U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

34–235 PDF 2007

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

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

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

DIANE E. WATSON, California

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

J. MARC WHEAT, Staff Director

DENNIS KILCOYNE, Counsel

MALIA HOLST, Clerk

(III)

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

(1)

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.

2

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 largescale 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.

3

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 DrugFree 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 antimeth 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 AntiMedia 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

4

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:]

5

6

7

8

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-thecounter 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.

9

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.

10

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:]

11

12

13

14

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

15

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 socalled 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.

16

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

17

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 inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:19 May 01, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\34235.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
18

clude 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:]

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

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.

28

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

29

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 necVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:19 May 01, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\34235.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
30

essarily 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

31

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.

32

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 blisterpack 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.

33

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.

34

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

35

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.

36

[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 availVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:19 May 01, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\34235.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
37

able 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.

38

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:]

39

40

41

42

43

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.

44

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:]

45

46

47

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

48

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.

49

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:]

50

51

52

53

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 fulltime 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

54

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. Indoorgrown 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:]

55

56

57

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.

58

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.

59

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:]

60

61

62

63

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

64

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

65

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

66

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.

67

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.

68

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:]

69

70

71

72

73

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

74

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 21⁄2

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.

75

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.

76

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 parVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:19 May 01, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\34235.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
77

ents 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

78

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 momand-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

79

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

80

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-yearold 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

81

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?

82

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 nonmom-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

83

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-andpop 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 momand-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. Momand-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.

84

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 hapVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:19 May 01, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\34235.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
85

pening 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

86

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

87

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

88

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.

89

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:]

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

Æ