Such a commission, we believe, belongs with Health, Education, and Welfare and not with the Secretary of Agriculture.

The other condition that it was reported the House had removed was that the bill would include all other animals, all vertebrates. This is a very difficult thing to include in buying and selling-to keep track individually of all vertebrates.

If you take all pink-eyed white mice and tried to keep them separate, it would be impossible. If you took all goldfish or all snakes or al cobras and tried to keep them individually identified, it would be absurd.

So that we hope that "all other vertebrates" would be deleted from the bill.

The other great objection that we have to the bill is that it is designed to prevent the theft of pets for medical research. We main tain that theft of pets is wrong, that it isn't the purpose for which they are stolen that is wrong. You should not be condoning stealing for other purposes by emphasizing the bill's purpose: "stolen for research. is wrong. It is the stealing of pets that is wrong.

I do believe that reports overemphasize the number of pets stolen for medical research. It would be well to study to find out how many dogs are stolen, what breeds of dogs are stolen, and what breeds of dogs are found most commonly in research laboratories.

I suggest that beagles are very widely stolen, so much so that I would not have another beagle. And yet only the beagles whose genetic backgrounds are known, and that are very carefully bred. are bought and used for medical research.

Furthermore, I think the medical schools could only be responsible for what the dealer says, and what reason have we to believe that the person who steals will not lie about where he got his dog.

We really think the most effective way for lessening of stealing of pets for medical research lies in the simple law of supply and demand. If you will increase the legal supply of dogs, the demand for stolen dogs would virtually disappear.

No, the obvious source, legal source, for dogs is the dogs that are otherwise going to be put to death at the pound. I cannot give you figures for the whole country, but I have in my original testimony presented some figures for Maryland.

In 1963 it was estimated that 57,000 dogs were destroyed in all the pounds of Maryland, and in 1965 the two medical institutes used approximately 6,800, or one-eighth of the dogs that were impounded. So that we have a good group there.

In 1965, what is more, the number of stray dogs taken in Prince Georges County had jumped from 7,000 to double that in 1965-14.000 dogs. They can practically supply the medical school. And those are the dogs which are going to be put to death anyhow. Let them be used for medical research.

In the "dogfight" of 1950 the voters in the city of Baltimore supported the medical and scientific research institutions by a vote of four to one to let them use pound dogs. But that is only in the city of Baltimore. It is not so in the county or in the rest of the State. We need similar laws for the entire State.

I honestly think that if you have good, sound pound laws and wellmanaged pounds, and if they were independently run by the city or

by the county, by the town, and not by the Humane Society or SPCA, we in medicine and research would have the dogs that are needed.

I say pounds should not be run by humane societies because they are constitutionally opposed to turning dogs over for medical research. I think we all agree that dogs are necessary for research. Perhaps they do not, but most people do. And we realize the advantages.

Therefore, gentlemen, it is our strong plea that you do not label stealing for medical research as a greater crime than other stealing, and that you do put your effort on enabling us to get animals for research.

On the matter of dollars and cents, it has been said, "Why don't medical schools raise their own dogs for medical research?" Well, a very conservative estimate for maintainance of a dog for a year is $150, when you count feeding, keeping the grounds, depreciation, cleaning, and paying the people who are taking care of the dogs. It would mean that in Baltimore it would cost over a million dollars to raise the dogs we use in the two institutions.

Ultimately, that is going to come out of taxpayers' money.

The pound is costing the taxpayer about $800,000, and the pounds are destroying the dogs. Why not economize the one and be able to use funds from the other to get our dogs and take care of them?

Finally, we feel that 120 days is a very unrealistic time allowance if you are going to try to license every one and to inspect them. The numbers of pounds, the number of people selling dogs are enormous. If you intend to inspect and regulate all of the research institutes, there are 2,000 of them in the country that are using animals. You could not possibly get it done in 120 days.

Gentlemen, you have my full prepared statement here.

Senator MONRONEY. That will appear in full in the record as though you have given it.

Dr. TAUSSIG. Plus the supplementary testimony I brought in this morning.

(The prepared statement and supplemental statement of Dr. Taussig follow :)

I am Dr. Helen B. Taussig, president of the American Heart Association, professor emeritus of pediatrics of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. I am probably best known to all of you as codeveloper with the late Dr Alfred Blalock of the "blue" baby operation and I am also known to most of you as the doctor who alerted the country to the dangers of thalidomide. I am here today to testify in behalf of the American Heart Association and the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutes.

Let me assure you that I am strongly in favor of the humane care of animals, but humanity first and foremost concerns humans. One of the great reasons for our present difficulty is the laws which have been passed that make it difficult for medical institutions and scientific research facilities to secure the animals that are needed and therefore the whole business has been driven underground. S. 2322 and S. 3059 are bills to control medical research through the control of the sale and transportation of animals. Great emphasis is placed on the theft of pets for sale to the research institutes. May I point out that it is the theft of pets which is a crime, and the theft is a crime regardless of the cause for which the theft is made.

S. 3059 differs from S. 2322 in that it concerns not only the handling of dogs and cats but also other animals. Other animals are defined as "vertebrates." The major problem, however, concerns dogs and cats, and perhaps rabbits, but not rats, mice, guinea pigs, and hamsters, as these animals are bought from li

censed dealers or from special laboratories such as the Jackson Laboratories 2 Bar Harbor, Maine. Most marine animals are bought from biological institue such as the Marine Biological Institute of Woods Hole. Mass.

Rabbits may constitute a problem but most rabbits are purchased from licens dealers and a few are bought from small animal farms. It is, also, well to member that in many places rabbits are a pest. Many persons who live in the country have vegetable gardens and flower gardens destroyed by rabbits. I per sonally would gladly pay someone to trap the rabbits on my land and let then serve a useful purpose instead of a destructive one.

