.
And Commissioner Vaad is trying to raise private funds to
help with that kind of prevention effort. It is a multi-tiered
public information effort aimed at young people so that those
young people do not start in on that methamphetamine route,
because once they start, the urge is so great that they often
cannot stop until they've hit bottom.
Those are some of the things that I think the Federal
Government could do. And I again appreciate very much the
opportunity to address you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Buck follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.020
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Can I ask each of the witnesses, just since I'm not from
here--I see on the testimony of Mr. Abrahamson that you're from
Fort Collins. Are we in Weld County?
Mr. Buck. You're in Larimer County.
Mr. Souder. Larimer County. Where is Weld County?
Mr. Buck. Weld County is just right to the west of----
Mr. Souder. OK. If there are other counties that you refer
to or have in your testimony, would you kind of give me a brief
idea of where I'm at?
Sheriff Cooke.
STATEMENT OF JOHN COOKE
Mr. Cooke. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Congressman Musgrave, for this opportunity to testify. I am the
sheriff of Weld County, the county directly to the east,
about--we start about 6 miles due east of here.
What you've already heard, you know, obviously and know--
meth is a very serious and complex issue, and it's going to
take long strategies to figure out what to do. Many of the
issues--enforcement issues--you've already heard that the meth
labs are down, and that's true in Weld County.
In 2003, we had 16 labs that we busted. In 2004, we had
six, and in 2005, we had six. And so far this year, we've only
had two. So it is a noticeable decrease. And we attribute that
to several things. One is the precursors being behind the
counters, so people can't just go buy unlimited amounts.
The other is the prosecution and stiff penalties for
small--even a small amount of manufacturing. And it--these
reasons--it's--I believe it's easier to import the drugs across
and traffic the drugs across the border.
And then a final--another reason is the education, as the
DEA mentioned. We are educating a lot of people. And Weld
County is receiving a--did receive a cost grant where we're
educating many people in the community what a lab looks like
and what to do when they find one.
Even though the labs have been decreasing, there still is a
major impact on law enforcement. In Weld County, four out of
the last five homicides we investigated had direct ties to
methamphetamine.
A Weld County detective recently mentioned to me that 50
percent of all property crimes are attributed directly to
methamphetamine, property crimes such as burglary, theft, auto
thefts, auto prowls. And about 90 percent of other property
crimes such as bed checks, check washing and forgeries are a
direct result of methamphetamine.
Some of the other issues are the manufacturing issues. And
even though the numbers of labs have decreased, they still pose
a great threat to the citizens of Weld County and to citizens
of any jurisdiction. They usually have or contain two
components, and that is how they obtain the chemicals.
Since it's illegal to obviously--to produce meth, they have
to steal what they need, like the anhydrous ammonia that
Congresswoman Musgrave mentioned. We had a problem with that
several years ago.
The other problem is the way they cook it and the poisonous
gasses that they collect. And they collect it in what they call
death bags. And these death bags are thrown anywhere that's
convenient for them. And it contains, like I said, these
poisonous gasses.
And so it has a direct impact and dangers to people like
sanitation workers, to public road workers, to children walking
to school. They can come across these death bags. And
basically, it is a toxic waste site when one of these bags are
distributed out to the public.
Another issue is importation issues. There has been a
significant shift in production from local sources to foreign
sources, namely Mexico. Evidence of this is directly reflected
by the cost of an ounce of methamphetamine steadily increasing
the further you are from the Mexican border or any large
immigrant population or known trafficking corridor.
Also, lack of raw materials in the United States and
readily available materials in Mexico, along with harsher
sentences for the production of even small quantities of
methamphetamine in this country, have forced production from
the United States to Mexico.
With a non-secure border, methamphetamine and other drugs
will continue to flow into the United States, I believe, at
alarming proportions.
Another issue that I find is jail issues. Weld County has
400 beds for its inmates, yet we have over 600 inmates
incarcerated, so we're at 200 over what we are allowed.
Our biggest increase are female offenders. They are the
fastest growing population in Weld County. In 2004, male inmate
admittance decreased by 2 percent while increasing over 9
percent for female. Again, in 2005, while there was a 4.2
increase in overall admissions into the jail, there was an 8.9
percent increase in female population.
And while male inmates have increased their level of
violence, females have not. The majority of the female crimes
are property crimes and drug crimes. They commit the property
crimes to get the money for their meth. A recent survey of the
females housed at the Weld County jail revealed that offenders
who admitted using any kind of drug 24 hours before their
arrest--85 percent of them used methamphetamine.
In many instances, the drug has become a revolving door for
the women. Ninety percent of the women surveyed had been in
jail before, and 77 women surveyed represented 379 separate
incarceration periods. That's five separate incarcerations for
each woman.
Incarcerating women significantly impacts all of society.
The women mentioned in the survey are mothers to 183 children,
and that is more than 2 children per inmate; 83 percent of
those children were below the age of 18, and 59 percent of the
children--below the age of 12.
A little more than 6 percent of the children are in the
custody of Social Services. That leaves 94 percent of the
children to be raised by other family members other than the
mother or father, and--which--probably the grandparents.
There is a shortage of treatment facilities. There is a 6-
to 8-week waiting period for meth users to receive treatment in
local facilities.
And so in conclusion, I'd just like to say that many things
can be done. You've heard about them. I believe getting control
or securing the border--continue efforts, supporting law
enforcement--from the Federal Government, continuing treatment
or increasing the treatment, and increasing the budget for DEA
to assist local agencies. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cooke follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.023
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Lieutenant Dodd is the commander of the Larimer County Drug
Task Force. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF CRAIG DODD
Mr. Dodd. Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to
testify here today. It's indeed an honor. My name is Craig
Dodd.
I am commander of the Larimer County Drug Task Force. The
intent of my testimony is to share with you my observations as
a law enforcement professional for the past 22 years, as well
as provide some insight as to the scope of the problem here in
Larimer County, and to provide recommendations that will enable
you--enable us to have greater impact on the issue.
Mr. Souder. Can you check to see if the mic--is the mic on?
Or maybe you can pull it a little closer.
Mr. Dodd. There we go. Is that better? Sorry about that.
The Larimer County Drug Task Force is comprised of 17 full-
time employees, 14 of which are drug investigations, from four
Larimer County law enforcement agencies. We serve a population
of 300,000--nearly 300,000 people spread over 2,640 square
miles.
My first experiences as a drug--with drug crime came in the
late 1980's as a narcotics detective. During this time, meth
existed. However, it was isolated to a small group of outlaw
motorcycle gang members. In the 1980's, the threat and the
impact on the quality of life to our citizens was minimal and
quickly eliminated.
Today it's much different. The threat is much greater and
much different. Conservatively, 70 percent of the meth coming
into our community is coming directly or indirectly from
Mexico.
That question has come up a couple of times. And how we--
why we believe it is coming from Mexico is through our
intelligence sharing with the Federal Government, with DEA
specifically. We'll get information from drug dealers that are
here locally that'll say that the drugs are coming from Mexico.
We'll get information about vehicles that are going down to
bring the drugs back. And we can confirm those--that
information through border crossings. So that's part of the
reason why we believe it's coming directly from Mexico.
In the late 1980's, we rarely encountered methamphetamine
in amounts greater than 1 ounce. Today, when we're dealing with
drug dealers, 1 ounce is the minimum amount of methamphetamine
that we're purchasing and seeing.
In 2005, the Larimer County Drug Task Force seized 12.9
pounds of methamphetamine from drug dealers here locally, which
is almost double what we had seized from--in 2003 and in 2004.
The community impact of meth in Larimer County is
significant, and it mirrors other communities. We are
experiencing increases in violent crime, property crime,
identity theft, all related to methamphetamine addiction. Due
to the increase in meth-related crime, our judicial system has
become overburdened, causing significant budget demands on
governmental entities already struggling with budget
shortfalls.
The city of Fort Collins, of--who I work for, recently cut
$4 million from its general fund budget, and in 2007, we'll
have to cut an additional $6.8 million. Although I consider
Larimer County communities safer than most, we're on the brink
of losing ground to the meth issue because of a lack of
personnel resources.
Unfortunately, because of our emphasis and deployment of
resources to target the sale and manufacture of meth, we're
being overrun by what is considered a gateway to meth,
marijuana.
In 2005 alone, the Larimer County Drug Task Force seized 83
pounds of high-grade or indoor-grown marijuana, 1,900 plants
and assets totaling nearly three-quarters of a million dollars.
Indoor-grown marijuana that's produced locally is being sold
for approximately $4,500 per pound.
