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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

76–637 PDF 2012

METH REVISITED: REVIEW OF STATE AND FEDERAL EFFORTS TO SOLVE THE DOMESTIC 

METHAMPHETAMINE PRODUCTION RESURGENCE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA, CENSUS AND THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 24, 2012 

Serial No. 112–189 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CENSUS AND THE

NATIONAL ARCHIVES

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona, Vice Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois, Ranking Minority 

Member 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 24, 2012 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable R. Gil Kerlikowske, Director, Office of National Drug Control 

Policy, Executive Office of The President 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Mr. Ronald Brooks, Director, Northern California High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA), and President, National Narcotic Officers’ Associations’ Coalition (NNOAC) 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 24 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27 

Mr. Jason Grellner, Detective Sergeant, Franklin County Narcotics Enforcement Unit, State of Missouri, and President, Missouri Narcotic Officers 

Association (MNOA) 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 36 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 38 

Mr. Donald ‘‘Max’’ Dorsey, II, Lieutenant/Supervisory Special Agent, South 

Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED), State of South Carolina 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 52 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 54 

Mr. Rob Bovett, District Attorney, Lincoln County, State of Oregon 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 65 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 67 

Mr. Marshall Fisher, Director, Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics (MBN), State 

of Mississippi 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 74 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 76 

APPENDIX 

Responses to questions from Donald ‘‘Max’’ Dorsey, II, Lieutenant, South 

Carolina Law Enforcement Division ................................................................... 93 

Map of the total amount of Meth Labs in South Carolina from July 1, 

2011 to August 31, 2012 ...................................................................................... 99 

Letters sent to The Honorable Trey Gowdy, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Health Care, District of Columbia, Census, and the National Archives from: 

Mr. Ronald E. Brooks, President, National Narcotic Officers’ Associations’ 

Coalition (NNOAC) .............................................................................................. 101 

Mr. Marshall Fisher, Director, Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics ......................... 104 

Detective Sgt. Jason J. Grellner, President, Missouri Narcotics Officers Association .................................................................................................................... 107

Mr. Rob Bovett, District Attorney, Lincoln County, Oregon ................................ 112 

Mr. Jim Henderson, Director, The Alabama Law Enforcement Advocacy 

Group .................................................................................................................... 115 

Mr. Joe Williams, Director of the Appalachia HIDTA on Pseudoephedrine 

Controls to Reduce Methamphetamine Labs ..................................................... 117 

Mr. John C. Killorin, Director, Atlanta HIDTA .................................................... 118 

Mr. John P. Walsh, Sheriff, Butte Silver Bow Law Enforcement Dept. ............. 120 

Mr. William T. Fernandez, Director, Central Florida HIDTA ............................. 121 

Mr. William Ruzzamenti, Director, Central Valley California HIDTA ............... 122 

Mr. Bob Carder, Drug Task Force Supervisor, District Three Drug and Violent Crimes Task Force, Oklahoma .................................................................... 124 

Page

IV 

Sergeant Wayne H. Stinnett, Claremore Police Department, Investigations 

Division, Oklahoma .............................................................................................. 126 

Mr. Mike Connelly, Fire Chief, Evansville Fire Dept, Indiana ........................... 128 

Mr. Michael McDaniel, Director, Houston HIDTA ............................................... 129 

Mr. Anthony Soto, Executive Director, Gulf Coast HIDTA .................................. 130 

Mr. Byron Smoot, President, Kentucky Narcotic Officers’ Association ............... 131 

Mr. Gary Ashenfelter, Training Director, Indiana Drug Enforcement Association ........................................................................................................................ 134 

Mr. Abraham L. Azzam, Executive Director, Michigan HIDTA .......................... 135 

Mr. David Barton, Director, Midwest HIDTA ....................................................... 136 

Mr. Edward M. Polachek, Director, Milwaukee HIDTA ...................................... 138 

Letter to Mr. Marshall Fisher, Director , Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics 

from Mr. David J. Dzielak, Ph.D., Executive Director, State of Mississippi, 

Office of the Governor, Division of Medicaid, regarding any costs associated 

with the pseudoephedrine prescription law ....................................................... 140 

Mr. W. Dewayne Richardson, District Attorney, 4th District of MS ................... 141 

Statement submitted by Mr. Robert I.L. Morrison, Executive Director, National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors (NASADAD) .. 142 

Mr. William I. Martin, Director, National HIDTA Assistance Center ................ 145 

Ms. Holly E. Dye, Founder and Executive Director, National Drug Endangered Children Training and Advocacy Center, Inc., Written Statement ....... 146 

Mr. L. Kent Bitsko, Director, Nevada HIDTA ...................................................... 150 

Mr. J.T. Fallon, Executive Director, New England HIDTA ................................. 151 

Mr. Chris Gibson, Director, Oregon HIDTA .......................................................... 152 

Ms. Karen L. Hess, Drug Task Force Coordinator, District Attorneys Council, 

Oklahoma .............................................................................................................. 154 

Mr. Derek Siegle, Executive Director, Ohio HIDTA ............................................. 155 

Mr. Edward B. Williams, Director, North Florida HIDTA ................................... 156 

Mr. Lance Sumpter, Director, North Texas, HIDTA ............................................ 158 

A message from the New Jersey Narcotic Enforcement Officers Association .... 159 

Mr. Phillip Little, Training Director, NC Narcotic Enforcement Officers Asso. 161 

Mr. Jeremiah A. Daley, Executive Director, Philadelphia HIDTA ...................... 163 

Mr. Jose M. Alvarez, Director, Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands HIDTA ............ 165 

Mr. Thomas N. Farmer, Director, Tennessee Methamphetamine and Pharmaceutical Task Force .............................................................................................. 166 

Mr. Tony Garcia, Regional Director, Southwest Border HIDTA-South Texas 

Region ................................................................................................................... 168 

Mr. Ernesto Ortiz, Regional Director, Southwest Border HIDTA-New Mexico 

Region ................................................................................................................... 169 

Ms. Laura Hudson, Executive Director, South Carolina Crime Victims’ Council ........................................................................................................................... 171 

Mr. Kean McAdam, Director, California Border Alliance Group, Southwest 

Border HIDTA ...................................................................................................... 173 

Sergeant Christian W. Gallagher, Terre Haute Police Department ................... 174 

(1) 

METH REVISITED: REVIEW OF STATE AND 

FEDERAL EFFORTS TO SOLVE THE DOMESTIC METHAMPHETAMINE PRODUCTION RESURGENCE 

Tuesday, July 24, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA, CENSUS, AND THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 

2203, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Trey Gowdy [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gowdy, Mica, DesJarlais, Davis, Norton, Clay and Murphy. 

Staff Present: Will L. Boyington, Staff Assistant; Molly Boyl, Parliamentarian; Linda Good, Chief Clerk; Mark D. Marin, Director of 

Oversight; Christine Martin, Counsel; John A. Zadrozny, Counsel; 

Jaron Bourke, Minority Director of Administration; Yvette Cravins, 

Minority Counsel; and Adam Koshkin, Minority Staff Assistant. 

Mr. GOWDY. Good morning, welcome to everyone. 

This is a hearing entitled, ‘‘Meth Revisited: Review of State and 

Federal Efforts to Solve the Domestic Methamphetamine Production Resurgence.’’ The committee will come to order. I want to 

thank you all of our witnesses. I think we have two panels. I will 

recognize myself for purposes of making an opening statement and 

then the distinguished gentlemen from Illinois, Mr. Davis. 

Again, I wanted to welcome our witnesses and thank them for 

lending us their expertise and perspective. I want to extend a personal greeting to my long-time friend, Max Dorsey, wherever he is. 

Max and I worked together. He is still a law enforcement officer 

so he is still on the side of the angels, but I was a prosecutor, way 

back when. 

And, Max, it is wonderful to see you. 

I know the witnesses are at the ready with statistics on methamphetamine and the problems permeating our country. When I 

think of methamphetamine, my mind doesn’t go to statistics. It 

doesn’t go to a debate between pharmaceutical companies and law 

enforcement. It goes to a couple named Ann and Ray Emery in the 

Drayton community in Spartanburg County, South Carolina. Ann 

and Ray Emery were a beautiful couple. They were active in their 

community, active in their churches, deeply in love with one another, and full of life. 

2 

They had a next-door neighbor named Andres Torres. Andres 

Torres was a troubled person with a long criminal history, and an 

addiction to methamphetamine. He knocked on their door one 

afternoon and said he needed a ride to the grocery store to get 

some food, so Ray Emery, being the decent, kind, human being that 

he was, stopped what he was doing, and took Andres Torres to the 

store. And he even did one better than that; he bought the groceries for Andres Torres. That was the kind of person Ray Emery 

was, kind, selfless, always ready to help a neighbor, even a neighbor as troubled as Andres Torres. 

About a week later, Andres Torres came back to the Emery 

home, but this time, he didn’t come in the afternoon. He came in 

the middle of the night under cover of darkness. He crept in 

through a side door. He walked into Ann and Ray Emery’s bedroom 

and began to bludgeon Ray Emery with a hammer. Nineteen times 

he raised the hammer and struck the face or the head of another 

human being. Ray Emery’s face was unrecognizable as a human 

face in the crime scene photos. He is laying there in a pool of blood 

on his bed with his skull fractured and his left arm is reaching out 

toward his wife. His body is on the floor. She too had been bludgeoned with a hammer, both of her eyeballs were absent. The bridge 

from her mouth was down into her neck, having been beaten there 

by a hammer, and she was raped postmortem. 

So statistics are fine. They certainly have their place. If you want 

to see the carnage of methamphetamine, I invite you to come look 

at the crime scene photos with me from the State of South Carolina 

v. Andres Torres. 

Methamphetamine requires ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as 

precursors. These two drugs are commonly found in medicines that 

are also extremely beneficial to law-abiding citizens. It is interesting at least for me to note that I believe that ephedrine and 

pseudoephedrine were both part of the Federal schedule prior to 

1976, and methamphetamine, at least to my knowledge, was nonexistent prior to then. 

I don’t know what the answer is. On the one hand, we know that 

those who seek to break existing laws, whether it be controlled substances laws or guidelines for the sale of ephedrine or 

pseudoephedrine, are adept at getting around whatever barriers we 

impose. On the other hand, it seems that 99 percent of our fellow 

citizens who follow the law and act lawfully are continually asked 

to change their behavior in an effort to combat those who cannot 

or will not conform to the law. 

So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. Methamphetamine is an epidemic. You don’t have to be a law enforcement officer or a prosecutor to know that. If the consequences of using and 

abusing this drug were just confined to the drug addicts themselves, it would be calamitous enough, but the consequences are far 

reaching, even ending the lives of beautiful couples who happen to 

live next door. 

So, with that, I would recognize the gentleman from Illinois the 

ranking member, Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank you for holding today’s hearing. Illicit drug use is 

one of the most challenging difficulties facing our society. It deVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:13 Nov 27, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\76637.TXT APRIL
3 

stroys families, individuals, careers, dreams, hopes, and tears at 

the very fabric of our basic communities. The damaging effects of 

meth that began in the Western States have now infiltrated my 

State of Illinois, and my hometown of Chicago. 

According to the United States Department of Justice, meth is 

the primary drug threat to central and southern Illinois but is increasing in the Chicago area. The State recently ranked fourth in 

meth-related arrests. Estimates place the cost of the meth epidemic 

to Illinois alone at about $2 billion per year, when crime, loss of 

productivity, incarcerations, and the impact on families and children are taken into account. These are indeed stunning numbers. 

Our response in large has been to lock these folks up. The United 

States leads the world in the number of incarcerated people. There 

are some 2 million Americans in jail or prison. The United States 

incarcerates more people for drug offenses than any other country. 

