Senator CANNON. What does that amount to in a year?

Dr. RICH. In our own institution it is about 3,000 dogs a year. Senator CANNON. And were they able to supply a greater number than that if you had requested?

Dr. RICH. Yes, sir. I indicated they put to death 80,000 dogs a

year.

Senator CANNON. I did not know whether that was just 80,000 that you did not require. A lot of dogs, of course

Dr. RICH. Are not suitable.

Senator CANNON (continuing). Are turned in with a request that they be put to death, and lots of others are not suitable.

Dr. RICH. A lot of dogs are too small. We require for our research purposes dogs weighing about 40 pounds and over. Many dogs are much too small for us, and there are, of course, a few dogs who are ill and should be put to sleep.

Senator CANNON. Then you acquire your dogs, then, simply by paying the pound fees?

Dr. RICH. Yes sir. Five dollars.

Senator CANNON. And you do not have to go out and purchase on the market at all?

Dr. RICH. That is correct.

Senator CANNON. Have there been complaints of stolen animals in the Los Angeles area?

Dr. RICH. I have a little newspaper clipping here in which George Crozier, general manager of the Los Angeles SPCA, said, and I quote:

So far we have never been able to uncover an organized ring of dognapers in this area.

He further states:

Further animals for laboratory purposes are easily and inexpensively available through southern California's various operations.

Senator CANNON. That is all I have.

Senator MONRONEY. Senator Dominick.

Senator DOMINICK. Doctor, I was interested in just reviewing your prepared statement in which you indicated that this bill was designed to say you could not get anything from the pound. I do not read the bill that way at all.

Dr. RICH. According to what I read, S. 2322 on the top of page 3 says, "No research facility shall purchase any dogs or cats except from a licensed dealer."

Senator DOMINICK. And the term "dealer" is defined on page 3. Dr. RICH. Of course, I indicated this sentence must be deleted. Senator DOMINACK. The term "dealer" is defined on page 3 as "any person who for compensation"

Dr. RICH. But we compensate the pounds. I don't know, but they could interpret this possibly as being considered a dealer when it says "for compensation." That is why I also requested that the term "dealer" be defined a little differently.

Senator DOMINICK. That is all I have.

Senator MONRONEY. Thank you for your testimony, Dr. Rich. (The prepared statement of Dr. Rich follows:)

STATEMENT OF DR. RICH

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Sigmund T. Rich. I live at 814 Teakwood Road, Los Angeles, Calif. I am a doctor of veterinary medicine whose professional interests and activities involve the use of animals in research. I am the administrator of the animal care facilities center for the health sciences, a lecturer in the department of physiology, school of medicine, and campus veterinarian at the University of California at Los Angeles. I am also a member of the training staff for postdoctoral studies in Laboratory Animal Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis.

My daily duties require participation in administrative, clinical, teaching, and research activities.

Administrative duties consist of the procurement of animals, feed, cages, equipment, and supplies, the hiring, training and supervision of over 40 people dedicated to the proper care of over 40,000 animals.

The clinical duties of a veterinarian engaged in laboratory animal medicine involve almost all branches of clinical medicine-anesthesia, surgery, diagnosis, treatment, clinical pathology, post mortem examinations, etc., for a large number of species.

Teaching duties are performed at several levels. A course is given to graduate students and postdoctoral fellows on the proper use of animals in research. Onthe-job training programs for animal caretakers and technicians are held weekly. The highest order of teaching is with the individual investigators who come to us with problems of experimental design, the choice of biological models-that is the species and strain of the animal best suited for a particular series of experiments, and the problems of sporadic diseases and other undesirable variables that may affect their experiments.

Our research activities are of an applied nature usually arising from the needs of the investigators, such as unusual anesthetic and surgical techniques, the development of exotic species with unique characteristics that would render them valuable as biological models and the search for disease states in animals resembling those of man.