From a law enforcement perspective, we must stay on stop of
the meth and other local drug issues. Historically, Larimer
County law enforcement has successfully forecasted and adjusted
our resources to combat new crime issues. Gang presence is a
perfect example of something that we addressed nearly a decade
ago and have kept on top of.
Larimer County is a model community in regards to creating
and maintaining partnerships and collaboration with our
community. Unfortunately, when resources are spread so thin,
you tend to lose the creativity and the motivation to stay
ahead of the game. We can't let that happen. It's much easier
to keep up than to catch up.
I have--there are several recommendations for your
consideration that would assist us in maintaining or reducing
meth-related issues in our community. Here are a few.
The influx of meth from Mexico is increasing. And in
response, we need assistance from the Federal Government to
take greater control of our southern border in hopes of
reducing the supply of meth and number of drug criminals
entering our country.
The inundation of meth on our judicial system has made it
unrealistic to deal with this crime problem with a traditional
approach. Putting all meth addicts in jail is no longer an
affordable solution. We must approach this issue by making a
concerted attempt to rehabilitate offenders. We need additional
funding for treatment programs.
We need to continue to increase communication and
collaboration of local and Federal law enforcement so we are
insuring that drug suspects and organizations are investigated
and prosecuted at all levels. This can be accomplished by
adding DEA assets to northern Colorado.
When considering the distribution of State and Federal
dollars, specifically grant-funding opportunities such as
ONDCP, HIDTA, JAG/Byrne, consider increasing the moneys
available to multi-jurisdictional drug task forces and other
projects which directly impact the meth problem.
Historically, drug task forces have been successful in
addressing crime issues because of our multi-disciplinary and
non-traditional approach. Thank you--thanks for allowing me to
testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dodd follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.025
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Next witness is Honorable Janet Rowland, Mesa County
commissioner.
Where is Mesa?
STATMENT OF JANET ROWLAND
Ms. Rowland. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. We
are actually about 300 miles southwest of here along the
Colorado/Utah border. Our population is roughly 140,000, and
our county seat is the city of Grand Junction.
I am county commissioner. And prior to being elected, I
worked for our local department of human services for 10 years
and spent 3 of those years in child protection investigating
allegations of abuse and neglect. So I'm pretty familiar with
some of these issues.
And I believe that to appropriately address our meth
situation, we need to look at both the supply and demand side,
and we need to focus our efforts on prevention, enforcement and
treatment. And specifically, I believe that we should make our
response based on facts and data and not anecdotal information.
To that end, in Mesa County we conducted research over a
course of 8 months. I have three copies that I will leave with
you of our white paper. During that time, we interviewed 200
inmates in our jail. We conducted five focus groups with
current users, former users, at-risk users, family members of
users.
We look at 3 years of autopsies and data from law
enforcement, the courts, the department of human services, and
several other agencies. Those are all highlighted in here. I
can tell you that 75 percent of our cases in child protection,
most of whom are in foster care, are directly related to
methamphetamine. Fifty percent of our inmates indicate that
they were in possession of meth at the time that they were
arrested, and nearly 80 percent of them report being high on
meth when they were arrested.
So based on that information and using a logic model, we
developed a strategic plan that looked at enforcement,
prevention and treatment. In the area of enforcement, we began
to notice a revolving door. We had inmates who would bond out
and commit two or three more crimes before they ever went to
court for their initial crime. And so our DA, Pete Hautzinger,
developed what we call the Fast Track program, which allows
non-violent first and second offenders who are only in
possession or use of meth to plead guilty and go into
treatment.
If they successfully complete treatment and stay clean and
do not reoffend over 2 years, then those charges are dropped.
That program has just started, and we will be monitoring it for
its success.
In the area of treatment, at the same time we were
conducting this research, we were doing a criminal justice
study for Mesa County, because we too had overcrowded jails.
And what we learned from that study is that we ought to--needed
to build a meth-treatment facility or a new jail pod. And we
could build a meth-treatment facility for $3 million less than
a jail pod and operate it at about half a million dollars less
per year. We broke ground on that facility last month, and we
hope to have that open by the first of next year.
As county commissioner, one of the calls I get more than
anything, more than barking dogs and my neighbor's junk, are
family members who have adult children who are involved in meth
who often have grandchildren who are involved, and they don't
know what to do. So also in our treatment committee, we have
developed some family support groups to help those individuals.
I believe you are aware of the drug-endangered children
efforts. In Mesa County, we are following State and national
protocol to ensure that we have good connections between our
law enforcement and our child protection agencies.
And in the area of prevention, we are developing programs
that are based again on evidence-based curriculum that will be
used in both the classroom setting--as well as public education
and marketing campaign.
We know that the children most at risk of using meth are
those that we have--a captive audience. They are in foster
care. And so we are developing support groups, education groups
for those children, treatment programs, as well as tool kits
for the foster care parents that work with them daily.
As you consider what the Federal Government can do to help
stop this epidemic, I would ask that you look at it from a
supply and demand side and that you would focus your efforts on
enforcement, treatment and prevention. And I have four
requests.
One is to ensure that the provisions of the Combat Meth Act
are implemented, to ensure that funding allocated in the Combat
Meth Act is appropriated, and to focus on stronger enforcement
of our borders.
We do know that, although in Mesa County we obtain about $1
million worth of meth a year, we only uncover on average about
three to four small mom-and-pop labs. So whether this meth is
coming from Mexico, Canada--I can't speak to that, but I know
it's not being manufactured in our community. And we know that
based on research.
So I would ask that you would initiate an analysis by the
GAO to determine the adequacy of our Federal Government's
efforts in that area.
And finally, what's most important to me as county
commissioner is that you will ensure funding for our HIDTA
programs. I have with me today a front page of our newspaper
that--Mr. Sweetin spoke about this arrest. Thirty-one
individuals were arrested in March of this year in Mesa County.
It was the largest meth drug ring on the western slope of
Colorado, and it was due to a collaborative effort between our
city police department, our county sheriff, our local DEA
office, and our Rocky Mountain HIDTA program. And this drug
bust could not have happened without HIDTA.
And I know there have been some attempts to cut that
funding, and I appreciate your support of continued funding in
that area.
And in closing, I'll just say that as a county commissioner
and Republican, I do not believe that government and certainly
the Federal Government should be the answer to all of our
problems. But in the area where government is ultimately
responsible, such as public safety and child protection, I do
believe that prevention is the best way to go.
And if we can prevent the demand for this drug by public
education and treatment, and if you can prevent the supply of
this drug through enforcement and especially at our country's
borders, I believe that we can lessen the burden on government
and tax dollars. And I ask that you would prioritize funding in
those areas. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rowland follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.028
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
Ms. Davenport, we're going to finish with your testimony.
If we can move to Mr. Watson, district attorney for the
13th judicial district.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT WATSON
Mr. Watson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman
Musgrave. I am Bob Watson, district attorney for the 13th
judicial district here in Colorado.
And I have to say I feel a little bit like I'm preaching to
the choir. I had the privilege of seeing the chairman speak on
methamphetamine to the National District Attorney's Association
in February. I've had a number of conversations with
Congresswoman Musgrave. So I know the two of you are very
familiar with the problems of methamphetamine.
You've heard a lot of testimony today, and I don't want to
repeat what others have said much better than I could. I simply
want to focus on my district, which I think in a lot of ways
sums up the problems facing rural communities.
The chairman asked for a description of what our areas are
like. I have seven counties spread out over more than 11,000
square miles, an area larger than nine States. Basically,
everything east of what the others have described to the
borders of Nebraska and Kansas, everything from the northern
part of the State down to the mid part of the State is part of
my jurisdiction.
In there we have basically 24 law enforcement agencies--it
depends on how you compute some of them--most of which are very
small. They're one- to three-man or three-officer operations.
At some of our counties, we don't have 24-hour law enforcement
coverage. There's time when there simply is no law enforcement
on duty.
You have heard about HIDTA. You've heard about EPIC. You
won't find anything about us in those. We're not part of HIDTA.
We're basically on our own. To do this, we don't have narcotics
detectives and agencies. We've had to band together and try to
come up with ways to battle methamphetamine.
To put it in some perspective, State health agencies have
told me that if you look at substance abuse in total, including
alcohol in as substance abuse, Colorado ranks No. 2 in the
Nation. One of the distinguishing features of my jurisdiction
and a very sad one is that if you just look at methamphetamine,
northeast Colorado, my area, ranks No. 1 in the State for per-
capita abuse. It's my No. 1 problem that I have.
Our population is fairly flat in northeast Colorado, so
it's a pretty good barometer for how times have changed over a
few years. Not too many years ago, my predecessor was able to
operate by himself and three prosecutors out of a single
office. I now have 10 prosecutors working for me full-time out
of four different agencies.