With an estimated 6.8 million Americans struggling with some 

sort of drug dependence, our prison populations will burst at the 

seams if we continue with this course. I submit that drug treatment can and should be fully incorporated into the criminal justice 

system. Treatment services for addicts on the street and even those 

incarcerated must become more of a priority. Treatment must become a part of probation, parole, and drug code participation. By 

working together, substance abuse treatment providers and criminal justice system officials can optimize their resources. 

Mr. Chairman, we want individuals to become productive citizens 

and return to activities that benefit society. 

A substance and mental health services administration study 

found that treatment decreases arrests for any crime by 64 percent. 

After only 1 year, the use of welfare declines by 10.7 percent, while 

employment increased 18.7 percent. The numbers show it. Treatment can have a defining effect on a person, on a community, and 

on our country. 

Imagine if the dollars spent on incarceration could be put to 

other uses. I am certain that law enforcement officials here today 

encourage treatment as well. They see the same individuals withering away time and time again. These people could have been 

something or done something else with their lives. 

I applaud our law enforcement officials for coming. I respect 

what it is that you do. You represent the on-the-ground methamphetamine fight in our communities and more often than not 

put yourselves in harm’s way. The intense battle against meth in 

rural America mirrors the urban fight against crack cocaine that 

dominated urban America in much of the 1990s and on into today. 

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 

Mr. Director, it is good to see you again, and I want to thank you 

for spending the day with us in Chicago exploring the different facilities and approaches that we have tried to make real and implement in our hometown. I thank you for the tremendous work that 

you do and look forward to your testimony and that of the other 

witnesses. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank you the gentleman from Illinois. 

Members may have 7 days to submit opening statements and extraneous material for the record. 

4 

We now welcome our first panel, The Honorable, Gil 

Kerlikowske, is the director of the Executive Office of the President’s Office of National Drug Control Policy. 

Sir, welcome. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses must be sworn in before they testify. So I would respectfully ask you to rise and raise 

your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to 

give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? 

Let the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative. 

Thank you. You may be seated. 

Witnesses typically have 5 minutes for opening statements. 

There should be a panel of lights. If there is not, I will get you to 

rely on your internal clock, and with that, welcome. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE R. GIL KERLIKOWSKE 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Thank you very much. If my internal clock 

runs a little behind, if you will let me know. 

Thank you, Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Davis, and 

members of the subcommittee for the opportunity. Having spent 9 

years as a the chief of police in the Northwest, I am very much 

aware of the significant health and public safety problems that result from methamphetamine use. 

Well, the national data indicate the number of current meth 

users in the United States has dropped significantly in the past 

several years. What these data don’t capture, of course, is the considerable regional and local variations in methamphetamine production and use. Meth continues to be a drug of significant concern 

for both the public health and safety of many communities 

throughout this country. And frankly, given the regional patterns 

associated with meth, ONDCP was not as forward-thinking in recognizing the problem and proposing efforts to deal with it. 

The law enforcement intelligence reporting indicate the availability of methamphetamine in general is increasing in markets 

throughout this country. There is evidence of significant declines in 

price, and significant increases in purity of the drug. Mexico remains the primary source of domestic meth supplies. From 2008 to 

2011, the number of meth seizures along the border increased nearly 400 percent. Restrictions on precursor chemicals by the Mexican 

government had some initial success, but they appear—do not appear to be as effective in the long run. Drug trafficking organizations have found ways to work around them. 

The increase in the supply of Mexican methamphetamine is paralleled by a growth in domestic meth production over the past several years. U.S. meth lab seizures more than doubled between 2007 

and 2010, and these labs pose a major threat to public safety and 

the environment, as well as a significant burden on already busy 

law enforcement and first responders. 

And the growth in domestic production is attributable to increased numbers of small meth labs and the shift in lab size is 

largely attributable to restrictions placed on precursor chemicals 

5 

that made it difficult to obtain large quantities of the precursors 

that fueled the super labs. 

However, as in Mexico, producers here in this country, found 

ways to circumvent the restrictions. Individual or smaller scale 

criminal groups of organized smurfing operations, where individual 

purchasers acquire illegal quantities of the chemicals through multiple purchases from several retail locations. 

While the administration supports several important efforts to 

combat methamphetamine production and trafficking, and to prevent and treat the drug as directed by Congress, our National 

Youth Anti-drug Media Campaign targets those areas of the country hardest hit by meth and delivers messages conveying the risks 

of meth use and the importance of treatment and the importance 

of recovery. And the administration is committed to working with 

the criminal justice system to reduce this problem. 

Our HIDTA, our High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area programs, 

which are supported by ONDCP are very much focused on this. 

The National Methamphetamine and Pharmaceuticals Initiative is 

a HIDTA program working on the problem. Current Federal restrictions on pseudoephedrine as a result of Congress’ Combat 

Methamphetamine Enforcement Act along with a majority of 

States with controls in place were originally intended to cut down 

on production. 

However, the restrictions are showing some diminishing effectiveness. In an effort to address the resurging threats some States 

implemented electronic sales monitoring systems for 

pseudoephedrine. However, there is growing evidence that these 

electronic efforts have been unable to contain a resurgence of the 

small-scale meth production. 

Domestic producers can—domestic producers can and have been 

circumventing the system by simply employing large numbers of 

buyers with multiple fake IDs. Another prescriber control is to reduce pseudoephedrine availability through scheduling. And in 

2006, Oregon made pseudoephedrine a schedule III controlled substance, prescription only. Methamphetamine laboratories seizures 

declined dramatically, from 190 to 11, from 2005 to 2011. Mississippi has had similar excellent responses, although their law has 

only been in place since July 1, 2010. The administration is dedicated to working closely with the Members of Congress on this 

problem. We have to focus on these strategies, and I look forward 

to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kerlikowske follows:] 

6 


Insert offset folio 1 here 76637.001
7 


Insert offset folio 2 here 76637.002
8 


Insert offset folio 3 here 76637.003
9 


Insert offset folio 4 here 76637.004
10 


Insert offset folio 5 here 76637.005
11 


Insert offset folio 6 here 76637.006
12 


Insert offset folio 7 here 76637.007
13 


Insert offset folio 8 here 76637.008
14 


Insert offset folio 9 here 76637.009
15 


Insert offset folio 10 here 76637.010
16 


Insert offset folio 11 here 76637.011
17 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Director. 

The chair would now recognize Dr. DesJarlais for his questions. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Good morning, and thank you for being here. 

Let’s just kind of try to go through a bunch of questions because 

we have limited time. Does the ONDCP have an official position 

with respect to the best way to solve domestic meth production 

problems? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. We have a position as far as it has to be holistic. We have to work on getting the message to these young people, particularly in about that 20- or 21-year age limit where oftentimes they begin to be involved with methamphetamine. We know 

that treatment works for those people that can get back into being 

productive citizens, and we know enforcement can work, not only 

working with countries to ban precursors—and I will be traveling 

to China in September. Mexico has dismantled a number of laboratories, but they need additional assistance from the United States. 

And lastly, working with local and domestic law enforcement here 

in the United States, we have seen some real progress, particularly 

when I mentioned Mississippi and Oregon. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay, I would like to talk more about those 

States as opposed to States that have instituted other point-of-sale 

restrictions or tracking systems. What in your experience, is working best? Let’s take Oregon and Mississippi, compare them to 

States like Tennessee who has tracking methods. What are you 

finding? What is the data showing—— 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Well, the data is showing that the number of 

lab incidences has been reduced in those two States in which the 

precursor chemical has been made a prescription only. And you 

have some experts that—behind me—that really know their particular State data, very, very well. 

But I will tell you from my law enforcement hat, from many 

years, law enforcement has had a reduction in resources, and giving more leads and more information isn’t quite as important as 

preventing the problem. And it seems like Oregon and Mississippi 

show great promise in preventing the problem. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. I think initially when Oregon was probably first 

on board to do that, they did not have the same number of border 

States and for example, Tennessee has seven. Now Mississippi, I 

think, did have more border States, and they showed similar results? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. They have shown a decrease, and I believe 

the director of the Mississippi narcotics unit is on the next panel. 

I would tell you that what I have seen in Oregon, in particular 

in the Portland area, is that it is so easy to cross the bridge into 

my own State of Washington and purchase the precursors, and that 

is where oftentimes we see part of the problem, so I think that 

there is an important—— 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Can the same reduction be shown in the 

States that have more sophisticated tracking systems or electronic 

logbooks? Are they showing a decrease, or is it steady or on the incline or what is happening there? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. So the decrease has been in the super labs, 

the large labs that produce a lot— a lot of methamphetamine. The 

18 

increases in all of these labs, regardless of the State, is in the small 

use of a pop bottle. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Shake and bake. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Shake and bake method. And so we are seeing that. So we are not seeing that quantity, but we are seeing 

these numbers. And of course, even when theses things are discarded on the highways or in playgrounds or anything else, they 

cause significant problems. They also drain public safety resources 

because of the hazardous materials responders that have to come 

out. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Let me ask this because I don’t know the answer, but as a primary care physician for 20 years who has prescribed a lot of cold medicines, does—I know the answer to this. 

Does Sudafed have any curative factors? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I am probably not at all qualified to give you 

that answer, but I know there are plenty of medications for runny 

noses on the market that don’t contain pseudoephedrine. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. What kind of kickback have they gotten in 

those two States from patients? Has it caused an increase in doctor 

visits and cost in terms of health care if they cannot get Sudafed 

over the counter and have to have a prescription? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I am only familiar with Oregon, and one, it 

did not increase Medicaid costs. Number two, because it is a schedule III, that prescription can be called in, I mean, if you really need 

it. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Right. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. That can be sent telephonically to the pharmacy to be filled. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. So if I have a patient that I know has severe 

allergies, runny nose, I don’t have to make them come in for a visit. 

I can call in that prescription or give them a reasonable amount 

with the refills for 6 months or more, so it doesn’t necessarily mean 

they have to come to the doctor? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I believe so. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. I don’t have a timer in front of me, Mr. 

Chairman, so you will have to—I see I am on yellow. Quickly, on 

the cleanup portion, you know, a lot of States, including Tennessee, 

ran out of funds, just literally overnight, just flipped a switch, and 

they were out of funds. Is there anything on the horizon to help 

these States in terms of dealing with meth cleanup? You talked 

about the shake and bake bottles being thrown in the ditch. If they 

don’t have the money to clean them up, I am not saying law enforcement looks the other way, but these are dangerous chemicals 

to deal with, and what can we look forward to in terms of help and 

support in light of those funds running out? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. There is the request in for funding to replenish, and I think that—and it probably is not enough, given the 

number of small labs that are being seized, but there is some additional money there for them. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay, I know my time is expired. We will talk 

maybe in the next panel about some of the solutions. I know in 

Tennessee, they went to multicounty storage containers and drastically reduced the cost of the meth cleanup by, gosh, it went from, 

19 

say, $10,000, to $2,500 for a cleanup with these storage containers. 

So we will talk more about that. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Tennessee. 

The chair will not recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Director, we know that the use of meth dropped significantly 

during 2007 and 2008, as States found ways to limit the supply 

and make it more difficult for individuals to acquire these key ingredients that were used to produce the concoction. 

But now we see that there is a rise and increase again. Does that 

mean that people are finding ways to get around these restrictions 

and in terms of purchasing the ingredients or storing them or having them? If so, how are they doing that? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. You are absolutely right, Congressman. 

When Congress acted with the Combat Meth Act and put the 

pseudoephedrine behind the counter, requiring the logbook, that 

did have an impact. At the same time, the government of Mexico 

banned the precursor chemicals. 

Since then, two things have happened. One, the precursor chemicals are shipped in, either under forged documents into the country 

of Mexico, or they are shipped into places like Guatemala and then 

come up into the laboratories of Mexico. And then the methamphetamine makes its way here. 