I am a member of the Animal Care Advisory Committee of the California State Department of Public Health, a member of the board of directors of the animal are panel, a member of the American Veterinary Medical Association, California Veterinary Medical Association, and the Southern California Veterinary Association. I am a consultant to the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, an associate member of the American College of LaboraCory Animal Medicine, a past president of the Medical Research Association of California, a past president of the southern California chapter of the animal care panel, and a former U.S. Army Veterinary Corps officer with over 5 years of active duty during World War II.

I hope the foregoing indicates my intensive and active concern for the health and welfare of animals for more than a quarter of a century and evidence of my otal involvement in the procurement, care, and use of animals in research. Within the context of these hearings I can be considered the "consumer" of animals intended for experimental purposes and that I am "up front on the iring line."

I appear before you today as the representative of the Medical Research Association of California, a nonprofit corporation organized in 1948, in order o bring attention to the importance of medical research and to promote a avorable legal and social environment for its growth. Its membership of ap›roximately 2,000 individuals is composed of doctors, dentists, veterinarians, ublic health workers, pharmacists, research workers, and informed laymen who recognize that our life and health are directly dependent on continued reearch activities. Almost 50 universities, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, erospace firms, and other organizations associated with the health of our comnunity are institutional members. Our motto is “devoted to better health for all iving things through research."

I have four purposes in appearing before you today:

(1) To register my opposition to several bills under consideration by this ommittee. With all due respect to the honorable Members of Congress who ntroduced them-we believe these bills to be unrealistic in terms of execution, etrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the people, inimical to hedical progress, and injurious to our country's valuable livestock and animal set populations.

(2) To tell you something about how constructive laws in California tion to serve the public interests, safeguard pet owners and their pets, provide suitable animals for teaching, research, and testing activities. (3) To provide you with some background information that may be helpt. in your deliberations.

(4) To suggest a means whereby Congress can obtain knowledgeable as ance to frame constructive and beneficial legislation regarding the effective py curement, proper transportation, kind handling, and humane care and u animals required for teaching, testing, and research activities which are vi to the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the United St as well as their livestock and animal pet populations.

Let it be clearly understood, we favor and support such legislation when i declaration and purview, its intents and purposes, its provisions and detaliat its authorities and responsibilities, are based on the policy that "the public hea and welfare depend on the humane use of animals for scientific advancement 2 the diagnosis and treatment of human and animal diseases, for education, f research in the advancement of veterinary, dental, medical and biologic science for research in animal and human nutrition, and improvement and standardia tion of laboratory procedures of biologic products, pharmaceuticals and drug (Ch. 5, art. 1, par. 1650 of the California Administrative Code.)

We have laws regarding the procurement, care, and use of animals at ± State, county, and city levels of government; we fought hard to get the we benefit from their constructive purposes and administration.

Regarding my first purpose, there are a number of points of object to these bills which undoubtedly have been expressed in greater detail other members of the biomedical community. To repeat them in genera terms, briefly:

(a) The bills do not deal with the total problem; particularly, they ignore the need for legislation to assure adequate legitimate suppüs of dogs and cats.

(b) The bills discriminate against only two classes of people-metbers of the biomedical professions and "dealers."

(c) The bills would not stop the vicious pet thievery practices. I fact, the net effect would probably increase its incidence.

(d) The bills would increase costs of training, testing, and researì as well as hamper and delay the medical progress.

(e) There are existing Federal and State laws in effect covering lar ceny and the illegal transportation of personal property including animal (f) All 50 States have existing statutes in effect prohibiting cruelty t animals.

(g) The bills would make a Federal crime of animal theft only the animals stolen were to be used for medical research purposes.

(h) Agency jurisdiction to enforce such laws at the Federal level work: present enormous and costly problems.