Last year alone, in Morgan County, to use that one as a
specific example--because I know the Congresswoman's very
familiar with Morgan County--our felony filings jumped 70
percent just last year. That's 100 percent attributable to
methamphetamine.
We do have the Drug Task Force, the Eastern Colorado Plains
Drug Task Force. And with me today, not at the table but in the
audience, is Commander Jeff Annis, the commander of that task
force; Lieutenant Walt Page of the local county sheriff's
office, the immediate past commander.
When this started about 3 years ago, we had four agents on
the Drug Task Force in a highly successful operation. We have
put an awful lot of people behind bars. Now, since I've taken
office about 18 months ago, we changed how we went after drug
dealers and drug manufacturers. And as a result, a lot of the
people who were involved in the business no longer are. They're
behind bars.
Unfortunately, last year the task force funding was cut 30
percent, which cost one of the positions--actually, one plus--
being caught up by some of the other agencies. This year we've
already been told that the best we could get would be 90
percent, probably as low as 50 percent, past funding, which may
simply mean that we will cease to exist as a drug task force,
which means northeast Colorado will surrender on the war on
drugs. We have no other way to operate on that.
And the importance of this, I think, was demonstrated by
the gentleman from the DEA who explained how Denver is often a
hub for the methamphetamine that are brought in, which are then
repackaged and sent to places east of here.
If you look at the map of Denver, there are two interstates
which leave Denver headed east. One is I76, which--not far from
here, and the other is I70, which--headed direct east, both of
which are in my district. That confirms--comports with what we
have been seeing, an awful lot of Mexican meth being
transported throughout northeast Colorado.
If you come and look at one of our dockets 1 day, you will
see that compared to past years, the number of Hispanic
surnames has greatly increased. Frankly, we're not seeing the
labs that we used to see. We have to have a lot of labs. A lot
of them had hydrous stuff, which--I can go into more detail in
a minute.
But that's pretty much dried up. Consistent with what
you've heard from the others, we have onesies and twosies that
we see on a yearly basis now. It's almost all Mexican
methamphetamine that are coming through.
As Commissioner Rowland testified to a few moments ago, we
aren't just looking at the enforcement aspects of this. We have
to stop the epidemic that's ravaging our communities. And
enforcement has to be a prong of that, and we work very hard in
trying to get that in place, and we need to keep that. But we
also recognize it's not the only part.
I have been stunned by the amount of interagency multi-
disciplinary interest in solving this problem and how people
have come together and worked on it. In northeast Colorado,
we've put together a regional facility. And as you may know,
we're not a very rich jurisdiction.
But what we have decided to do is we have to create a drug
treatment facility in northeast Colorado. There is no
residential care there now. So we have simply put it together.
We have formed--it's called Healing Tree. I'm on the board of
directors for that. We're going to start a residential
treatment program.
Part of that will also include some type of a diversionary
program for the methamphetamine addicts, the users who are
involved in low-level felonies. We can kind of divert them into
that and try to get something done.
Colorado has also passed legislation which is signed
recently creating a statewide drug task force, which is also
multi-disciplinary in its approach. I worked on the legislation
creating that. I've also been the nominee to the Governor for
the--be the DA representative on that.
So we're very active in recognizing that treatment must be
part of this. And when I say treatment, I'm not talking about
throwing good money after bad. I'm a cynic. I'm not convinced
yet that treatment plans work. But we're going to identify
which ones have the highest rate of success, and we're going to
focus on those. And we're going to try and find what can not
only fix this addiction--but be ready for the next drug that's
going to come down the road, because we know there will be a
next drug.
And the third prong of that is prevention. We don't have
the budget for that, but we've put together--this year will be
the first time. It's very embryonic. But we we're going to
drive through all the counties, basically during the county
fair season and put up a booth and try to get the word out more
about methamphetamine.
But we're going to have to figure out a way to start
targeting a very young age about the difficulties on this. The
statistics I've seen about the number of high school students
who've already used it is frightening. I think we're almost too
late to be addressing that crowd. And it may be too late at the
junior high school or middle school. We're going to have to
start getting effective programs into the grade-school level.
Just to address the anhydrous question just for a second,
because that came up. In the timeframe 3 to 5 years ago,
anhydrous ammonia was my most commonly prosecuted meth-lab
crime. That's what I usually found was the person was filling
the propane tanks from the--from out in the field.
I have not seen any education change in anything. If you
walk about through rural Colorado, you'll still see the
anhydrous tanks sitting out in the field pretty much
unprotected. What's happened is simply we've seen a change away
from the mom-and-pop labs--in one case, a very large lab; they
stole the entire tank and buried it--to the Mexican meth. So
anhydrous--I don't think I've had an anhydrous death report in
the last 2 years.
Mr. Souder. Finishing witness today is Ms. Donita
Davenport. Thank you for coming, and we look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF DONITA DAVENPORT
Ms. Davenport. Thank you for allowing me to be here today.
It's a real honor. My name is Donita Davenport. I have a
bachelor's degree in social work. I used to be a residential
supervisor at a treatment center for children, and all the
children I worked with came from homes where they had been
abused because their parents were drug addicts.
I am a mother of two wonderful children myself. I have a
girl and a boy. I love the Lord Jesus with all my heart. And I
am married to a man who was a meth addict for 4 years.
Justin had a problem with alcohol and drugs from the time
he was 18 years old. It started with marijuana; it went to
cocaine; it went to meth, which is typical from the stories
that I hear. His addiction to methamphetamine started in
October 2002, when he tried meth for the first time. And he was
instantly addicted. For him, once was all it took.
From that moment until this, my life has been a whirlwind.
It has been physically and emotionally draining. On the
physical side, Justin spent a lot of money on meth. And as a
result, we lost two houses, and we were evicted out of two
apartments. We also had our heat shut off one winter and did
not have money to buy food or diapers.
Emotionally, he would get angry at me and our daughter for
everything. I hated being around him. I also never left our
daughter alone with him for long. I am blessed that he was
never physically abusive, like many meth addicts are. But he
was a meth addict, and he was not capable of being alone with
our daughter.
He also lied about everything to the point where I thought
I was the one that had a problem. I thought I was going crazy.
I knew where to go to get help for the physical needs. I
applied at social services for everything I could. But because
I had a job and because my husband was seen as able to make a
good living for our family, we were denied for everything
except the food bank and $200 a month in food stamps. And that
lasted for 2 months before social services lost our paperwork,
and they cut our benefits off.
Also on the physical side, Justin had a problem, but he
wouldn't admit that he had a problem, so treatment was not an
option. Treatment places won't take somebody that doesn't think
they have a problem.
Also, our waiting list in Weld County is 6 to 8 weeks long,
so by the time you convince the person they have a problem and
they go down there and they get on the waiting list, then they
sit around for 6 weeks and go get high again. And then it's too
late.
So our physical needs suffered greatly, and I didn't know
who to turn to for my emotional needs. I could not afford
counseling, and I didn't want anyone else to know what was
going on. I thought, what would people think? We were leaders
in our church at the time, and I just couldn't admit to those
people that we had a problem.
I also did not want to be labeled the wife of a meth addict
or judged as white trash, because these days, you know, drug
addicts are white trash people. And they're really not. They're
everybody.
So not knowing anyone I could turn to who would understand,
I turned to the only one who understands everything, Jesus
Christ. And he is my savior. He showed me that I had to get out
of this situation and let Justin fall.
So in November 2004, I left, and Justin fell. He was
arrested at 4 a.m., December 30, 2004. He was charged with drug
possession and sentenced to 5 years with the Department of
Corrections.
And I just want to say that by the time he was charged with
his drug possession, that was his fourth felony that he had
been charged with, and it was 9 years after his first felony.
So he had 9 years where he was in the courts and he was in the
system, and nobody ever saw that he had a drug problem.
During that time when he was arrested and went to prison, I
moved in with my in-laws. I was able to support the family and
get back on my feet. I was still unable to receive help from
social services, other than Medicaid from the kids and $200 a
month in food stamps.
And when I went in and applied for those things, it took
them 6 months to approve us. And then after 2 months, they lost
my paperwork again, found my paperwork later, and reinstated
all of it. But for those 6 months, if I didn't have family, we
would have been living on the street eating out of trash cans.
You know, there was nothing else for us.
And that lasted up until a couple months ago when Justin
was released from prison, and he got a job. And now because of
his job, we're not able to get any help any longer.