The second thing is that the smurfing that I talked about, in 

which large numbers of people with multiple fake identities can go 

from store to store and purchase the maximum amount of 

pseudoephedrine possible. And that is a way of getting around the 

Combat Meth Act and the logbook. 

Mr. DAVIS. Are the sellers of these products required to maintain 

records and perhaps make those available to law enforcement officials to try and track what may be going on with the dealers? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. They are required to maintain the logbooks, 

and they are required to provide that logbook to law enforcement. 

The issue that my colleagues always talk about, though, of course, 

is that they would much rather see the crime or the incident prevented and the methamphetamine not made rather than devote 

law enforcement resources to try and track down information on 

what may often be a fake ID. 

Mr. DAVIS. While I am a strong proponent of law enforcement 

techniques and approaches to try and really get a handle and keep 

the ingredients away or prevent individuals from having the meth 

to distribute, I guess I am also a strong proponent of treatment because, well, I just grew up a very simple way where we were told 

that an ounce of prevention is worth much more than a pound of 

cure. And it would seem to me that if we could provide treatment, 

and we know that treatment, according to all of the data that we 

have looked at, does in fact have a significant impact, how do we 

balance the law enforcement with the treatment in terms of resources and activities to make this the most comprehensive approach that we can? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Congressman, I couldn’t agree with you more, 

and I will be very surprised if any of my former law enforcement 

20 

colleagues that will be on the next panel would differ with you in 

the least. Law enforcement has been absolutely joined at the hip 

on both prevention and treatment programs, not only for methamphetamine but for other drugs. We have over 2,600 drug courts, 

and I know you are very familiar with them, having told me about 

the Chicago experience; 2,600 drug courts, many of whom deal with 

clients who in fact are addicted to methamphetamine. And I can 

tell you that the myth had always been that once someone was addicted to methamphetamine, they could never be cured. In my travels for this administration in 3 years, I have met literally hundreds 

of people who were severely addicted to meth and included some 

pretty drastic problems, dental problems, health problems, et 

cetera, that are back taking care of their families, back paying 

taxes, back being productive citizens. So we need to make sure that 

the program that we have is comprehensive. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. 

The chair would now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you for conducting 

this hearing. Unfortunately, part of the problem of the situation I 

think we are in is Congress, 4 years the other side of the aisle was 

in charge, and I don’t recall a single hearing. I served as chair of 

the Criminal Justice Drug Policy Subcommittee from 1998 to 2000, 

been on the committee all my time, and I am trying to remember 

if there was even a single hearing relating to—well, there might 

have been some promotion of legalization of narcotics, but that 

might have been the only thing. So part of the problem of finding 

ourselves in this situation is that Congress wasn’t doing its job. 

Having been involved in trying to tackle this issue in the past, 

this is sort of catchup for me, and I have some questions. I think 

first you have to go after the source. If you are telling me Mexico 

is still the source and it continues to be the primary source, that 

is correct? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Correct. 

Mr. MICA. Precursors. I helped with Denny Hastert to develop a 

Plan Colombia, which we had basically the same situation we have 

in Mexico. Now, do we have a plan Mexico? Does the administration have a plan to deal, I mean, almost all of the narcotics and 

violence and precursors are coming out of Mexico, not to mention 

the wanton slaughter of tens of thousands of Mexican innocent citizens. Do we have a plan? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. We do have a plan, and I believe that President Calderon could not have been more courageous during his five 

and a half years. 

Mr. MICA. Okay, there is a new president now, but he may have 

been courageous, but actually, you just testified that this stuff is 

still coming in, and they are subverting the process. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Well, one, he took on banning those precursors, and they were pretty effective, but the drug traffickers have 

figured out two things. 

Mr. MICA. But then you go to plan B. Do we have a plan B? 

21 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Sir, the plan B would be to continue the increases of seizures along the borders. Mexico has increased the 

number of seizures of their laboratories within the government— 

or within the country, and they are working also to tighten their 

border, their southern border, where chemicals come into places 

like Guatemala and then make their way, the precursors, and then 

make their way—— 

Mr. MICA. So the other thing, too, is seizures. I am looking at 

this here, meth at DEA. You go back to 2004, 2005, and the Bush 

administration: 18,000 in 2004. And we are down to 10,000 seizures. Have we just become more tolerant? We don’t—are you 

working with DEA to increase the seizures? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Well, and the seizures are almost all done by 

Customs and Border Protection, as you well know, along the border. 

Part of the reduction could also be the fact that we have about 

half of the users in this country that we did. 

Mr. MICA. Well, again, blaming it on the users is something, or 

treatment is another thing. 

Quite frankly, I believe when you get to treatment, you have lost 

the game. It is a—first stop in the precursors to put the stuff together. If it is coming through Mexico, we need a plan, and plan 

B, whatever it is. Is the law we passed in 2004 working? You said 

it is being subverted. 

You know, we took some stuff off the shelf. We have got—but do 

we—does Congress need to look back at this, and I mean, I am a 

zero tolerance guy. I worked with Rudy Giuliani when he did that 

in New York and the residual is still there. You go after people, 

and you have tough enforcement, and you curtail the bastards, pardon my French, and stop them. And that is what you have got to 

do in this. 

But when seizures are down, have you—has the administration 

arranged a meeting with the new administration yet on the drug 

issue, do you know? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. President-elect Pina Nieto has not named, to 

my knowledge, any of the people that will be in his cabinet to head 

up the—— 

Mr. MICA. Well, I think one of our priorities, and you should report back to this committee and Congress, is a meeting. This deserves the attention of the President of the United States. The 

slaughter across our borders now, the increase in use of 

methamphetamines, and then it looks like we are sleeping at the 

switch in enforcement, and we don’t have a plan really to deal with 

this. 

The last thing, too, the I helped set up the education program 

some years ago. I have no idea of the status of it. I have gotten 

waylaid on transportation issues, but part of it is education. Tell 

me the status of that program. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. The educational program, the National AntiDrug Youth Media Campaign was not funded by Congress last 

year. 

Mr. MICA. Do we have—when we did this, the deal I cut with 

Clinton was that half the money was going to come from the private sector or from public broadcasts. We own the air waves, and 

22 

they were supposed to provide some air-wave education. That is 

part of their responsibility under the FCC law to provide. 

Do you have a program with them to provide some of that? We 

have on the air a meth program anti-meth program? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. We still, as required, spend 10 percent of that 

media money on meth. The most effective way—— 

Mr. MICA. But I mean getting them. They have the resources and 

the capability and the air waves and an obligation to use some of 

that for public education. Do you have a plan working with them 

now? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. We work with a partnership at drugfree.org 

and others, but we also know some of the most effective methods 

are through social media. 

Mr. MICA. Yeah, well, do we have a plan? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. We do. 

Mr. MICA. Okay, well again, maybe you can provide me with 

some update on it. I think that is very important, and social media, 

too, is I am finding out in the campaign, is very, very important, 

and a new way of getting to possible users and people affected by 

it. 

And if you could share with us—I think this administration, this 

President, you need to be in the face of Mexico, and we if we need 

to go back and change the law, you give us the recommendations 

to update 2004, what other resources you need, and we will work 

with you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Florida. The chair will 

now recognize himself for 5 minutes of questions. 

Let me start, Director, by thanking you for your previous service 

in law enforcement. 

And I was having a hard time getting my little noggin wrapped 

around—in Judiciary, it is not uncommon to hear some of our colleagues call for the legalization of what would now be schedule I 

controlled substances. So to go from calling for the legalization, and 

I am not saying you have. I have never heard you say it, but the 

disconnect between calling for legalization of what are now schedule I controlled substances to the quasi-criminalization of what are 

now over-the-counter drugs just seems like something of an inconsistency to me. But perhaps it is just me. 

Without waving my Fifth Amendment right against incrimination, I don’t think you can make moonshine without sugar, can 

you? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I will take your word for this. 

Mr. GOWDY. You can’t write demand notes without paper and 

pen. You can’t make cocaine base without baking soda, and you 

have to have water for moonshine and baking soda—and crack cocaine, and there has never been any conversation about criminalizing any of the above. 

So at what point do we say, yes, this is an integral part of making something that is illicit or wrong, but the inconvenience of 

criminalizing baking soda or water or pen and paper is just a 

bridge too far for us? We are going to concentrate on the 1 percent 

that is breaking the law, and not the 99 percent who do like they 

are supposed to do. 

23 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I think—I mean, your points are excellent. I 

guess when I talk to my colleagues around the country who are in 

law enforcement, they are all suffering from reduced budgets. They 

have had layoffs. They have had reductions in force. They have 

had, in some cities, increases in violence. And going after people 

with fake IDs who bought too much pseudoephedrine over the 

counter is not going to be on their highest list of priorities. And 

that is a fact. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I am not disagreeing with you, but I would 

wonder this: How many of the so-called smurfs have been prosecuted for conspiracy? Because it just strikes me that our entire 

criminal justice or penal system is set up to get people’s attention 

with incarceration, and one way to get the smurf’s attention, is to 

actually wrap them up and a Title 21 conspiracy count on the Federal side. Do you know how many of these so-called smurfs have 

actually been prosecuted for conspiracy? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I don’t know. 

Mr. GOWDY. I want you to put your old hat back on for a second 

and see if my logic is flawed. If you decrease the demand or decrease access to ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, you could probably fashion an argument because you have seen addicts do things 

that are unspeakable in their quest for drugs. I have seen it. I just 

recalled a story about it. 

What is to say that we won’t have an increase in home invasions 

for addicts seeking ephedrine and pseudoephedrine from families 

that have a prescription for it in their quest to get it? Have there 

been any studies showing whether or not the criminal element has 

gone to—because they are very creative—gone to other routes to 

get these precursors? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. The only familiarity I have with the longer 

term on that is, again, Oregon, and in talking to law enforcement 

colleagues in that State, and I know you have a witness from the 

State of Oregon, regarding break-ins to homes to get the precursor 

chemicals for meth or stealing prescriptions for precursor chemicals 

for pseudoephedrine has not been an issue of concern to them. But 

I would take their testimony with their experience over, certainly, 

my anecdotal information. 

Mr. GOWDY. Is there the prospect or possibility that Mexico’s production will increase? If you accept that the demand for the product will remain the same without drug treatment, then what is to 

say Mexico won’t meet that request for increased production if it 

decreases domestically? What is to say we won’t see an even greater influx of methamphetamine from Mexico? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I think as long as there is that demand here 

in this country, Mexico, those drug cartels, will do their very best 

to try and meet some of that demand. That is why I think the prevention information about the dangers of methamphetamine, and 

there are some incredibly, as you know, graphic demonstrations of 

advertising that seem to have made a difference in keeping people 

off methamphetamine. Again, that would be the far more important way to do this. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, my time is up. I will say this about drug treatment: We had a drug court in my home county, and the dirty little 

secret about drug court is it wasn’t the prosecutors and it wasn’t 

24 

the police officers who were opposed to it. It was the criminal defense attorneys, because drug court is much more difficult to survive under or on than simple probation. So some of my colleagues 

who are opposed to mandatory sentences in all forms may have to 

reconsider when it comes to drug court. Because if given the choice 

between probation, where you just wave your hand once every 6 

months, and drug court, most defense attorneys opt for probation. 

With that, you have a very difficult job, and we wish you great 

success. And we thank you for coming and testifying, and again, we 

thank you for your service in law enforcement as well as your service to our country. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. We will stand at ease for a couple of minutes while 

the next panel comes forward. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. GOWDY. The committee will come to order. It is our pleasure 

to recognize and welcome the second panel of witnesses. I will introduce you from your right to left, my left to right. I will introduce 

you en banc and then recognize you each for your 5-minute opening 

statement. 

Mr. Ron Brooks is the director of the Northern California High 

Intensity Drug Trafficking Area and the President of the National 

Narcotics Officers’ Associations’ Coalition. 