(i) The problems of identifying in a humane manner all animals i tended for research purposes are enormous, costly and impractical. Regarding my second purpose which describes how constructive laws fun tion: In the city of Los Angeles and the counties of Los Angeles, Ventura, an Orange, there exist laws which protect the public and their pets by co taining provisions that lost or strayed animals be held for a period of time after impounding. The animals are held in a local animal shelter, supported by local taxes, and administered by trained public servants-veterinarians and animal control officers. During this period (usually 5 or more days owners have an opportunity to redeem their pets; prospective owners have i chance to purchase pets for their families.

After it has been determined that the animals are unwanted and unclaimed they are put to death in a humane fashion or sold to licensed institutions | conducting medical training, testing, or research. The taxpayers benefit from the sale of the animals. The revenue defrays the costs of operating the an- ! mal regulatory agency. The medical institution can be assured of purchasĮ ing only unwanted and unclaimed animals for their needs. There are no "dealers," no profits, no thievery.

This is the legitimate, proper, logical and humane way to safeguard the public and their pets. It takes only one simple paragraph in an anima regulatory ordinance to accomplish these benefits.

I quote from ordinance 1403, county of Orange, State of California: "SEC. 11. ISPOSITION OF IMPOUNDED ANIMALS.-(e) Any impounded unredeemed and unOld animal which would normally have been destroyed as prescribed by this rdinance, may be released upon payment of the impound fee, from the Orange "ounty Animal Shelter to an agency approved by the California State Departhent of Health, the Orange County health officer, and the Orange County eterinary officer to obtain animals and perform medical research."

I submit that the policies of the various "humane societies" and "animal welare societies" which have been active in the promotion of most of the restricive bills before this Congress, have fostered the very circumstances under which "dog dealers" came into existence. They have opposed-and still opose-the passage of ordinances which would make it possible for medical reearch institutions to obtain animals from local animal regulatory agencies, hereby creating "dealers" and the vicious practices that exist in some parts of the country.

It is interesting that they choose this period of time to make exposés of several most deplorable conditions, and seek to correct the situation by pronoting the passage of a law which would force research institutions to purhase dogs and cats only from "licensed dealers," under the threat of "imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $10,000." By heir own admission, arrests, and convictions are being made by State and ocal law enforcement agencies under existing statutes. You may draw your own conclusions as to the real need for a Federal law.

I now quote excerpts from ordinance 97424 from the Los Angeles Municipal Code, Department of Animal Regulation:

"(h) (As amended by ordinance No. 108, 830.)

"Whenever any reputable institutions of learning, hospitals, research laboratories, or their allied institutes in the city of Los Angeles shall make application to the health officer of the city of Los Angeles for permission to use humanely unclaimed impounded animals for the good of mankind and the increase of knowledge relating to the cause, prevention, control, and cure of disease, the health officer, on being satisfied that the said animals are to be so used, shall, from time to time, certify to the department of animal regulation the names and addresses of said institutions of learnings, hospitals, research laboratories, and their allied institutes which he is satisfied will use animals humanely for the purposes above specified.

"It shall be the duty of the department of animal regulation to surrender unclaimed impounded animals for such uses only when applied for by institutions of learning, hospitals, research laboratories and their allied institutes which have been certified by the health officer as herein provided. No animal shall be surrendered except as authorized by law.

"In order to give the owners of impounded animals time within which to reclaim the same, no animal shall be surrendered for such uses until it has been impounded for a period of at least 5 days.

"I hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was submitted to a vote of the qualified electors of the city of Los Angeles, pursuant to the provisions of section 280 of the charter of said city, at a special municipal election held in said city on Tuesday, November 7, 1950, and that said ordinance was approved by a majority of the qualified electors of said city voting thereon at said election.

"Effective date November 29, 1950."

"WALTER C. PETERSON,

"City Clerk of the City of Los Angeles.

I wish to draw your attention to the fact that this issue was brought before the voters of Los Angeles at a special election after a costly and bitter battle. Despite misrepresentations, such as the hue and cry of "animal seizure law" (which you can see it is not) by the misinformed, emotionally ill, and antiscience fanatics, the voters of the city of Los Angeles overwhelmingly approved this amendment to the animal regulation ordinance.