I have been through a lot in the last 4 years that many
people would never want to go through. It has been hard. But in
the end, God always turns what was meant for bad around, and he
creates something good. The good that has come out of this is
that I have learned to be bold, honest, humble, and tell people
the truth about what it's like to be married to a meth addict.
I have also started a support group for loved ones of meth
addicts created out of a need that I personally experienced. We
started that support group in October with five people. We
currently have 35 people. And we're starting our second branch
in August and our third branch in September in Greeley.
So now when someone finds themself in a position like the
one I was in with no one to turn to, they can turn to this
support group of others who know exactly what they are going
through.
Also, I have learned a lot about meth that I never knew
before. I have spent much time researching and investigating
what types of services are available and are profitable for
meth addicts. So when people call me for help, I know where to
send them.
I have also spent time researching what our government can
do to help decrease the methamphetamine epidemic in our
country. And the first thing that I have seen is education is
key. We have to get to these kids and tell them what meth truly
is.
A lot of the lies that are going around is that meth will
make you skinny; it'll make you stronger; it'll give you
energy. And the kids fall for it, and they take it, and then
they're hooked. So education is key.
A second thing is making the chemicals used in
manufacturing meth harder to obtain. And that has already been
done.
The third thing is reclassification of crimes associated
with manufacture, sale and possession of meth so that people
charged with these crimes would have to serve a prison sentence
longer than 6 months the first time around.
Because they get sentenced for something. They go into
prison for a couple months, maybe. Usually, the first time they
get probation. And my husband was on probation, and he used
drugs the whole time. And so I think they need to go to prison
and have that time where they are forced to sober up.
No. 4, I think more drug courts nationwide, drug courts in
which not only the addict but the whole family is involved,
because the addict's use affects the whole family.
No. 5, better processes to ensure that the person is not
abusing drugs and alcohol while in prison, treatment centers or
correction homes, or on probation.
And No. 6, treatment programs that work, not just random
program treatment programs. But across the Nation, they are
finding that the treatment programs with the highest success
rate are the matrix program, and those--run by Narconon
centers.
In conclusion, I would like to say that where the
government falls short, faith-based groups always step in.
These groups can reach people one on one and introduce them to
Jesus Christ. For those of us who love Jesus, this is our duty.
And as President Abraham Lincoln said, even though much
provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Let
us have faith, and in that faith, let us to the end dare to do
our duty as we understand it.
Thank you very much. And I have pictures of my husband too,
if you want to see them. This was Justin 5 days before he was
arrested, and he has been up 7 days on meth. And this is him
just a month ago with our children.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Davenport follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.032
Mr. Souder. Thank you. I think you once again proved God's
more reliable than the Federal Government. We'll try to
improve. We'll never be the same.
There are lots of different angles here. Multiple times
drug courts were raised. I believe we actually increased the
funding slightly on drug courts, but I'm not sure, because the
whole budget went down. I know the President's budget initially
had that portion go up.
But one of my frustrations--and I think it's very important
to put this on the record--that--and I heard some frustration
from some of you at State and local levels too--is that this
isn't--I've argued on the Byrne grants--for the--more money.
For all the type of stuff on drugs--I've argued narcotics all
my life.
This isn't just a Federal problem--and that the State and
locals--if you take all the State debt combined in the United
States and all the local debt combined, city, county, township
and everything together, you don't even equal a fraction of our
debt at the Federal level.
We don't have any money. We just print it. And all that
does is it inflate--interest. Now, we're jockeying internally
how we do the money. But this has--there has to be an
understanding, if we're going to have this problem, that
everybody's going to join in, and we're not just going to bail
it out.
Now, some places have more resources. And rural areas, when
they get overflooded with this problem--we've got a disconnect
right now with where those resources are to do, for example,
the matrix treatment and drug treatment.
Because often, as I heard last week and I certainly see in
my district, the more rural the area, the more likely you are
to have entry people. If you have a treatment program. You have
entry-level treatment there.
In the urban areas, they've heard of the matrix--in fact,
may have implemented it. In a suburban or outlier city of
30,000 40,000, they may have been at a conference once where
they heard it referred to read the literature.
In the rural area, they probably haven't even heard of it
in most cases, because they don't get--they can't afford to
get, in many cases, a lecturer to even go to the conference.
I do know there are differences in problems, but this has
to be State and local. And one of these is drug courts--that
you can form a drug court. It doesn't take the Federal
Government to form a drug court.
One of the judges in my district who's from a smaller
county said, You know, I think I'm going to turn my court into
a drug court. We keep hearing--acting like it's the Federal
Government that has to create the drug court.
What it takes is a very committed judge working with local
law enforcement and--because it takes incredible time and
commitment, because the judge has to followup on a personal
level and actually hear the cases.
And where we have probation officers just overwhelmed with
600, 800 cases, they may never see--once, let alone be able to
know whether they're on--abusing drugs. And probation officers
are--we don't have enough probation officers in a rural county
to--any of the sheriff--how many people on probation does a
probation officer have in your area?
Mr. Watson, you have the most----
Mr. Watson. I actually heard the number, but I hate to
repeat it, because I'm not----
Mr. Souder. OK.
Mr. Watson [continuing]. Confident about it.
Mr. Souder. I know in rural Indiana, it gets to size 900.
Mr. Watson. Well, what--one of the complicated factors we
have, of course, is distance. And it's--you know, I can drive
from one officer in my district to--probation officer to
another for 2\1/2\ hours on a highway and no traffic. So the
area that they have to cover is huge. It complicates
supervision.
Mr. Souder. Do--let me ask--well, let me take the sheriff
and lieutenant here. Do you know--do--in many any of the--do
you have drug-testing processes for people on probation?
Mr. Cooke. Yes. They are tested for drugs, and they have--
it's random. They come in and give samples. So yes, they do
have drug testing.
Mr. Dodd. Same here.
Mr. Souder. Do you know why your husband wouldn't have been
picked up in the drug testing?
Ms. Davenport. He only did two drug testings the entire
time, and both times it wasn't his.
Mr. Souder. It was what?
Ms. Davenport. It wasn't him that peed in the cup. It was
somebody else.
Mr. Souder. OK. That's another hearing. That--we've dealt
with that. It is a huge problem. It's why we need to move
toward follicle tests. It's a little tougher to get other
people's hair, not impossible.
Ms. Davenport. Well, and also, they started eye-scan tests,
which read your eyes. And it can tell if you're high that way,
which I think is much more reliable than----
Mr. Souder. Have any of you tried eye scan? How much more
expensive is visual equipment? Nobody has that here?
Ms. Rowland. We just recently implemented it in our
criminal justice division. I'm not sure about the cost. I know
it's been very effective.
Mr. Souder. Have any of you had a drug--judge set up a drug
court that hasn't had Federal funding?
Ms. Rowland. We have tried to get our judges to do a drug
court for several years now, and they have been just not very
anxious to do so. Part of it is because we're understaffed
already, and it takes more judges to do that. And then you add
a judge, and you add a DA and those types of things.
So the Fast Track Program is our response to the inability
to have our judges----
Mr. Souder. Here's a challenge that I want to put out
that's always put out to legislators, but the law enforcement
side has to really look at this question, because it
illustrates the challenge. If drug courts reduce the crime,
then you wouldn't need more judges. If treatment centers
reduced the crime, then you wouldn't need more prisons--if
prevention programs do that.
The fact is that there isn't really hard data--that drug
courts appear to be the most promising, probably because they
have--because we have measurements. They're already in prison.
We track them. It's an alternative.
And even then, what you tend to do is reduce the amount of
recidivism. You don't necessarily--once you're an addict,
you're struggling with it. But you get maybe 25 percent cured.
They're not 100 percent. And then you lower the recidivism of
the other.
But somewhere here there should be a cost benefit in that--
it's real interesting, because I love to ask law enforcement
people--say, put more money in treatment prevention. Would you
suggest reducing your budget to do that? Because that's our
choice.
And that the--what I was so impressed with--what you're
doing in southwest Colorado is you actually were faced with the
choice. And I would very much like to see how that works.
Because if you're forced to make choices, you measure closely,
and the community's going to hold you accountable if more
people are on the street because you didn't build another
prison.
But if in fact it works, it's--people aren't going to just
say, oh, there's money growing out on trees somewhere. We'll
put in a treatment program. We'll put this in. When you're
forced to make these tradeoffs, it's--you really got to make
them work.
And you want a treatment program that in fact isn't just
another pasture. You want a treatment program that cures
somebody. Because if you as elected officials made a decision
you're going to do a treatment program rather than a prison--
somebody comes out of the treatment program and does something
as--by the way, they do out of prisons too. So we don't want to
have--it's got to be a realistic measurement.