Mr. Jason Grellner—and if I mispronounce anyone’s name, correct me and forgive me—is a sergeant with the Franklin County 

Missouri Narcotics Enforcement Unit and the president of the Missouri Narcotics Officers Association. 

Mr. Max Dorsey a lieutenant with the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division in the great State of South Carolina. 

Mr. Rob Bovett is the district attorney for Lincoln County, Oregon, and the architect of Oregon’s 2005 prescription-only law. 

Mr. Marshall Fisher is the executive director of the State of Mississippi’s, Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics and an architect of Mississippi’s 2010 prescription-only law. 

Again, pursuant to committee rules, and I always wanted to have 

Max Dorsey under oath so I could ask him some questions, and 

now I will have my chance. 

Mr. GOWDY. So I would ask you if you will please stand and raise 

your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to 

give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. 

Let the record reflect all of the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Mr. Brooks, we will start with you and recognize you for your 5- 

minute opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF RONALD BROOKS 

Mr. BROOKS. I don’t think this is working. Maybe you can hear 

me without it, because I think—okay. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Davis, members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for holding this important hearing 

and for inviting me to represent the 68,000 members of the National Narcotics Officers’ Associations’ Coalition. 

25 

I am a 37-year law enforcement veteran, and I worked with 

methamphetamine investigations since 1980. I am currently the director of the Northern California High Intensity Drug Trafficking 

Area. 

Every day, National Narcotic Officers’ coalition members see 

firsthand the devastation, lost opportunities, violent crime, environmental destruction, and the death that meth use brings to our cities and towns. It robs children of their parents, young people of 

their dreams, and our country of the bright minds and sound bodies that we must rely upon to remain strong as a nation. 

From the earliest days, it was clear that cutting off 

pseudoephedrine would virtually eliminate domestic meth manufacturing. When cooks could easily access pseudo at retail stores, 

we saw massive quantities purchased and converted to meth. As a 

result, the number of meth labs ballooned from 7,000 in 1999 to 

18,000 in 2004. 

We were inundated. It was truly an epidemic, and it was clear 

that we needed to make meth more difficult or needed to make it 

much more difficult for meth cookers to get their hands on 

pseudoephedrine. That is when the Congress focussed on the issue 

and passed the Combat Meth Act. One of the primary purposes of 

the Combat Meth Act was to restrict access by meth cooks to 

pseudoephedrine by requiring behind-the-counter products storage 

and recording of purchases in a logbook. 

The facts tell a crystal clear story of what happens when we restrict pseudoephedrine. We went from 18,000 incidents in 2004 to 

6,000 incidents in 2007, a drop of more than 65 percent, due in 

large part to the Combat Meth Act provisions to control pseudo. 

But the CMEA’s restrictions eventually led to innovation by 

meth cooks who resorted to smurfing, the practice of purchasing 

small quantities of pseudoephedrine products at several retail locations to bring back to a central manufacturing location. 

We often see several people recruited to purchase a small number of packages and sell them to middle men who in turn sell the 

packages to the illicit cooks. After the initial steep Combat Meth 

Act decline, because of this smurfing technique, we saw a number 

of lab incidents increase again to 10,000 by 2011. 

The law enforcement situation is much more challenging today 

because of layoffs and budget cuts. We are not equipped to deal 

with the surge in lab incidents the way we did in the 1990s. The 

COPS Meth Hot Spots Program used to provide critical support to 

our efforts, but Congress has cut its funding by 70 percent. 

Unfortunately, the meth situation on the ground is alarming. 

Last year, 5,000 kilograms of meth were seized at the U.S./Mexico 

border, a 400 percent increase compared to 2008, and the domestic 

meth lab production numbers are certainly growing across the 

country. 

There are really two clear lessons in history. The first is, controlling pseudoephedrine is the best way to prevent meth labs. The 

second, half measures to control retail pseudoephedrine will lead 

meth cooks to innovate workarounds to these obstacles. 

The conclusion my members have drawn is that products containing pseudoephedrine should be accessible via prescription only 

on a nationwide basis. The fact is, making pseudo available only 

26 

by prescription significantly reduces the number of meth labs in 

communities. 

My colleagues from Oregon and Mississippi will share clear evidence of the success of their prescription-only policies. We are talking about major declines in meth labs almost instantly from the 

passage of those laws. The policy works, and it should be embraced 

on a nationwide scale. 

Some will say that tracking retail purposes of pseudoephedrine 

is the solution to the smurfing problem. While tracking has a positive impact in some areas, the impact is really limited, and it is 

not proven to reduce labs. Again, the facts tell the story. Kentucky 

was the first State to implement a tracking system. Every year 

since the implementation, the number of lab incidents in Kentucky 

has gone up. Tracking is reactive and very labor intensive. Relatively few agencies today have the resources to effectively track 

pseudoephedrine and make an impact, a true impact on their meth 

problem. 

We are encouraged by the recent development of technology that 

has been shown to prevent pseudoephedrine from being extracted 

from pills, which means that illicit cooks could not use it to make 

meth. This would enable products containing pseudoephedrine to 

be sold in front of the counter. Consumer convenience and access 

to legitimate medicine would be enhanced, and meth lab incidents 

would decline. Those developments really should be encouraged 

and explored. 

Mr. Chairman, we have a clear evidence of a policy that can save 

lives and protect communities. We really ought to act now before 

we lose control of this situation. On behalf of the dedicated men 

and women who respond to meth lab incidents every single day, 

the NNOAC strongly encourages Congress to study the Oregon and 

Mississippi examples and to pass a Federal law that makes 

pseudoephedrine products prescription only. And I want to thank 

you for your time. I am happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brooks follows:] 

27 


Insert offset folio 12 here 76637.012
28 


Insert offset folio 13 here 76637.013
29 


Insert offset folio 14 here 76637.014
30 


Insert offset folio 15 here 76637.015
31 


Insert offset folio 16 here 76637.016
32 


Insert offset folio 17 here 76637.017
33 


Insert offset folio 18 here 76637.018
34 


Insert offset folio 19 here 76637.019
35 


Insert offset folio 20 here 76637.020
36 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Brooks. 

Mr. Grellner. 

STATEMENT OF JASON GRELLNER 

Mr. GRELLNER. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Davis, 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for providing me the opportunity to testify before you today. 

I am Detective Sergeant Jason Grellner. I am a task force commander of a unit in Franklin County, Missouri, just outside of St. 

Louis. I am also president of the Missouri Narcotics Officers Association, and I am here representing the 350 members who struggle 

daily to fight methamphetamine laboratories. 

Missouri has consistently led the nation for more than a decade 

in clandestine methamphetamine laboratories reporting over 

27,000 found meth lab incidents since 1994. My task force has federally indicted 50 people for smurfing and manufacturing meth in 

just the first 6 months of this year, and we usually annually indict 

50 people. 

During my 21-year career in law enforcement, I have led investigations of over 1,600 meth labs in Franklin County. My unit investigates a lab incident on average, once every 3 days. I have 

often seen throughout my career the rippling effects the clandestine methamphetamine laboratories have on the elderly addicts’ 

families, innocent children, and the public at large. 

Approximately 50 children a year in Franklin County are removed from meth lab homes and placed into State custody. Over 

the past 15 years, I have earned the name bogeyman, given the 

number of times that I have taken children away from their family 

due to methamphetamine labs. 

The business of methamphetamine lab production is both painful 

and costly. At nearby Mercy Hospital Burn Unit in St. Louis, the 

director is quoted as saying that on any given day at least 15 to 

25 percent of their burn unit beds are occupied by uninsured meth 

lab burn victims at a cost of over $6,000 per day. 

In June of 2002, well into my 26th consecutive hour of work, I 

made the mistake by opening a container that contained anhydrous 

ammonia, an ingredient in the manufacture of methamphetamine. 

This poisonous gas caused immediate burning to my eyes, nose, 

mouth, throat, and lungs, and later a blistering of my mouth and 

throat. I was eventually diagnosed with lung disease, where it was 

found that I lost 25 percent of my lung capacity. 

In the last 6 months, five of my six investigators have been hospitalized for cancer, kidney transplant, and unknown tumor growing in their chest because of methamphetamine laboratories that 

they have investigated. 

As I look back over a lengthy career, I know that 80 percent or 

more of all crime revolves around drug and alcohol addiction. For 

this reason, the Franklin County Narcotics Enforcement Unit is 

built on the principles of prevention, enforcement, and rehabilitation. Our offices are home to three prevention specialists and seven 

narcotics investigators who are members of a local drug CORE 

team. At our facility, we host counseling service and pay for housing of participants in the drug CORE program. 

37 

We have our own 501(c)(3) foundation helping to build a strong 

community coalition to prevent addiction before it starts. We understand that law enforcement, substance abuse prevention, and 

rehabilitation must work together in order to have a long-lasting 

effect on narcotics crimes and addiction. 

I know the growth of meth labs is a direct result of the decision 

made by the United States Food & Drug Administration in 1976, 

when the agency faced a decision as to whether or not 

pseudoephedrine hydrochloride should be an over-the-counter drug. 

By allowing pseudoephedrine to become OTC, I know the face of 

narcotics law enforcement in this country changed. 

Now what we are faced with more recently is a new black market 

of pseudoephedrine that has transformed this product from a commodity to currency. We commonly now see heroin addicts and those 

addicted to prescription pain relievers using boxes of cold tablets 

containing pseudoephedrine in trade for their narcotics of choice. A 

box of pseudoephedrine in Southern Illinois and St. Louis now sells 

for $100 a box. 

Criminals now go to the pharmacy not to receive beneficial medication but to exchange currency. 

In 2009, I began a campaign asking local cities and counties to 

enact ordinances requiring a prescription for pseudoephedrine. 

Washington, Missouri, enacted its ordinance on July of 2009. In the 

90 days prior to the ordinance, five pharmacies in Washington sold 

4,346 boxes of cold tablets. In the 90 days following the enactment 

of this ordinance, those same pharmacies saw a 94 percent drop in 

sales, and only sold 268 boxes. Inspecting sales records at pharmacies surrounding Washington during the same time period saw 

no rise in sales after the implementation of the ordinance. This city 

also experienced an 85 percent decrease in meth-related calls for 

service by the police. 

Tracking databases, which track the sale of PSE in real time, do 

nothing to halt the spread of methamphetamine labs. Missouri in 

2011 alone tracked 1.76 million sales. Missouri sells one box of 

pseudoephedrine every 17 seconds. The State experienced a 6.8 

percent increase in meth labs between 2010 and 2011. In the 

southeast portion of the State, where nearly 70 cities now require 

a prescription for pseudoephedrine, we saw a 52 percent drop in 

methamphetamine labs. And I see I am out of time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grellner follows:] 

38 


Insert offset folio 21 here 76637.021
39 


Insert offset folio 22 here 76637.022
40 


Insert offset folio 23 here 76637.023
41 


Insert offset folio 24 here 76637.024
42 


Insert offset folio 25 here 76637.025
43 


Insert offset folio 26 here 76637.026
44 


Insert offset folio 27 here 76637.027
45 


Insert offset folio 28 here 76637.028
46 


Insert offset folio 29 here 76637.029
47 


Insert offset folio 30 here 76637.030
48 


Insert offset folio 31 here 76637.031
49 


Insert offset folio 32 here 76637.032
50 


Insert offset folio 33 here 76637.033
51 


Insert offset folio 34 here 76637.034
52 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Grellner. 

Agent Dorsey. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD ‘‘MAX’’ DORSEY, II 

Mr. DORSEY. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Davis, committee members. 

My name is Max Dorsey, and I serve as a lieutenant with the 

South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, commonly known as 

SLED. I am currently a supervisory special agent in the narcotics 

unit, and I am also my agency’s clandestine laboratory coordinator, 

responsible for directing matters related to the enforcement of 

South Carolina’s efforts to stop manufacturing of illegal narcotics. 