Ladies and gentlemen, these local statutes and the existing California State laws and regulations relating to the care of laboratory animals, title 17 of the California Administrative Code of the Department of Public Health, are eloquent proof of our desire for constructive, sensible legislation to deal with the sensitive problems concerning the use of animals in research.

I would like to point out that these statutes came into existence only after considerable debate and search for the proper means to effect constructive legisla

62-317-66- -9

tion. In each case where the proponents of medical research have lost. have lost due to the influence of a small vociferous minority upon a small gr of officials. However, in every case where the issue has been taken before voters, the results have always come out overwhelmingly in favor of the s that supports medical progress.

Now to my third purpose which is to provide background information or subject matter. The chairman of the legislative committee of the Medo Research Association is Dr. Lewis T. Bullock, a physician, who practices inter medicine in Los Angeles and is a clinical professor of medicine at the Univers of Southern California Medical School. From his testimony submitted to “ Livestock and Feed Grain Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agricult at the hearings on March 7 and 8, 1966, he presented some very pertinent formation that bears repeating. I quote:

"The charge that there are animal dealers in the country who operate by ste ing pets and selling them to research laboratories indicates a social proble It is important that this problem be viewed with perspective. It is high important that we learn and appreciate the lessons of history. Such so problems were prevalent before and we should remember how they were solved "In the 14th century there arose a need for the teaching of anatomy. I clearly recognized that the doctors who were to practice surgery required knowledge of anatomy, but there was no legal source of bodies for dissectin The only solution was the removal of bodies from the graves. In 1329 in Bolota Italy, there was the first prosecution for body snatching or grave robbing 5 anatomical material.

"This discrepancy between the social need for the training of physicians a surgeons in anatomy and the lack of anatomical material persisted for 500 year It led in England and America to the development of the skilled ressurectionist body snatcher. In the dark of night the recent grave would be opened at the top, the body withdrawn and the grave covered over. However, when the moval of the body was discovered, the public became indignant. There was major reaction against scientists and medical schools on the part of the pa because of the belief that the schools were engaged in body snatching."

Dr. Bullock then reviewed the history of violence, riots (and even murders which resulted in the passage of restrictive laws containing severe penalties fir body snatching. He pointed out the dichotomy between the social need of trai ing physicians, and the lack of a legal method to obtain dead human bodies. B also reviewed the circumstances which led to the realization of the need f constructive legal solutions and the passage of several State laws in 1831whereby a legal source of bodies could be supplied.

"Similar laws gradually spread and now every State has a curator of the claimed dead or a similar officer who supplies bodies to medical schools for anatomical dissection. We no longer have the problem of the body snatcher (* grave robber."

In other portions of his testimony he presented his beliefs that the forces behind these various restrictive bills before Congress are not really devoted the welfare of laboratory animals, but are dedicated to the obstruction of mediet. research; that the best possible solution to prevent animal theft is to mak animals from all public pounds available to research institutions. As a pet owner he stressed his opposition to animal theft for any purpose. It is unfortunate the he cannot be with us today to present his testimony in his own unique and forcef

manner.

Along with this background material we think it is pertinent to quote fro President Johnson's message on the subject of health and education (H. Doc. No. 395) as presented in the Congressional Record, volume 112, No. 36, datel March 1, 1966, to the Congress of the United States:

"A nation's greatness is measured by its concern for the health and welfare of its people. Throughout the history of our democracy this commitment has grown and deepened.

"The education of our people is a national investment. The health of our people is essential to the pursuit of happiness.

"The achievements of the past 3 years promise a dramatic enrichment of American life. My budget requests the full authorization of $270 million for facilities construction under the Hill-Burton Act.

"Medical advances demand new equipment and up-to-date laboratories.