But that's the hard tradeoff we're trying to work through
here. And it's very hard to get measurements of prevention.
If I can mention one other thing, and that is that we have
seen a rise in meth among young people. Let me ask, Ms.
Davenport, do you think that an education program would have
changed your husband's habits?
Ms. Davenport. I think he would have known what he was
doing when he took meth for the first time. He didn't know
exactly what meth was. He thought it was like cocaine, and he
could just stop. I mean, he didn't know that one time is all it
takes for a lot of people to be addicted.
I think if the kids are aware of really what meth is and
what you look like, what it does to the insides of your body, I
think they'll have that when they're approached with it. And
they'll have something in the back of their head where they can
go, no, I don't want to be part of that.
But right now, if someone comes up to them and says, Take
this; it'll make you run faster--oh, OK.
Mr. Souder. But part of our problem is it does, and part of
the problem is you can skip sleep, and you can get weight loss,
and----
Ms. Davenport. It's just educating them. But yes, you can
get skinny. And you will get so skinny that you'll see your
bones. And that--your kidneys won't work right. And that--your
brain starts to turn to mush. It's educating them on the other
half of that.
Mr. Souder. Because part of our problem is that when we've
analyzed the prevention programs, the prevention programs tend
to reach the people who aren't highest risk. Because, for
example, my daughter paid a lot more attention to it than my
sons, who thought a lot of these prevention programs were kind
of hokey. And how we deal with that is just a huge challenge.
The Montana Meth Project's a very interesting thing when
it's screaming at you from everywhere with a shock effect. But
we're still trying to go through the data on whether it's
actually having an impact.
Our National Marijuana Project seems to have altered kids'
attitudes but had--it's, quite frankly, easier to alter
somebody's attitudes on drugs in 3rd grade than it is in 7th
than it is in 12th than it is an adult. That--it's not clear it
holds. There's no evidence really. There is no evidence that if
you convince a third grader or a sixth grader that it holds,
because you don't feel tempted then as much.
It's real easy to convince third graders--less easy than it
used to be--that premarital sex is wrong. The problem is, when
they get tempted, do they think it's wrong. And that's our huge
challenge in drug prevention.
I yield to Ms. Musgrave. Then I have some more questions
too.
Mrs. Musgrave. Well, I'd just like to address the criminal
activity that goes along with meth use.
And I tell you, Mr. Buck, I am quite disparaged by the
remarks on the selective service. Six years ago, I sat in a
Senate committee in the Colorado State House, and I had one of
their postcards. And I said, you can't mean that you really
want someone just to drop this in the mail after they've put
their date of birth, their Social Security--all this
information. And identity theft was nothing then as to what it
is now.
And I can tell you that my staff and I are going to be all
over that, because they assured me that it would be in an
envelope, that nobody could just look at this postcard. And it
appears that's not the case, that it's now just a postcard
where all this very personal information is just right there
for anybody to view.
So I am very discouraged by that. And I guess it's them
that are disparaged, because they didn't tell me the truth. And
we're going to look into--you've really challenged me to look
into all these forms.
You know, I was the victim of a car break-in in Weld
County. And, you know, really--and you start talking to the law
enforcement, who of course can't do anything except, you know,
do their report, because it's a done deal, and whomever did
it's long gone. And you got to clean up all the shards of
glass, because somebody took a bag out of your car.
And--but I think of all the crime that revolves around
meth. And I'm sure I don't know the half of it. You're the
folks that deal with it every day. But we have to find a way
to, you know, first of all, deal with the rudimentary things
like forms that give out personal information that people use
all the time.
But we also have to not only educate people on what meth
does to you but educate people on what to look for, because,
you know, we're so far removed from that aspect of life. I
think there are parents that have no idea what their kids are
doing, I mean, until the devastation hits.
And I hate to say that, Madam Commissioner, I am quite
impressed with your county's approach to just the very
pragmatic aspect of, we can't just, you know, deal with the
crime. We've got to deal with the treatment.
And methamphetamine, as Ms. Davenport so poignantly
stated--you know, her husband tried it one time, and then the
hellish road began. And we have to try to treat meth addicts.
And it's amazing to me the uniqueness of this drug in regard to
how easily it was first manufactured, how easy it is to get it.
And then what do we do with these people who are so quickly
right back into addiction?
I heard a number of people talk about the border issue and,
you know, what we have to do. And I think that's something that
we can really grab ahold of right here as Members of Congress.
We have to have border enforcement with, you know, drugs coming
into our country. And I daresay--northern border is very
important too, although we focus mostly on our southern border.
I just wondered, Sheriff Cooke, if you could--and maybe the
lieutenant also could address the change in the last 5 years in
regard to what you've seen with methamphetamine use.
Mr. Cooke. Certainly. Five years ago, 70 percent of the
cases worked by Weld County Drug Task Force were cocaine, and
then 20 percent was meth, and then the 10 percent was
everything else. Now that--those numbers have--are reversed, 70
percent meth cases, about 20 percent coke, and then 10 percent
everything else.
So the usage has just increased. And our crime rate has
increased. Our burglaries, our thefts are up about anywhere
from 10 to 13 percent. Our auto thefts are up about that. Our
aggravated assaults are up 40 percent. And I think directly--
when you consider 50 percent of those crimes are associated
with meth, and then 90 percent of the fraud and identity-theft
crimes are associated with meth, the change has been
phenomenal.
Mr. Souder. Let me ask a question about--and then if the
lieutenant can pick up on this too. You said it went cocaine to
meth. And you ask--did you get dealers in that too, or mostly
users you're talking about here?
Mr. Cooke. Well, these are from our task force, and so our
task force goes after not usually the user. They go after the
supplier and the dealer.
Mr. Souder. So as you turn that case higher, are they the
same people that sold the cocaine?
Mr. Cooke. Yes. I'm sorry----
Mr. Souder. Were they the same people that sold the
cocaine?
Mr. Cooke. Some of them. We find that some of them are
changing from coke to meth. And since our labs have dropped--a
lot of it was the mom-and-pop labs, but since they have
decreased, some of them are becoming diversified.
Mr. Souder. Some of whom's becoming diversified?
Mr. Cooke. The dealers are becoming diversified and going
away from the coke to the meth.
Mr. Souder. Because they saw a market. Do you--Ken, do you
want to answer--well, let me ask--because here's what we've
seen nationally, that the mom--there--it was assumed--and this
is what we're watching very closely for. Is crystal meth going
to hit the same users that were the mom and pop?
Because the mom-and-pop labs were predominantly rural, some
suburban. And the non-homemade stuff was urban. And the
question is that--and the mom-and-pop lab users tend to be more
isolated, often disoriented, and particularly as they use it
quicker, don't necessarily go in--they didn't buy their
product. They got it at a--in a pharmacy.
So they weren't--they didn't even necessary know--let me be
real blunt. In my home area, young rural white kids didn't even
necessarily know what block to go into to find cocaine or
heroin. And we were almost looking at different--in my
district, where you see high percentages of Hispanics, you see
more crystal meth. Where you see a higher percentage of Anglo
population, you'll see mom-and-pop. And in the urban areas,
where it's a higher percent African-American, you see crack
still.
That same pattern is true in most of the United States,
with some exceptions, as it's moved into St. Paul, as it's
moved into Portland, Omaha. And I was trying to figure out here
in Colorado if, when you talk about this--if it's the same--if,
in fact, the mom-and-pop people are converting over. They
weren't buying the cocaine. And the dealers are now locating
how to sell to a new market that has predominantly been a
little more isolated.
Mr. Dodd. It's very similar in Weld County. I think 3 years
ago, 70 percent of what we gave the Drug Task Force was
cocaine. It seems at that point in time, cocaine led law
enforcement to shift and went to methamphetamine. And we're
seeing that back and forth. It's the same Mexican drug
trafficking organizations that are supplying the cocaine and
the methamphetamine.
It's the same families that we're seeing day in and day out
on a local level. But 3 years ago, it was more cocaine. Today
we're getting meth. And we're seeing more and more of these
same organizations not only dealing meth and cocaine, they're
dealing American marijuana--whatever they can bring into the
country and be successful at selling.
But depending on where our emphasis is, they may shift the
drug of choice and push that drug of choice.
Mrs. Musgrave. Mr. Watson, rural areas are very
conservative. Families have dinner together in the evenings,
and we really don't have a drug problem in rural areas. Right?
I get so frustrated when I hear people say that. And could
you please address that?
Mr. Watson. About 2 weeks ago, we had a woman get killed in
a traffic accident. She was very well known in Logan County,
very well known in law enforcement. In fact, she had the
company--the cleaning company and cleaned up my office, cleaned
up the court, the sheriff, the police.