Thank you for the opportunity for me to participate in this committee today. 

South Carolina is experiencing a meth lab epidemic that is severely impacting law enforcement’s resources and jeopardizing the 

welfare of our citizens. Despite both State and Federal efforts to 

prevent domestic methamphetamine production, meth labs in 

South Carolina continue to rise at an alarming rate. 

As you know, meth labs are very dangerous. Entering a meth lab 

site is one of the most dangerous acts a law enforcement officer can 

do. Yet as labs become more numerous in our State, we find more 

innocent people harmfully exposed. For example, in May of this 

year, a horrific fire occurred in the Pine Harbor apartment complex 

in Goose Creek, South Carolina, killing three people. The victims 

of this tragedy were 4-year-old Samuel Garbe, 19-year-old Morgan 

Abernathy, and 69-year-old retired Air Force captain and Vietnam 

veteran Joseph Raeth. These people did nothing wrong. They were 

victims of circumstance. Their circumstance was that they were in 

their apartment in close proximity to a meth lab. 

Although the manufacturing of meth cannot be exclusively proven to be the cause of the fire, it appears, based upon information 

present at the scene, that it most certainly may have contributed 

to the spread of the fire. During this manufacturing process, something went wrong and a fire ensued, causing the destruction of 16 

units in the complex and the death of three innocent victims. 

Over the past decade, several States and Congress have passed 

legislation in an attempt to combat the meth lab epidemic. Most of 

this legislation has sought to control access to meth’s main ingredient, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, which are also the main ingredients in cold medicines. 

In 2005, Congress passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, which sought to limit daily purchases of ephedrine and 

pseudoephedrine-based products, thus restricting the amount of 

this necessary meth precursor chemical in the marketplace being 

diverted for the domestic manufacturing of methamphetamine. 

The pharmaceutical industry supports tracking precursor chemicals and brought forward a potential solution known as the NPLEx 

system. The intent of NPLEx was to better electronically track 

ephedrine and pseudoephedrine purchases through a central interlinking database. 

Despite the good intentions of NPLEx, it has not stopped domestic meth manufacturing in South Carolina. NPLEx is not limiting 

illicit purchases. In fact, in our first year of utilizing NPLEx, South 

53 

Carolina actually saw an increase in discovered labs. Any legislation that seeks to merely lower the purchase limit or track purchases does not effectively combat domestic meth production. It is 

too easy for criminals to subvert the CMEA and NPLEx through 

the practice of smurfing. These criminals simply steal identities or 

use fake I.D.’s to make their purchases. Neither CMEA nor NPLEx 

has done anything to reduce the number of meth labs in South 

Carolina. 

In response to the growing meth crisis, Oregon and Mississippi 

passed new laws to prevent ephedrine and pseudoephedrine from 

entering the criminal marketplace by requiring a prescription to 

purchase ephedrine and pseudoephedrine-based products. The results of Oregon’s and Mississippi’s legislation have proven to be the 

most effective approach to combating domestic meth production 

within those States. 

If we are serious about combating domestic meth production, 

Congress must pass legislation returning ephedrine and 

pseudoephedrine to prescription only. We have seen the absolute 

success of this approach in Oregon and Mississippi, as meth manufacturing has plummeted in those States. 

President Ronald Reagan once said to sit back hoping that some 

day, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding 

the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last, but eat you he will. 

Committee members, the crocodile is alive and well and is preying not just on our criminal justice system but our environment, 

our health care system, our social welfare system, and our economy. The committee has an opportunity to put the crocodile back 

in its cage and stop the domestic meth lab production in this country by rescheduling ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. 

Thank you for your time, and I will be happy to answer any 

questions you may have of me. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dorsey follows:] 

54 


Insert offset folio 35 here 76637.035
55 


Insert offset folio 36 here 76637.036
56 


Insert offset folio 37 here 76637.037
57 


Insert offset folio 38 here 76637.038
58 


Insert offset folio 39 here 76637.039
59 


Insert offset folio 40 here 76637.040
60 


Insert offset folio 41 here 76637.041
61 


Insert offset folio 42 here 76637.042
62 


Insert offset folio 43 here 76637.043
63 


Insert offset folio 44 here 76637.044
64 


Insert offset folio 45 here 76637.045
65 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Agent Dorsey. 

Mr. Bovett. 

STATEMENT OF ROB BOVETT 

Mr. BOVETT. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Davis, and 

members of the committee, my name is Rob Bovett. I am the district attorney for Lincoln County, Oregon, but I guess more importantly today, I am here as legal counsel for the Oregon Narcotics 

Enforcement Association. As such, I helped craft much of Oregon’s 

drug policy and laws that addresses not just enforcement, but 

treatment and prevention. 

I am here today to talk specifically about pseudoephedrine control and effective pseudo control. I am not here to talk about reducing the meth epidemic. I am here to talk about reducing the domestic manufacture of meth. The truth is most meth comes from Mexico, and it has for a long, long time. We are talking about the impacts, the devastating impacts of meth labs. 

In 1976, we let the genie out of the bottle. We allowed 

pseudoephedrine to be sold over-the-counter. It was a mistake. It 

was a huge mistake. Ever since then, we have been putting BandAids on the situation for the last 35 years, both in State legislatures and in Congress. It hasn’t worked. The Band-Aids have been 

temporary patches on what is effectively a gaping wound. And here 

we are again. Here we are again with the smurfing epidemic that 

is pervasive across our Nation. It does manifest itself differently in 

different parts of the Nation. 

In the Midwest and the South, all of the smurfing of 

pseudoephedrine fuels thousands, tens of thousands of these one 

pot user labs. In the West Coast, it is different. All of the smurfing 

fuels super labs in central California. California produces more 

meth in domestic meth labs than the next four States combined. So 

we have a slightly different problem in the West Coast than in the 

Midwest and the East and the South. But the problem all stems 

from the same core problem, smurfing, smurfing, smurfing of 

pseudoephedrine. 

In 2006—actually, in 2005 we passed legislation in Oregon to return pseudoephedrine to a prescription drug and end the smurfing 

problem. It went into effect in 2006. And we eliminated smurfing. 

It can’t be done in Oregon. It can’t be done in Mississippi. And I 

should say there was a parade of horribles ramped up, and it is 

still ramped up today about all the things that would happen. 

There would be public outcry, demonstrations. There would be 

home invasions. There would be robberies of pharmacies. There 

would be doctors’ offices swamped with people. 

The truth is it has been over 6 years in Oregon, and none of that 

has happened. None of it. The truth is that we effectively eliminated the problem of smurfing in Oregon. We no longer contribute 

to the domestic meth lab problem. And there is no one clamoring 

to undo what we did over 6 years ago. It is a real solution to end 

the problem of smurfing, to correct a mistake that should never 

have been made 35 years ago. 

But only Congress can actually fix this nationwide because, yes, 

Oregon has a handful of meth labs remaining each year, but it is 

all traced back to pseudoephedrine smurfed, as the director menVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:13 Nov 27, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\76637.TXT APRIL
66 

tioned, in Washington or Idaho or California; in one case, Nevada. 

So we truly need a nationwide solution to this nationwide-created 

problem from 1976. 

The truth is also that most consumers have long ago switched to 

alternative decongestants. When you enacted the Combat Meth 

Epidemic Act in 2006, in the spring of 2006, and it went into effect 

September of 2006, virtually by that time, most consumers had 

long switched to stuff that was easy to access. Hundreds of products line the shelves. We are not talking about those products. We 

are talking about 15 remaining pseudoephedrine products that are 

all behind the counter. And so we see massive smurfing going on 

in places other than Oregon and Mississippi. 

I will tell you, and I have provided you references in my written 

testimony, that our medical community overwhelmingly not only 

supports but strongly supports what we did in 2005 that went into 

effect in 2006, including the Oregon Medical Association, our pharmacists, and our college of emergency physicians. Because it works. 

It not only works and it is effective, it didn’t flood their offices with 

demands for these products that most consumers just simply don’t 

seek. It is a real solution. I appreciate the time. We need to put 

this genie back in the bottle, and only Congress can do that. I look 

forward to your questions, and thank you very much for the time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bovett follows:] 

67 


Insert offset folio 46 here 76637.046
68 


Insert offset folio 47 here 76637.047
69 


Insert offset folio 48 here 76637.048
70 


Insert offset folio 49 here 76637.049
71 


Insert offset folio 50 here 76637.050
72 


Insert offset folio 51 here 76637.051
73 


Insert offset folio 52 here 76637.052
74 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Bovett. 

Mr. Fisher. 

STATEMENT OF MARSHALL FISHER 

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Davis, committee 

members, on behalf of the State of Mississippi, we appreciate you 

having—I appreciate being here today. 

I am a 35-year veteran of law enforcement, been the director of 

Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics for the past 7 years. Prior to that, 

I was a Special Agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration. 

My first undercover narcotics purchase as a street agent was 

methamphetamines. That was some time ago, when my hair wasn’t 

gray. 

In 2005, Mississippi passed several new laws designed to curb 

methamphetamine production. One of them was limiting the 

amount to 3.5 grams on a daily basis and up to 9 grams in a 30- 

day period. The other was to require a log to be signed by individuals purchasing the pseudoephedrine, wherein they would have to 

provide some form of identification. We saw an initial decline in 

labs about 18 months into those laws being passed. Then they 

began to steadily climb. In 2009, we recorded 713 meth labs in the 

State; 129 children being taken away as what we call drug-endangered children being taken out of meth labs, many of whom had 

been physically and sexually abused. We had over 3,000 arrests 

from my agency alone that year, and one third of them were for 

narcotics for the first time—for methamphetamine. For the first 

time in the history of the State of Mississippi, they exceeded the 

combined total of crack and powder cocaine, those arrests. 

So we began to figure out what we were going to do as a solution. 

We looked at electronic tracking. You have already heard from 

some of the other witnesses here today about Kentucky. It was considered a gold standard State. I did a tour in Kentucky with the 

Drug Enforcement Administration; I had colleagues that were still 

there, still on the job, who told me it simply wasn’t working. Their 

meth labs were increasing. I talked to a judge in the State of Mississippi who routinely removed children of drug addicted parents 

from the custody of those parents. And he told me in the entire 

time he has been on the bench, he has never removed one child 

from a meth-addicted parent where the parents come back to court 

to even bother to petition the court to get the child back. He also 

told me numerous anecdotal stories of children, preschoolers who 

had STDs passed to them, sometimes by their own parents, methaddicted parents. 

We came to the only viable solution that we thought would do 

this after some intensive study, and that was to make 

pseudoephedrine prescription only. We enacted the law in 2010. We 

have had 2 years to study it, to see the results of what has happened here—has happened and would happen in Mississippi. We 

had the same parade of horribles, including the cost of Medicaid 

going up. And I actually have a document with me from the director of Medicaid in Mississippi for the record if you would like it 

later, showing that there has been absolutely no effect on over-thecounters. There was a requirement for prescription for over-thecounters already anyway from the Medicaid department. 

75 

We had 546 total meth incidents in the first two quarters of 

2010. In the same two quarters of this year, we have had 162. 

More importantly, in the first two quarters of 2010, from January 

through June, we had 252 actual methamphetamine labs. In the 

first two quarters of this year, we have had 17. Seventeen. That 

is a 93 percent reduction. And the only thing we have done different is schedule pseudoephedrine. The numbers speak for themselves. 

Our supporters of the prescription legislation wanted to adequately support law enforcement, protect our children, and preserve public safety. We like to say in Mississippi, there is no middle ground on meth labs; you are either for meth labs or you are 

against them. This is a self-created, self-inflicted epidemic that we 

can do something about here in the United States of America. 