She was taking her son to school, pulled out in front of
another car and was struck and killed. It looked like a
standard accident. We were shocked. We get the toxicology
report back and find out she was high on meth.
I am constantly stunned. Maybe I shouldn't be at this
point, but--how insidious it has become in the communities,
that the people--you know, you always have a mental image, I
guess, of who a drug addict is. And you become really surprised
at the people who are using it.
And we're seeing it now being multi generational. It's not
just the at-risk, you know, teens, you know, experimenting.
We're seeing parents and kids and grandparents using it. It's
very widespread.
Mrs. Musgrave. I just wondered, Ms. Davenport, if you could
perhaps--you know, you talked about--we need education. And the
chairman talked about the various ages where something--you
know, the kid's pretty agreeable to it because they haven't
faced the peer pressure and all the aspects that really make
them want to do things that are--that we consider very
destructive that--they haven't figured out how destructive they
are.
When you talk about your experience, it's very touching to
hear what your family's gone through. It's really remarkable
that you still call this man your husband and you're still
together after what you've been through.
Do you have any insight--the chairman alluded to this
somewhat--as to how we can really reach these kids? Do you have
any additional ideas as to how the government, how the school
system, how the local communities can really make an impact?
I assume that your husband had a good life going for him,
and yet he fell into this. And then I think of children from
homes that are--you know, have a great deal of problems anyway.
And sometimes this seems kind of insurmountable. And I'm sure
law enforcement feels that way too.
What would you have to offer in that area after your
horrific experience that you've gone through?
Ms. Davenport. Well, I've had several of the schools in
Greeley contact me, and they want me to come in and share my
story, and my mother-in-law too--just come in and talk on a
personal level.
If this is what happened to us--and we are not your white
trailer-park-trash people. We were leaders in the church. My
husband grew up here. You know, he owned his own business. He
was successful. And this can happen to anyone.
So I think going into the schools, all ages--and not just a
textbook program, but having people who have done the drug,
people who have sold the drug, people who have been in that
world and are leading a good life now going in and talking to
the kids, so the kids can ask honest questions about what
happened and what made you do it and what's the good part about
it; what's the bad part about it.
And in the high schools, I'm not--you know, people tell me
it has to be shock therapy, because they're exposed to so much
every day that if you don't shock them, they're not going to
listen to you.
But I have a teacher from a junior high who says, my kids
are asking me questions about meth, because they're seeing it
at home; they're seeing it other places. And I don't know what
to tell them. Can you just come in and answer their questions?
So I think it's kind of talking to the teachers and finding
out what it is that they think is going to work with the
students that they see every day.
And also, of course, to keep high-risk kids from doing it,
they need an alternative. They need other people to hang out
with. They need other places to go besides the areas that--
where people just go and sit around and get high. They need
some kind of other activities that are going to keep them busy
and keep them interested.
Mrs. Musgrave. I think the chairman alluded to the fact
that some of the claims that are made about meth--you know, the
immediate result is, you know, something that is very enticing
to a lot of kids. So I think we're going to have to really
focus on short term and long term and try to get that
connection, which is not easy to do, to--you know, with a
teenager who thinks, you know, those things will never happen
to me and I'm invincible.
Mr. Souder. If you have additional questions, I'll come--I
have----
Mrs. Musgrave. OK.
Mr. Souder [continuing]. A few additional too.
To Ms. Rowland, one of the problems in the--we've heard
about weight loss, which seems to be an orientation toward
women. Often it's truck drivers in my area and factories--
people trying to get extra hours and faster piece rate. In your
comprehensive approach, did you work with the business
community and say, will you drug test in your firms?
I had--I've had two counties where they started into it,
and they were so shocked. And they're so--they have such a
labor shortage that they stopped, because they got depressed.
And they'd just as soon know if--not know about it.
When you do a comprehensive approach, it seems that unless
we engage the business community in this, we're going to have--
we're not going to get it solved. Did you approach that, or
what was their response to this?
Ms. Rowland. We have to some extent. The energy industry is
very big in our county, and they randomly test drug--drug test
all of their employees. So there has become this perception
that there is a lot of meth use in the energy industry. And I
think it's just because they're being caught more, because
that's really where they're focusing on the drug testing.
So we haven't taken an approach with the business industry
asking the business community--asking them to do that. But we
did learn in our research--we wanted to find out the types of
people that use and why they use and when they first used.
And we learned that 52 percent of them either first used
with family member, a spouse or a friend. So those folks were
more relationship-based in what they needed. The other 48
percent were using to get more done, to stay up longer, to lose
weight, although it was a small percentage, surprisingly, that
was to lose weight--or just a boost in excitement and that
risk-taking.
So we're gearing our prevention efforts twofold. For those
that are using because they want to lose weight, something like
the extreme meth makeover billboards that we have in Wyoming
that shows the before and after pictures--that might make a 13-
year-old girl who's going to take it to lose weight--that might
stop her.
But if you're 11 years old; your dad's in prison; your
mom's an alcoholic; your two older brothers are using meth and
getting involved, probably a billboard or a commercial, ever
how compelling it might be, might not stop you. You know, those
folks can be helped if they have senior partners, Big Brothers,
Big Sisters and those types of programs for them. We're working
a lot with our faith community as well. So we're trying to
balance all of that.
You make a good point though about the drug-testing
business.
Mr. Souder. And there are two types. And what I should have
said is I meant drug testing after they're on the job. Most
businesses are drug screening at the beginning. And did you
talk to your--have you talked to your unemployment offices or
welfare offices--if anybody else knows the answer to this
question, let me know too.
My understanding--or business community with the chambers--
that is--as many as 40 to 60 percent of the rejection for a job
hire, depending on the area, is because of--they failed to pass
a drug test, and that it has become one of the most common
reasons for unemployment--is that you can't pass a drug test.
Anybody have any----
Ms. Rowland. I know we have a problem with that. And I'm
told by our work force center that we--what those statistics
are. I don't know. I can certainly get those for you. It
wouldn't surprise me.
Mr. Souder. In the--if we can--I want to bore in a little
bit on a couple of Colorado statistics again on the--in trying
to understand how the trafficking networks are working and--Mr.
Watson, in your area, you mentioned--is it I76?
Mr. Watson. I76.
Mr. Souder. And you seemed to imply that the Mexican
trafficking groups were coming off of that. Is that the north
part of your district?
Mr. Watson. The I76 is. It cuts up to I80, which is the
north/south----
Mr. Souder. And then have Mexican trafficking organizations
historically worked in your area?
Mr. Watson. No.
Mr. Souder. How would they set up?
Mr. Watson. I don't have the intel on that. I can ask the
guys your question. Perhaps my drug task force people could--
it's just been a phenomenon we've noticed in the last couple
years. We're seeing many more--usually hidden panels in
vehicles and things like that, and the interdiction with the
State patrol's been very high.
And then where we actually deal with the people who are
distributing it in our community, it tends to be Mexican
nationals that are involved to a very high degree.
So how it became that they established those inroads into
the community, I can't answer. It's not like we had an
extensive crack distribution network or something in northeast
Colorado. That just was never there.
Mr. Souder. So it didn't--how do you think it converted
over? Do you believe that 80 percent of your area's now also
Mexican meth as opposed to mom-and-pop labs?
Mr. Watson. I do.
Mr. Souder. How do you think it converted over? Have you
had anybody who used to be a mom-and-pop lab user who's--who
you've prosecuted who said, I got it from a Mexican
distribution person?
Mr. Watson. No. I have never had anybody say that--in--that
directly. What we saw is one followed the other. We have seen
an increase in our Mexican national or immigrant population
kind of work like the hog farms. It's an agricultural base.
So I think it was simply some people that were there
interacting in bars, other setting. And it just--it's a word-
of-mouth industry. And I think it started very casually in
rural settings.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Abrahamson, have you had anybody who was a
mom-and-pop lab user prosecuted for purchasing meth from a
Mexican?
Mr. Abrahamson. Not that I've been aware of. I, you know,
hear that is occurring or it's now easier to get the drugs by
purchasing from somebody who's trafficking as opposed to set up
a lab and take the risk of something blowing up or burning. And
plus, it's harder to get the ingredients to make the--you know,
to run the small labs.
So I think as a matter of convenience, people are
purchasing it as opposed to cooking it themselves.
Mr. Souder. Sheriff, have you picked up anybody who was a
former mom-and-pop lab cooker who--with Mexican meth?
Mr. Cooke. You know, I don't know the answer to that, Mr.
Chairman, but if I could go back to what you asked the DA from
the judicial district out east. Weld County is a large--has a
large immigrant population. Officially, it's about 24, 25
percent. Unofficially, it's probably 33 percent.
And so I think how they establish is through family ties.
We have a large illegal immigration population, so they can
get--establish there a lot easier, because the family live
there and the relatives and close friends. So I think that's
how they make inroads into certain areas, certainly into rural
areas.
Mr. Souder. Lieutenant, have you had actual conversion
over?
Mr. Dodd. If you're talking about meth cooks, I can't think
of any meth cook that we've arrested or prosecuted has gone to
Mexican road trafficking organizations. Customers of meth cooks
or meth mom-and-pop cooks--absolutely.
Mr. Souder. OK. Now, what--OK. That's--this is a good segue
here. Because what I'm trying to figure out--because one of the
dangers here that we have is that when we have almost instant
information sharing at the Federal level--that an assumption is
made it's distributed.
And the question is, is it being actually verified
grassroots up--and that we can make major policy decisions at
the Federal level that were based on a general assumption.
And I'm trying to figure out--you know, we've done enough
of these things--and that one theory could be that the meth
market is expanding, but it is not where the mom-and-pop labs
were, and the jury is still out where the mom-and-pop labs are
going to land. In other words, you could in your communities
see a rise in non-mom-and-pop lab meth but it be a totally
different expanding market.
But you're an interesting mix here, because most of the
areas you're dealing with are not urban centers. So we've got a
little more unified mix here from very rural to mid-size-town
rural--that--now, the mom-and-pop cookers generally sold to
only two to three people, or did they have bigger distribution
rings in your areas?
Mr. Dodd. Most of ours that we've experienced are small
labs, so you're looking at 1 to 2 ounces per cook, that type of
thing. They could have anywhere from three to five customers,
it would be my guess. In the cooking area----
Mr. Souder. In that--from what I understood the mom-and-pop
cookers to be--is that generally speaking, they would go in a
smaller and smaller circle of influence, partly because one of
the brain impacts of this drug is you become paranoiac.
You also are worried about other people smelling it,
identifying you as a dealer. The more publicity there is in a
community, the more isolated you become. So it tends to be
inside Mexican motorcycle gangs, as you've already--not
Mexican; motorcycle gangs--or in certain kinds of networks.
So what would cause that network to spin off from a mom-
and-pop user and cross over to a Mexican drug user--provider,
but not the manufacturer?
Lieutenant, you said that you thought some of their market
was changing, but the market usually is pretty tightly wound.
Or is there a different phenomena in your area that I missed?
Mr. Dodd. Well, maybe I'm not following the question
correctly. I thought the question was, of the users that used
to go to mom-and-pop lab cooks--are they transitioning----
Mr. Souder. And what I basically laid out was a premise
that--I'm asking whether you're challenging that premise.
Because, for example, one of the unusual things is this is a
family crime. Mom-and-pop cooking is a family crime. Often the
whole family knows about it. Some of them are jointly cooking,
and sometimes the kid's involved in the cooking. And it's
usually in a very tightly knit community.
Are you saying that the mom-and-pop cookers in your area
actually went out in the street and sold it, or did they sell
only to their family and close friends?
Mr. Dodd. Family and close friends.
Mr. Souder. So that would mean that if now their family and
close friends are buying Mexican meth, that it's penetrating
into that circle.
Mr. Dodd. Yes.
Mr. Souder. So you think it's just a matter of time until
it hit the cook, in effect.
Mr. Dodd. If the cook couldn't get the product to cook his
own product, then yes----
Mr. Souder. Where--are the markets that identifiable? Do
you think it's through the bars or just word of mouth that--
hey, this--I mean, I tend to think that this is the most
illogical explanation--is that people hear. The question is
that these people aren't heavily socializing, usually.
If our theory is correct, which is--tends to be overstated
about the line of destruction on meth--I'm hardly advocating
for meth. I'm just saying part of the thing is we have to be
realistic--is that some people go like this. Some people
actually manage it longer period of time.
And if they see their neighbor on meth and they've been
told that they're going to get meth mouth in 3 months, and they
know somebody who's been doing this for 5 years, we've got a
credibility problem that we develop, like we did on marijuana
early on--that in--the meth question, though--it does tend to
lead to faster deterioration, just like crack, because of its
impact on your brain--that I would--does--you're saying they're
functioning enough that they're going to figure out a whole new
distribution system of going to Mexican distribution systems.
In your opinion, that's starting to happen.
Mr. Dodd. Yes.
Mr. Souder. Anybody else have any comments on that? Because
this is--clearly, we're all bringing--every area of this Nation
is bringing in more immigrants, often illegal. That's a place
for drug dealers to hide--that the question is, how do they
make the transition into the majority communities around them
in their sales if they weren't already there, if these markets
weren't in the crack cocaine/heroin marketplace. Yes.
Mr. Abrahamson. I have recently come back from the national
drug court conference in Seattle. It was a week or so ago. And
this was a subject that was brought up with some people who
were actually cooking and talking about their process and why
they did what they did and who they distributed to.
We're finding that most of the people who--the mom-and-pop
shops were cooking primarily for their own use, and then they
would just give it away to some of their friends. And once in a
while, they'd sell some just to put some money in their pocket.
But for the most part, most of the mom-and-pop operations
were not large operations. And they would even get into sort
of--the paranoia built into this a little bit, but a lot of it
was just they became so involved in their cooking process--they
were involved in how to make it better. And it got to be sort
of a little competitive issue between local cooks.
But it wasn't the big distribution system that you would
expect. And I think that's where we're getting--that was coming
in from Mexico and outside. The local mom and pops were not--
were basically just operating in very small circles, even to
the point of just giving it away to some of their friends, as
opposed to starting a distribution.
Mr. Souder. This is--the fundamental question that I'm
really--I'm done pursuing it here. But if--to watch this is
that part of the disconnect of why the Federal Government
didn't respond to the meth crisis was--is that it tended to be
in more rural areas. It tended to be in a different community
than we're used to dealing with. And it tended to be not going
through networks.
And therefore, the Federal Government basically didn't
think it was happening. And that--to the degree it moves to
these distribution networks, it--we then start to look at the
border. We start to look at cross-area things.
The question is, is the market that we've developed, which
may have been only 33 percent, going to cross into the Federal
market, or will there be a separate type of a network develop
that will once again--five years from now will be in front of
Congress going, this is happening in rural America, and it's
different than what's happening in Denver and what's happening
in the bigger cities, and you didn't respond to it.
And watching what happens, starting with those former
cooks--and where do they show up in law enforcement? Do they
switch over now to hydroponic marijuana, which is a segue,
because hydroponic--in the hydroponic marijuana that you said
you've gotten--the home stuff--what THC content level are----
Mr. Sweetin. Is he still here?
Mr. Sweetin. I am.
Mr. Souder. What have you found in Colorado?
Mr. Sweetin. I'll have to get you the exact numbers. Higher
than it was 10 years ago----
Mr. Souder. Twenty, 30, 40----
Mr. Sweetin. I don't know that we've had in the 30's and
40's, but I would say it would be safe to say in the 20 range.
I'll get you that number.
Mr. Souder. And--because it was real interesting in our
treatment hearing last week--Dr. Volkow from NIDA--head of NIDA
testified that basically, some of the crack and meth have a
similar impact on your brain.
What isn't clear yet is what the high THC stuff does at 30
and 40 and whether it's more like the ecstacy/crack/meth impact
or whether it's more like--whether it's a more sedating drug or
whether it's a more hyperactive type drug.
Because if it becomes an alternative, then we've just found
a hole here that we need to be watching, because the stuff can
be bought from Vancouver fairly easily over the--to be able to
cook it yourself. We're back into the cook-it-yourself
business.
And that watching this two track--because there's no
question that, in effect, the information on meth that's got
out has expanded the Mexican reach.
Furthermore, if they can sell meth, they cut out the
Colombians in that--so it's not clear that the gangs and the
distribution networks aren't going to switch over to meth
merely because, as a dealer, you just cut out one level.
You don't have to get the stuff down in Colombia and grow
it and bring it out into ships and go up all the way through
Guatemala and Mexico or however you get it to the United
States. You can do it right across the border. And as you've
all testified, it's not exactly secure. That--this is a huge
challenge.
Do you have additional questions you want to----
Mrs. Musgrave. I'd just like to make some positive remarks
as we conclude here. And one thing I would like to say to Madam
Commissioner though is I hope that Colorado counties will
really take note. You know, I guess when people run for county
commissioner, they probably don't always anticipate that they
will be hit with things like a meth problem in their counties.