We cannot control what the people in the Republic of Mexico do, 

and Afghanistan, and some of the other places, Colombia and Peru. 

We can control this. And it frees people up, investigators up to 

work on organizations who are actually bringing in methamphetamine, such as the Mexican cartels. 

Prescription-only legislation is not just the right choice; it is the 

only legitimate choice for this country. We would have money freed 

up for treatment of addicts. It would be astounding numbers. 

Most of the people with the one pot methods that we are seeing 

are addicts, 99 percent of them. One- to three-yield grams, one pot 

method. Most of these people are addicts. Putting an addict in prison is like painting your house when it is on fire. It is not a solution. Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fisher follows:] 

76 


Insert offset folio 53 here 76637.053
77 


Insert offset folio 54 here 76637.054
78 


Insert offset folio 55 here 76637.055
79 


Insert offset folio 56 here 76637.056
80 


Insert offset folio 57 here 76637.057
81 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Fisher. 

The chair would now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, 

Dr. DesJarlais. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for your testimony, for being here today. 

I had a conversation this morning with Tommy Farmer, our 

great director of Tennessee’s meth task force. And he mentioned 

several of you by name, so I assume you are friends. And we are 

very fortunate to have him. 

Let me start, Mr. Bovett, what kind of kickback have you gotten 

from the patient population in your State since this law has been 

enacted? 

Mr. BOVETT. Congressman, the short answer and one-word answer is none. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. So who is in the greatest opposition to 

Sudafed becoming a controlled substance? 

Mr. BOVETT. Congressman, the pharmaceutical industry, and primarily, not directly the pharmaceutical industry, but primarily 

through their surrogates, various foundations and associations that 

virtually represent them. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Mr. Fisher, you concur with that? 

Mr. FISHER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. You know, clearly the NPLEx system 

that we have in Tennessee, I think this panel is saying that it just 

simply is not effective; it is not working. Back when it was not in 

place, an individual could go out and buy 100 boxes. Now with 

smurfing, a 100 individuals go out and buy one box, and there just 

simply has not been any significant decrease in the number of labs. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. GRELLNER. Yes. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Mr. Fisher, or actually Mr. Bovett, I was 

just looking at some of the numbers. The surrounding States 

around Oregon, some people say it is just going to increase. It looks 

like to me the numbers in Washington, Idaho, California have 

dropped since your law has been passed. Is that just statistical 

noise or is there a reason for that? 

Mr. BOVETT. Congressman, there is a reason for that. We saw a 

definite drop in meth labs across the Nation, including the Northwest and the West Coast following the Combat Meth Epidemic Act. 

But the resurgence in the West Coast is different than it is in your 

part of the Nation. The resurgence in the West Coast is a resurgence toward super labs in California. So there is massive amounts 

of smurfing going on in cities like Las Vegas and Reno and Phoenix 

and Seattle every day. But primarily, that fuels the super labs in 

California, as I mentioned. And so Nevada, for example, held a 

hearing on this very issue last year and is developing momentum 

to do this. They have just a handful of meth labs each year. And 

why would they do that? Because smurfing, as mentioned by the 

other speakers, smurfing has become an enormous problem in 

those States with the black market, with even heroin addicts being 

able to convert $5 to $50 or $100. So it has manifested itself slightly different in the last few years. 

I would also caution you about some of the numbers that the industry banters around. They tend to use a Federal database that 

82 

is not exactly accurate. For example, Washington State doesn’t accurately and fully report their meth lab incidents to the Federal 

Government. So there are issues relating to that as well. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Let me play devil’s advocate just for a second. 

I would like to see what your opinions are. Would you all agree 

that prescription narcotic abuse is on the rise and becoming a huge 

problem? Okay. So here we have a situation where you have controlled substances, and it is increasing. I am sure if those drugs 

were over-the-counter, the problem would be astronomically higher. 

What would you say to critics that say those systems aren’t working? If we make Sudafed a controlled substance, why do we think 

that will work when we already have tools in place? 

And—Mr. Grellner? 

Mr. GRELLNER. The main reason we have such a prescription 

drug abuse problem here in the United States is because of opiate 

pain relievers. And pain is subjective. A doctor such as yourself has 

to reply on his patient to tell him the amount of pain he is in and 

the quality of that pain. 

This is an objective problem. If you have inflammation in your 

sinus and ear canals, that can be objectively looked at by the doctor, and the proper medication can be administered by the doctor. 

They are two different subjects. Prescription drug abuse is a horrible problem, but it is opioid pain relievers at over 5 million 

abuses a year that is the problem with prescription drug abuse, not 

pseudoephedrine. 

Mr. BOVETT. If I could just briefly add—— 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Mr. Bovett. 

Mr. BOVETT. —from Oregon’s actual over 6 years of experience, 

we do have, as I mentioned, a handful of meth labs incidents each 

year. We trace the pseudoephedrine to its source. And in over 6 

years of actual experience, we have not had a single meth lab incident where the pseudoephedrine was prescribed pseudoephedrine. 

For all the reasons that Mr. Grellner has outlined, plus a few more, 

we just don’t see that as a problem, and it hasn’t occurred. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Mr. Grellner, you mentioned burn units. 

I just wanted to mention our largest burn unit in Tennessee, 

Vanderbilt University, right now fully one third of the burn patients there are meth-related burns. And I think our cost is about 

$10,000 a day. 

Mr. GRELLNER. Vanderbilt University burn unit in 2009 spent $9 

million of their own money on uninsured meth lab burn victims. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Unfortunately, that light is red over there. I 

would love to visit with you more. But thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. 

The chair would now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me thank the gentlemen for your testimony. As a matter of 

fact, I was sitting here thinking that I have heard lots of testimony 

during the many years that I have been a member of legislative 

bodies, and yours is perhaps the most compelling that I have heard 

in terms of a very clear direction for what can become a real impact 

on—not totally eradicating but certainly putting a serious damper 

83 

on a problem. If the information that we have gathered from the 

Oregon and Mississippi experiences, then it is difficult for me to 

think of any reason that we couldn’t duplicate those experiences 

throughout the country. 

Let me ask, Mr. Brooks, as the national leader, have you heard 

much reason why we couldn’t duplicate across the country the experiences of Mississippi and Oregon? 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, I can tell you the primary reason has been the 

strong push by industry to oppose it. We tried to pass a very similar law in California, SB 486, where we received deep opposition, 

a very strong lobbying effort by industry to prevent that. They 

were successful. They derailed our bill. Other States and other 

local government entities, counties and cities that have tried to 

schedule pseudoephedrine have had the same experience. 

So we really think that the answer here is a national law. We 

think that the evidence, as you say, sir, is very clear. This works. 

It is not a hypothesis. It is a proven fact. But we have got to overcome the push, the push by industry. This is a multibillion dollar 

industry. The over-the-counter pseudoephedrine industry is a 

multi—there is a lot at stake. And I think we have to collectively 

as a Nation have the courage to step up and do what is right for 

our kids and our communities. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, even, I was trying to rationalize why industry— 

of course, you could see some concern. But then if the products are 

so good, physicians are going to be prescribing them anyway to a 

real degree, I would assume. 

Dr. DesJarlais, would that not be the—— 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. If the gentleman would yield, as far as Sudafed 

being so good, phenylephrine is also good. It is being dosed in lower 

milligrams than it could be or that it is in other countries. Sudafed 

also brings a lot of worries for our diabetic hypertension patients 

and clearly children. So I think there are viable alternatives. 

Mr. DAVIS. Yeah. But even so, it probably would still be receiving 

a great deal of consideration on the part of people who need it to 

make use of it. 

And I guess for me, the good that it would do certainly outweighs 

whatever disadvantage it might cause. I mean, I for one would be 

prepared to support at this moment national legislation to—if we 

can reduce the number of labs that are being created, if we can 

prevent the kind of accidents that are occurring and taking place, 

and then the ultimate impact on the lives of the individuals who 

become addicted, then it seems to me that it is as clear as day that 

we need to move in the direction that you have suggested. And no 

matter what the opposition might be, you would certainly have one 

vote in the House of Representatives in favor. I thank you for your 

testimony. 

And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. The chair would 

now recognize himself for 5 minutes of questions. 

I want to preface it by saying I want to play the devil’s advocate, 

just because somebody is going to ask the questions, and we got to 

be prepared for it. 

I will start with Mr. District Attorney, you had wonderful success 

in Oregon. The gentleman from Mississippi has outlined wonderful 

84 

success. You had no blowback from physicians, which is unusual, 

none from patients. Why have the 48 other States not followed 

suit? 

Mr. BOVETT. I think this is in part, Mr. Chairman, alluded to 

earlier, the industry. The industry is very successful in lobbying 

and preventing this legislation from moving forward. 

Mr. GOWDY. What argument do they use that is most compelling 

with State legislators in the face of the overwhelming evidence you 

and others outlined to the contrary? 

Mr. BOVETT. Mr. Chairman, I think Kentucky is the perfect example, where they have had the electronic tracking system in place 

for the longest period of time, and it simply failed to deliver the 

promise to reduce meth labs or smurfing. It is an investigative tool, 

and that is all it is. 

So the argument they make is one of patient access. The arguments they make are the parade of horribles that have been mentioned. All these bad things are going to happen. And in Kentucky, 

they actually set a new record, the State record for the amount 

spent on lobbying. And that doesn’t even include their public campaign in terms of advertising. Massive amounts of money they 

spent to kill the bill in Kentucky this year. We simply can’t compete with that. 

Mr. GOWDY. Special Agent Dorsey, I want to lay aside 

OxyContin, Lortab, the pain treatments because I understand the 

point that Mr. Grellner and the district attorney made. But we 

have also prosecuted Phentermine and Fenfluramine, which are 

diet pills, that were entire cottage industries and still are around 

bariatric medicine for weight loss. What is to say that we won’t 

have those same mills crop up when it comes to runny noses and 

sniffling, and instead of this panel of experts, we will have DEA 

diversion experts saying we need more help going after doctors who 

are essentially prescription mills? 

Mr. DORSEY. Mr. Congressman, as you well know, drug addicts 

are quite creative. And there are opportunities and ways that they 

will go out there, and they will come up with techniques that will 

surprise you and I. But here is an opportunity to—it is an inconvenience. It will be an inconvenience. But what I would point to 

you is in my State alone, since NPLEx has been going on since 

January 1 of 2011, from the numbers we have been able to show, 

only approximately 15 percent of South Carolinians are buying this 

stuff, which surprised me. 

Mr. GOWDY. Have you seen prosecutors who are willing to roll up 

smurfs in Title 21 conspiracies or whatever the State equivalent is 

in South Carolina? 

Mr. DORSEY. I can’t speak to the Federal side. I am aware of a 

State grand jury case in South Carolina that did that. The problem 

is that hole that you create from sending those people to prison fills 

up so fast. And so that is just not a practical solution, the prosecution of these people. Because again, for every person you put in 

prison, you are going to have 10 more to replace them. 

Mr. GOWDY. I think they call it the hydra effect. All right. 

I am going to do what I love do with law enforcement officers, 

which is talk philosophy. From a philosophical standpoint, the public is tired of having its behavior changed because a certain perVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:13 Nov 27, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\76637.TXT APRIL
85 

centage of people just will not, cannot comply with the law. I doubt 

you all have worked very many or prosecuted very many arson 

cases that did not involve an accelerant, but there has been no discussion of scheduling gasoline or kerosene. You have never worked 

a bank robbery case where there was a demand note and anyone 

advocated that we do away with papers and pens. Or a stabbing 

that didn’t involve a sharp edge. And I understand that these are 

somewhat absurd examples. 