But I think we need to do this at every level.
Law enforcement folks, I admire your tenacity and your
willingness to stay after this and try to come up with some
very needed solutions.
And in regard to some of the requests that you made when
you said, you know what the Federal Government can do--in last
year's State justice and commerce appropriations, I secured
funding for Weld County and Larimer County law enforcement
initiatives.
And just recently, we passed our 2007 appropriations bill,
and I did secure funding for Weld County's gang task force.
Also, this will target gang members committing violent crimes.
And that's very important, as we've heard from these--this
testimony today. And the danger that these gang members pose is
an incredible risk to the community.
I also worked hard for funding for Larimer County's law
enforcement initiatives and also technology improvements and
secured funding for that. And then, on a very positive note for
rural Colorado, I did secure funding for Eastern Colorado
Plains Drug Task Force.
Last year these amounts were $250,000. So there will be--as
the Senate approves this, we'll get the exact numbers, but I
think there will be at least that in each one of those. So
hopefully that will help, especially with resources in areas
where they are very limited and in areas where the problem
seems to be very severe in parts of the 4th district.
So I just want to tell all of you how much I have
appreciated your testimony. Your personal story, Ms. Davenport,
was extremely touching, and I thank you for your willingness to
let other people know about your very personal problems in an
effort to try to help others that may be facing the same thing.
So thank all of you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your willingness to come
to Colorado. And I appreciate your passion on this issue. I
think we're in for a long haul as we try to sort this out and
find solutions.
Mr. Souder. Well, thank you. And it's lucky there weren't
lots of other Members here to say how much you got for your
district and specific things, or they'd all be jealous.
First, let me thank all of you for giving specific
suggestions. It's not easy to do that, and we appreciate that.
And it blends together with what we pick up in other parts. And
you always learn different variations.
I think the biggest consistency I saw here that was a
little bit different was to see the intense shift over to the
number of cases you have in meth that's been steady--
increasing.
And what it looks like to me is that it almost made a--just
a--the pseudoephedrine controls have changed the nature of the
debate. We're trying to figure out exactly how. But it hasn't
changed that the problem is meth.
It's a little bit better for environmental reasons. You're
not going to have the local volunteer fire department going to
get blown up if it's the crystal meth. So it'll change the
nature a little. But you're still going to have property crime.
As I heard you say, they're still going to do property crime to
buy the stuff.
They're still going to have all the family internal
problems that you have from drug abuse, like we heard so
eloquently today, I mean, the difficulties of finances, the
difficulties of health care coverage, the difficulties of--with
children, of, in your case at least, not abuse.
By the way, I got to defend trailers here for a second. My
district is the No. 1 manufacturer of trailer--that we ship
manufactured housing. It is a great entryway for people to be
able to own their own property. I understood what you were
trying to say, but I had to say that in defense of trailers.
I had a specific question. I believe it was Mr. Watson--I
can't--that--you had some--you had a 2005--some 2005
statistics. Was that in your testimony?
Mr. Watson. It could have been from my agency, maybe from
what we did. I talked about the impact in Morgan County last
year on felony filings, where they'd gone up 70 percent from
the previous year.
Mr. Souder. I'll followup. I had a technical question on
one of these, whether all of that was 2005 data or whether it
was from another year. Because some of the data on these--here,
on Larimer. It was this one.
Mr. Abrahamson, in Larimer County--you say at the
beginning, In Larimer County alone, during the first 9 months
of 2005, 52 children were placed outside their homes.
Mr. Abrahamson. Correct.
Mr. Souder. Toward the--page 3. Then you have four other
statistics there, four other comments. Were those also 2005?
Mr. Abrahamson. Those were all--from the information that I
gathered, they were all, I think, in the first 9 months of
2005--where they're getting that information.
Mr. Souder. So this is three quarters of a year. And it's
all just last year.
Mr. Abrahamson. Right.
Mr. Souder. So even though your labs were declining--do you
know whether--is there a base to compare that to? In other
words, don't--I'm not asking to go out and do a whole survey,
but if there's a way to approximately say--if nothing else, is
that up or down, compared to pre-2005?
Because you've shown that the--your meth arrests are up.
Your meth seized are up. Even your labs dismantled were up in
2005. So you were headed up even in labs.
Mr. Abrahamson. Right.
Mr. Souder. 2006, is that down?
Mr. Abrahamson. I'm sorry?
Mr. Souder. Is it dropped in 2006?
Mr. Abrahamson. I don't have the figures for 2006.
Labs? We've only had 4 this year, 19 total last year.
Mr. Souder. So the labs are down. Do you believe--if you
can kind of--what I'm trying to do--because I don't want to
make misstatements that--because what it looks like--but yours
is an oddity, because it bumped up in 2005. Do you think that
your meth seized will go down in 2006 so far?
Mr. Abrahamson. Yes.
Mr. Souder. So you're not getting as much replacement meth
as what you were--one big bust, you get----
Mr. Abrahamson. Yes. One big bust, you can get 10 pounds.
You could take down an entire organization and only get a
pound.
Mr. Souder. So it's very hard to make any conclusions right
now off your data, because--meth's a big problem. That's a
conclusion of yours. But it's tough to--because it's hard for
us to get some of that specific data. We get aggregate data.
But one of the great things about field hearings is to try to
see what's happening, but your cases become smaller.
Do you find when you take--when you get--do you have any
comments on what I said about how it might be moving across
from Mexico? Do you think some of this is maybe individuals
taking small amounts and then financing their trips with it, or
does this seem to be--because we're not getting the loads.
We're getting the loads of everything else.
You mentioned that the price went up from here compared to
the border, but that's true of cocaine; that's true of heroin;
that's true of marijuana. Just the number of stops, unless it's
using a different distribution system--it's either that, or
they're speculating we've got a huge hole where they're
actually bringing it in big amounts.
And the question is, are they bringing in raw ephedra
across and then finding a different way to manufacturer. We're
really watching those type of trends, because we've got a--
somewhat of a disconnect, as you could hear me--today. And I'm
trying to piece your micro information back with what we're
getting at the macro.
Do any of you have any additional comments that you'd like
to make on anything you've heard today?
Thank you for coming. Once again, I'd like to be kept very
closely posted on what you're doing in Mesa County, because
that's very interesting. Thank you for coming forth, being open
about your testimony as well.
There is no question from going through drug treatment
programs that drug treatment is--we need more in the prison
system itself. We need a better plan outside. We've increased
the funding. One of our frustrations is there isn't anybody
who's ever worked with narcotics, as you even stated with your
husband, who hasn't been through--you see these people go
through six or seven.
The question is, how do we make it more effective. We last
week had the founder of the matrix program testify in front of
us. He's been doing this for a long time and working with it.
Obviously, if everybody could get a really extended treatment
program and then get a really great job afterwards and have a
wonderful supporting family, it would go better. But we don't
have that as an option in our system.
And so we're trying to figure out--OK. Clearly,
accountability works. And accountability starts with the
testing to hold them accountable. The second part of
accountability is just like accountability partners, whether
it's your spouse and family--immediate people around you.
But there isn't any question it's one of the reasons that
many of us favor access to recovery and other more flexible
programs--is if somebody has a life-changing experience and
really makes a commitment, whether it's--usually to
Christianity, but it can be other things as well.
You make that kind of personal commitment, and you're more
likely to change, because it starts to have an impact around
you. And many of the most effective programs that we see are in
those kind of changes. And thank you for being open about that,
because the government doesn't like to talk about that part a
lot, but it's a very key component.
When you get down in at the grassroots level of what
happens, you see that those kind of changes are at the core of
many people who actually suddenly, after going through seven
treatment programs and law enforcement four or five times--it
doesn't mean you become perfect. But often that's the change
that really sticks.
And it's frustrating in government how to accommodate that
and work with that when we all know it's true, but we got to be
very careful in a very diversified society how we address it.
Well, thank you all for your commitment. If you'll pass
through--often, the--your deputies in your office, everybody
who takes all the intake get no credit. We appreciate that and
the law enforcement, the officers who are out on the street
risking their lives every day for it, the treatment program
people who are working. This is tough stuff.
The most common question I get when we go for the funding
is, ``Don't you feel like giving up'', or ``We spent money on
that last year. How come you didn't fix it?'' You know, we
don't ``fix'' spouse abuse. We don't ``fix'' child abuse. We
don't ``fix'' rape.
You do--is you battle it the best you can. And if you can
control it to some degree and make progress--you save one
family at a time, one person at a time, one child at a time.
And you're doing very important work, and we thank you very
much for it. With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at approximately 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee
was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4235.048
<all>