But nonetheless, there is a frustration within the public that it 

is always us that is inconvenienced because of the criminal element, while the criminal element, to your point, Agent Dorsey, is 

just going to find another way around it. So how do you strike the 

balance between—and you have convinced me. I was convinced before I got here; it is an epidemic. All the things that you all have 

said about methamphetamine times 10 are true. But how do you 

strike the balance with the law-abiding public versus the criminal 

element when it comes to placing barriers? And whoever has read 

Kant most recently can take a stab at it. 

Mr. GRELLNER. Can I stake a stab at it for you? 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GRELLNER. We are not inconveniencing a large amount of society. It is being inconvenienced already by the meth labs. A Rand 

study in 2007 said United States taxpayers in 2005, on the low 

end, spent $23.4 billion on the meth lab problem in the United 

States. We are all being impacted by it already. 

When I look at the sales of pseudoephedrine in Oregon, a State 

of 3.9 million Americans, they are selling about 9,700 boxes of 

pseudoephedrine a month by prescription. When you come to the 

great State of Missouri and look at the tracking system, a State of 

6 million people, that would mean we should sell about 15,000 

boxes a month. We are selling between 120,000 and 165,000 boxes 

a month; 90 percent of these sales go directly diverted to methamphetamine laboratories. They are not being used. They are a 

commodity. When we have individuals standing on parking lots of 

pharmacies paying people $20 to go inside and buy 

pseudoephedrine to bring back outside so they can sell it to a meth 

lab for $100, it is not a commodity any more, sir, it is a currency. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. Last question because my time is up, and 

I know none of you are old enough to have been around in 1976 

when the decision was made to take it from prescription to OTC. 

Mr. BROOKS. I was. 

Mr. GOWDY. Probably. By the looks, none of you were around. 

What was the argument made in 1976 of why we need to take this 

from prescription to OTC? 

Mr. BOVETT. If I can answer that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Sure. 

Mr. BOVETT. I have done an extensive study on the history of 

this, wrote a law review article about it, spent a lot of time on this. 

This actually began in 1962 with a mandate from Congress to 

the FDA to study a broad spectrum of drugs to decide which drugs 

should be allowed to be sold over the counter as a modernization 

effort. It took them basically 14 years to get the monograph established for OTC cold and allergy medicines. And so they went 

through an analysis of what was safe and effective for use. And the 

86 

primary problem with that analysis is it looked at the drug itself 

for its intended purpose. It didn’t look at the drug for its illicit purpose. So while the DEA and some at the DEA said, hey, we don’t 

think you ought do this, they were looking just at the confines of 

the drug itself. Is it safe and effective? 

Now, I actually have arguments—I would love to talk with the 

good doctor at some point—about why this drug should never have 

been moved from the schedule to OTC to begin with based upon its 

pharmacology, but that is a separate argument. I think that is the 

answer to your question. 

Mr. GOWDY. With that, I will recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy. 

And you know, the problem of meth in my State of Missouri is 

very troubling. In fact, Jefferson County, which is close to my district, has had by far the largest number of meth labs in the State. 

The meth problem is so pervasive that some people call it 

Metherson County. 

Detective Sergeant Grellner, in Missouri meth is a formidable 

foe. And I appreciate your efforts to eradicate this menace from our 

State. And as president of the Missouri Narcotics Officers and as 

a narcotics unit commander, I know you have had specialized training. Could you detail for us training for law enforcement, the 

equipment necessary to uncover the clandestine meth labs and 

interact with children on the scene and handle those combustible 

products? 

Mr. GRELLNER. Yes, sir. Thank you. First off, it takes four officers to do a methamphetamine laboratory and specialized training. 

It takes 48 hours of specialized training given to us by the DEA. 

So it takes them out of my office for a week to 2 weeks in Washington, D.C., at the DEA training academy. Once they come back 

to me, then we have to buy suits that cost up to $500 per suit to 

wear on the scene with the new flame retardant properties that 

they have. Special air-purifying respirators are necessary, as well 

as self-contained breathing apparatus and specialized air-monitoring units. Sitting on my parking lot right now is a $250,000 vehicle that we take to methamphetamine laboratory sites to fight 

meth labs. That money could have been better spent in the Department of Corrections working on the rehabilitation of individuals 

that are addicted to different drugs. 

On top of that, when those four officers go out to the scene, they 

are photographed by the press and the media, and they can no 

longer work undercover on problems such as prescription drug 

abuse and heroin and cocaine. They spend several hours on the 

scene. Then they must transfer hats and become a hazardous waste 

company and clean up the hazardous waste that is left behind. 

They have to transport that to specialized buildings throughout the 

State of Missouri, where they must store the hazardous waste, categorize the hazardous waste and make it for pick up by the EPA. 

Then they have to write their reports and testify in court. Oklahoma did a study in their State that said one meth lab with conviction cost their State $350,000 per conviction. 

Mr. CLAY. That really strains law enforcement budgets throughout the country, I am sure. Over 45 cities and towns in Missouri 

87 

require consumers to have a doctor’s prescription to buy any form 

of pseudoephedrine. This applies to about 400 pharmacies and 

businesses. How effective have the local ordinances been in halting 

the sale of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine within the local communities? 

Mr. GRELLNER. First, I am happy to report that that number has 

gone from 45 communities to 71. Almost 600 pharmacies now require a prescription in the State of Missouri. The State of Missouri 

also has a tracking system, fully implemented and been online 

since January 1, 2011. The State of Missouri realized a 6.8 percent 

increase in meth labs in 2011. However, the area in southeast Missouri bordering Kentucky and Tennessee, two other high States for 

meth labs, where most of these cities are located, saw a 52 percent 

drop in meth labs in their area in 1 year’s time. And sales of 

pseudoephedrine are down from 165,000 boxes to 120,000 boxes in 

June of this year. 

And when I have gone for the last 3 years to over 200 city and 

county council meetings, the question that I am asked by every 

committee, have you told this to the State government and have 

you told this to the Federal Government? Why haven’t they taken 

care of the problem? Why do we at the city and county level have 

to take care of a problem that is a national problem? 

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Brooks or anyone else on the panel, can you discuss the increase of meth use in urban and suburban areas? 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, I think, you know, certainly we are seeing, 

and you have heard testimony on dramatic increases of meth use 

and meth labs. I think the problem we are dealing with here is 

really that domestic meth lab production problem. Because we are 

going to continue to get meth brought in from other source countries. 

You know, so clearly the issue here is not as much about use, although it certainly is, it is more about reducing that dangerous 

toxic problem in our communities. Children in meth labs, toxic 

waste dumping into our waterways and into our communities, dangerous to first responders, police officers and other first responders 

that you heard Sergeant Grellner describe. I personally have held 

the hand of two friends as they died from cancer that were police 

officers that had worked in meth labs. And I have had countless 

other friends that are suffering from that. The impact on our community budgets. 

And I will tell you the other thing, sir, the thing that is really 

tough right now, these are labor-intensive investigations. In California, we have had such dramatic cuts in budgets, we have now 

at least a 70 percent reduction in law enforcement resources to 

work drug crimes. Seventy percent fewer cops to work these drug 

crimes. And so when we start to see some reductions, I think part 

of why we see reductions is because we don’t have anybody out 

there looking; we don’t have anybody out there able to work these 

crimes. And California is not the only State in the Union that is 

cash strapped. 

Clearly, if we are going to have an impact on environmental impact, on the drug-endangered children problem, on the danger to 

cops and firefighters, we are going to need to control 

pseudoephedrine. 

88 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Missouri. 

With your indulgence, because we do have such a wonderful 

panel of witnesses, and this is such an important issue, if your 

time allows, we are going to perhaps go to what we call a second 

round or a lightning round. I will do my best to reduce the time 

to 3 minutes that we have from 5. 

Are you all amenable to that? Will your schedules allow? 

With that, I would recognize the doctor from Tennessee, Dr. 

DesJarlais. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I think, as my good friend Chairman Gowdy said, we need 

to take advantage of the witnesses we have before us. Let’s assume 

that what we have been talking about today happens, and we do 

pass a law that allows that this become a prescription or controlled 

substance. That is going to turn the attention back to the physicians, the prescribers, and the law enforcement. We were at a meth 

summit in Crossville, Tennessee, and had over 100 law enforcement agents. And I found it interesting that I quickly removed my 

congressional hat and put on my physician hat, because I felt there 

was a great disconnect between law enforcement and physicians. 

And we were talking more about narcotic drug abuse. But do you 

find that there is maybe poor communication between law enforcement and physicians? And if so, what can we do to improve that? 

Mr. FISHER. If you don’t mind, I will take that one. In our effort 

to schedule pseudoephedrine in Mississippi, I approached the Mississippi State Medical Association, the Board of Pharmacy, the 

Nursing Board, Board of Health. The Medical Association got on 

board with us. And now with the prescription drug abuse issue, we 

have the prescription drug monitoring program in Mississippi. And 

we are having a difficult time getting physicians to buy in to use 

the PDNP, if you will. Most of the States have it; some of them are 

in various forms. But one of the things that was useful with us 

with respect to scheduling pseudoephedrine is we have got a population of roughly 3 million, give or take a few there. There are 

somewhere north of between 500,000 and 550,000 prescriptions 

written on a monthly basis. Two-and-a-half to 3 percent at the 

highest is what we have seen with Sudafed prescriptions, and that 

is at the height of the cold and flu season. But what I have encouraged other law enforcement counterparts to do across the country 

is to establish those relationships with the medical community. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. I would just say we have an opportunity. Right 

now in Congress, we have a large number of physicians; we have 

a Physician Caucus with 20 members, over 600 years experience. 

And I can speak I think for 95-plus percent of physicians; there are 

bad apples in every profession, and you all know who they are. And 

through pain management clinics, there have been ways to skirt 

the rules and look legal even though we all know pill mills are out 

there. But I would encourage meetings with our caucus and ways 

to open those channels of communication. Because I can guarantee 

you physicians don’t want to have to treat meth patients. They 

don’t want to see these burn labs. And I think because of regulations, whether it is HIPAA or other compliance issues, there is 

some paranoia among physicians about what their rights are in 

89 

terms of reporting patients and using these databases. So that was 

the one thing we established that I think we are on—I know we 

are on the same team, the vast majority of us. And we need to find 

a better way to deal with this. 

Mr. BOVETT. If I could add just briefly, Congressman, I would 

echo all of your sentiments and Marshall Fisher’s as well. What 

happened in 2005 in Oregon is our physician community, our dental community, our nurses, our pharmacists were all part of the solution. And actually, they were some of the champions for it. What 

that has done is it has paid off in dividends subsequent to that because we now have—we didn’t before have a working relationship 

or dialogue about things like prescription drug abuse, which we 

never had before. So, actually, we kind of came together to deal 

with meth labs. And we came away from that with friends and 

partnerships. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. I see my time has once again expired. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. It goes so quickly, doesn’t it? Thank the gentleman 

from Tennessee. 

We now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess my one question would be, how do we increase the collaboration between all of the components? As we have had this 

fight against proliferation of drug use, both prescription drugs, yes, 

there are people who abuse them, and abuse them greatly, but 

then it is the illegal drugs that we see that have taken such a drastic toll on our society as a whole. I come from an environment 

where our county jail can’t keep the people who are picked up. Actually, we have more than 10,000 people. I think we have the largest county jail system and the largest unified court system in the 

country. And we are spending enormous amounts of money. How 

do we increase this collaboration between all components of the 

community to reduce our reliance upon drugs? 

Mr. BOVETT. Congressman, very briefly, I can only speak from 

the Oregon experience, I saw that dramatic change occur in 2004 

in Oregon because everybody was operating in their own silos. And 

what happened was our Governor had the foresight and wisdom to 

put us all in the same room. So he called together prevention, and 

treatment, and enforcement, and most importantly, the recovery 

community, and he said, come up with real solutions. And once we 

started working with each other and talking to each other, the 

amount we could accomplish together was phenomenally greater 

than the individual silos. 

Mr. GRELLNER. Speaking from my task force, we are the first 

task force I know of in the country that in its own building incorporates prevention, enforcement, and rehabilitation. We understand to have that impact, you have to have all three working together. We hold NA and AA meetings at our building. We provide 

housing for the drug court participants. We provide training for the 

drug court participants. And we also allow training for prevention 

programs in the high schools and junior highs. You have to bring 

those three together like a three-legged stool. 

Mr. DAVIS. I thank you very much. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Would the gentleman yield? 

90 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Not to down downplay the impact of the illegal 

drugs, but I know someone on the panel wanted to say it. The rate 

of overdose from drugs is higher with controlled substances, prescription drugs, than it is illegal drugs. Is that the case? 

Mr. BOVETT. Yes. 

Mr. GRELLNER. Yes. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Just to be aware of how severe that problem is. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, I appreciate your understanding of the entire 

system, and especially the whole question of recovery. I do something once a year called a recovery walk. And I usually have 300, 

400 recovering individuals who might walk 2 or 3 miles, or whatever we decide. And I think the understanding that comprehensively is the only approach that really will work to reduce the dependence upon external substances. So I appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. 

I am going to continue with my trend of anticipating the defense 

argument. 

There is a bill pending in Congress right now, Mr. District Attorney, dealing with copper theft, which is also an epidemic. And at 

first blush, you want to sign on to it because it is a horrible problem in South Carolina. I assume it is in other places, too. People 

disabling air conditioning, construction sites. But then you stop and 

think, well, if somebody goes to a neighborhood in Greenville or 

Spartanburg, South Carolina, and cuts the copper from an air conditioning units and then takes it to a scrap metal dealer, where is 

the interstate nexus? You saw the Supreme Court in Lopez, despite 

the fact that we don’t want guns on schools, say that the Gun-Free 

School Zone Act was unconstitutional because there wasn’t sufficient interstate nexus. You saw with Morrison, we all live with domestic violence, which is a horrific epidemic nationwide, and certainly in South Carolina. And in Morrison the Supreme Court 

struck down Congress’ efforts to fix that, saying that it was not sufficiently nexused with interstate commerce. I understand the 

schedules are already Federal. If Congress passed something and 

gave the States an opt out, how many States would opt out? How 

many States are you having trouble not just persuading them that 

there is a problem, but how many States would affirmatively opt 

out if there were a Federal solution? 

Mr. BOVETT. Mr. Chair, I am not exactly sure. I believe this is 

a Federal matter. It long has been a Federal matter. The schedules 

are controlled federally. So I think there frankly shouldn’t be an 

opt out. Because the minute you have an opt out, you create a hole, 

you create a hole that basically bleeds out through the neighboring 

States. Because the pseudoephedrine in my State that is used to 

make the meth labs happen is from Washington, Idaho, and California. I don’t want Washington opting out and electing to essentially subject me to what should be their meth labs. It doesn’t make 

sense as a national policy to do an opt out. 

I do understand your concern with the case law and the trends 

we have been moving forward. I think, again, looking at Oregon, 

back to your scrap metal example, we struggled for years mightily 

with that issue, until they finally got tired of it, and they came to 

me and I crafted up some legislation that so far has been working. 

91 

But it wasn’t something that I could have got done in 2000. We had 

to go through about 10 years of trauma before we got to people 

willing to actually implement a real solution. And we have gone 

through 35 years of trauma when it comes to pseudoephedrine. It 

is past time to actually implement a real solution. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. Last question. 

Our culture prefers prison; other cultures prefer other means of 

corrective measure. Have you ever made an effort to publicize the 

stores that are selling a disproportionate amount of ephedrine or 

pseudoephedrine, or name the pharmaceutical companies that are 

uncooperative? 

Mr. GRELLNER. Yes, sir. I look at the—I pore over the files that 

come in from the database every month, and I post the top 30 

stores in our State that are selling pseudoephedrine, which happen 

to be in the top 10 counties for meth labs. Right now, one corporation, one large chain store owns nine of the highest selling stores 

in the State out of the top 10. They own 17 out of the top 20. And 

they continue to sell. They sell cold packs that are used to manufacture meth in one pot bottles. They are an eight-pack box now, 

an eight-pack box of instant cold packs. And now can you buy one 

for $9.99 and get another one at 50 percent off. Who needs 16 instant cold packs? Someone who manufactures methamphetamine. 

Mr. GOWDY. So if you were testifying at trial and I asked you in 

front of the jury whether or not you had exhausted every other 

means of combating this epidemic shy of scheduling ephedrine and 

pseudoephedrine, your answer would be? 

Mr. GRELLNER. Yes, sir. I have worked on this problem and 

worked on legislation since 1999 and have been pushed back by industry every year with a solution that does not work. And I am 

baffled why legislators, when listening to officers on the street, 

don’t believe us. 

Mr. GOWDY. The chair would now recognize the gentleman from 

Missouri, Mr. Clay. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Detective Grellner, along those same lines of questioning, 

what has been the response of the large retailers when you have 

brought the issue to them and had strong evidence that they were 

supplying this chain of meth manufacturing? 

Mr. GRELLNER. I liken it to if a constituent called in and said 

that there was a man on the corner in your area selling 90 percent 

of the heroin in your area, you would expect law enforcement to go 

to that corner, immediately stop that man from doing that, incarcerate him, rehabilitate him, and take care of the problem. Our 

street corners in Missouri, especially in the St. Louis metropolitan 

area, are lined with big box pharmacy stores that are selling 90 

percent of their pseudoephedrine diverted to methamphetamine 

laboratories hiding behind FDA rulings, their attorneys, and their 

lobbying efforts. 

Mr. CLAY. Let me ask Mr. Bovett, I have a letter here from my 

local chapter of the NAACP. Let me share with you what they 

highlight: It is our firm belief that efforts to combat meth production should be focused on legislative solutions that target criminals, 

not law-abiding citizens. In the past, some lawmakers have advocated for a mandate that would force all consumers to obtain a docVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:13 Nov 27, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\76637.TXT APRIL
92 

tor’s prescription before buying common cold and allergy medicines 

containing pseudoephedrine because some criminals misuse those 

medicines to make meth. We strongly oppose that approach. It 

would raise costs for thousands of St. Louis residents. Not only 

would a prescription requirement lead to additional copays and fuel 

costs, it would also result in lost wages for workers who are forced 

to take time off from work to visit a doctor. 

What would be your response to the St. Louis chapter of the 

NAACP? 

Mr. BOVETT. Congressman, I would say that I am a little bit surprised at that approach. I think they need to maybe do a little 

more research, find out what the real implications of doing this are. 

That sounds more like the pharmaceutical industry’s parade of 

horribles. I would also encourage them to check with the California 

chapter of the NAACP, which actually testified literally right next 

to me in favor of Senate Bill 484 in California, which Mr. Brooks 

mentioned, saying that prevention is the correct approach, not arrest and incarceration. 

And what we have before you here today is a pure prevention solution to the meth lab problem, because frankly, law enforcement 

does not want to track down, arrest, and incarcerate more smurfers 

and meth cooks. It is an endless supply. We want to actually prevent the problem. 

So I would encourage your chapter of the NAACP to contact us, 

maybe do a little further research. I think they will realize what 

we are proposing is a prevention solution, and just the opposite of 

the criminalization approach that they are proposing. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Missouri. 

Again, on behalf of all of us, we cannot thank you enough for 

your time, for loaning us your expertise. I think you have convinced 

everyone, if they didn’t already know that it is an epidemic, and 

we value your perspective, or at least I do very much. 

So, with that, our committee would stand adjourned. 

[The information follows:] 

[Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

93 


Insert offset folio 58 here 76637.058
94 


Insert offset folio 59 here 76637.059
95 


Insert offset folio 60 here 76637.060
96 


Insert offset folio 61 here 76637.061
97 


Insert offset folio 62 here 76637.062
98 


Insert offset folio 63 here 76637.063
99 


Insert offset folio 64 here 76637.064
100 


Insert offset folio 65 here 76637.065
101 


Insert offset folio 68 here 76637.068
102 


Insert offset folio 69 here 76637.069
103 


Insert offset folio 70 here 76637.070
104 


Insert offset folio 73 here 76637.073
105 


Insert offset folio 74 here 76637.074
106 


Insert offset folio 75 here 76637.075
107 


Insert offset folio 78 here 76637.078
108 


Insert offset folio 79 here 76637.079
109 


Insert offset folio 80 here 76637.080
110 


Insert offset folio 81 here 76637.081
111 


Insert offset folio 82 here 76637.082
112 


Insert offset folio 85 here 76637.085
113 


Insert offset folio 86 here 76637.086
114 


Insert offset folio 87 here 76637.087
115 


Insert offset folio 88 here 76637.088
116 


Insert offset folio 89 here 76637.089
117 


Insert offset folio 90 here 76637.090
118 


Insert offset folio 91 here 76637.091
119 


Insert offset folio 92 here 76637.092
120 


Insert offset folio 93 here 76637.093
121 


Insert offset folio 94 here 76637.094
122 


Insert offset folio 95 here 76637.095
123 


Insert offset folio 96 here 76637.096
124 


Insert offset folio 97 here 76637.097
125 


Insert offset folio 98 here 76637.098
126 


Insert offset folio 99 here 76637.099
127 


Insert offset folio 100 here 76637.100
128 


Insert offset folio 101 here 76637.101
129 


Insert offset folio 102 here 76637.102
130 


Insert offset folio 103 here 76637.103
131 


Insert offset folio 104 here 76637.104
132 


Insert offset folio 105 here 76637.105
133 


Insert offset folio 106 here 76637.106
134 


Insert offset folio 107 here 76637.107
135 


Insert offset folio 108 here 76637.108
136 


Insert offset folio 109 here 76637.109
137 


Insert offset folio 110 here 76637.110
138 


Insert offset folio 111 here 76637.111
139 


Insert offset folio 112 here 76637.112
140 


Insert offset folio 113 here 76637.113
141 


Insert offset folio 114 here 76637.114
142 


Insert offset folio 115 here 76637.115
143 


Insert offset folio 116 here 76637.116
144 


Insert offset folio 117 here 76637.117
145 


Insert offset folio 118 here 76637.118
146 


Insert offset folio 119 here 76637.119
147 


Insert offset folio 120 here 76637.120
148 


Insert offset folio 121 here 76637.121
149 


Insert offset folio 122 here 76637.122
150 


Insert offset folio 123 here 76637.123
151 


Insert offset folio 124 here 76637.124
152 


Insert offset folio 125 here 76637.125
153 


Insert offset folio 126 here 76637.126
154 


Insert offset folio 127 here 76637.127
155 


Insert offset folio 128 here 76637.128
156 


Insert offset folio 129 here 76637.129
157 


Insert offset folio 130 here 76637.130
158 


Insert offset folio 131 here 76637.131
159 


Insert offset folio 132 here 76637.132
160 


Insert offset folio 133 here 76637.133
161 


Insert offset folio 134 here 76637.134
162 


Insert offset folio 135 here 76637.135
163 


Insert offset folio 136 here 76637.136
164 


Insert offset folio 137 here 76637.137
165 


Insert offset folio 138 here 76637.138
166 


Insert offset folio 139 here 76637.139
167 


Insert offset folio 140 here 76637.140
168 


Insert offset folio 141 here 76637.141
169 


Insert offset folio 142 here 76637.142
170 


Insert offset folio 143 here 76637.143
171 


Insert offset folio 144 here 76637.144
172 


Insert offset folio 145 here 76637.145
173 


Insert offset folio 146 here 76637.146
174 


Insert offset folio 147 here 76637.147
175 


Insert offset folio 148 here 76637.148
176 


Insert offset folio 149 here 76637.149
177 

Æ