I understand the Goucher College purchases some salamanders. These in vestigators frequently catch their own salamanders from streams, but they par chase some from a man in South Carolina who is trying to raise salamanders fer research purchases. Surely such a person does not need a license for the s of salamanders. Large animals, primates, horses, goats, cows, sheep, et cetera are all carefully handled as they are extremely expensive and valuable animals Fish, frogs, mice, snakes, and cobras do not require special labeling for individes. identification. Hence, the legislation primarily concerns dogs and cats and the institutions which use the animals for teaching, training, and for the advan ment of knowledge, because according to the law such institutions that buy the animals must be licensed by the Secretary of Agriculture.

Thus, the underlying purpose of the bills is to control medical research through the licensing of the institutions which are buying animals. As clearly stated in these bills it is not their purpose to regulate the experiment itself but rather the conditions before and after the experiment, and this is to be done through the control of sale and transportation of animals and through the licensing of the dealers and of the institutions that use these animals.

Section 3 of both bills definitely states that no research facilities can purchase animals or transport a dog or cat unless it is licensed to do so by the Secretary who shall prescribe the rules and regulations. One of our major criticisms to this section and to section 4 is that it is an open-ended bill. Any bill which regulates all of research and experimentation should not be left to the discretion of a single individual. The licensing of medical institutions and the rules and regulations for the care of animals in such institutions is a serious problem and deserves careful consideration. In our opinion, a commission should be s up to guide the Secretary of Agriculture in establishing the rules and regulations. and furthermore, the composition of such a commission should be specified. The various groups interested in research, medical science, teaching and training, as well as in the humane care of animals should be represented. Thus, each of the following groups should be represented by a person appointed from the following institutions; namely, the U.S. Public Health Service, the National Institutes of Health, the National Research Institute, the dean of one of the leading medical schools, the dean of one of the leading schools of public health, the dean of one of the large research institutes, the dean of one of the leading dental schools, one person from the American Medical Association, one person from the Pharmaceu tical Manufacturers Association, one person from one of the large universities, 1 national educator from a prominent high school, two veterinarians, one of which should come from the Government and the other from the American Veterinary Medical Association, and two members of the Humane Society, and a representative of the animal care panel. This 15-man commission should determine the regulations and should be responsible for the inspection and control of the animals used in research, training, and in teaching, and in the medical schools. In our opinion, inasmuch as it does concern health and education, such a commission belongs under the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and not under the Department of Agriculture. Furthermore, this commission should not only establish regulations but the Secretary should be forced to be guided by their opinion; he may not accept everything they suggest but he could not appoint or act contrary to their advice.

Next, let us consider the source from which dogs and cats can be obtained for medical research. Those of you who have lived through the days of national prohibition remember that legislation did not stop drinking. On the contrary, bootlegging was so widespread and poisonous whisky so widely and easily obtainable that the law had to be repealed. The disreputable dog farms which we all deplore are the result of making it extremely difficult for medical researchers to obtain the dogs and cats through legitimate channels. These two bills will make it even harder and will drive the whole thing more seriously underground, and will seriously retard biomedical progress.

The answer to the problem is to urge the States to make the cats and dogs which are now destroyed at the pounds available for research in medical institutions.

Just now I cannot give you the figures for the entire country, but in Maryland in 1963, more than 115,000 animals were destroyed. The vast majority of these were cats and dogs. It is estimated that 57,000 of the animals were dogs. Last year, in 1965, the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutes used 4,500 dogs, and the University of Maryland used approximately one-half that number. Thus, the two great medical schools in Maryland used approximately 6,800 dogs or less than one-eighth of the dogs who were impounded. To be sure, not all of the dogs who are impounded are destroyed, but in Prince Georges County in 1963, they impounded 7,000 dogs and 6,000 cats, and of these 6,200 dogs were destroyed and 5,160 cats were destroyed. Furthermore, although it is certain that scientific research is expanding rapidly and that more dogs will be needed, it is also true that the number of stray dogs is increasing rapidly in our rapidly expanding cities. For example, as I told you, in 1963 Prince Georges County impounded 7,000 dogs and 6,000 cats, and 6,000 dogs and 5,000 cats were destroyed; and furthermore in 1965, Prince Georges County faced a real crisis because more than 14,000 dogs were impounded. I do not have the figures on cats, but broadly speaking, cats multiply as rapidly as do dogs. Prince Georges County is trying to meet the problem by setting up an ideal pound and then releasing the dogs and cats to medical research, as is now permitted in the city of Baltimore.

In the great "dog fight" of 1950 in Baltimore City, the voters supported the medical and scientific research institutions by a vote of 160,269 to 38,495; that is more than 4 to 1. I believe that if the problem was put squarely and honestly before the people of the United States today, they too would equally support medical research, teaching, and training, and the advancement of science; as there is virtually no one in the United States who has not profited by them. All of the dog lovers and all of the humane societies have their own pet dogs immunized against rabies and I am sure they have their children immunized against diphtheria and polio, and are grateful indeed that the fear of poliomyelitis has been removed. The danger of diphtheria is so far in the background that they have almost forgotten that it was a danger. They or their friends use insulin and are thankful that it exists, and there is scarcely a family that has not had some operation, and indeed the first training for all surgeons is operating on dogs before they operate on men, and of course, the advances in cardiac surgery have been done on dogs. Indeed, I do not think there is any question that medical research requires animal expermentation, it is the source from which the animals are obtained that is the question. As I say, to have good pound laws throughout the country and then permitting the dogs that would otherwise be destroyed for nought to be used by medical research would solve the problem and save the taxpayers enormous money.

The proponents of these bills object both to the theft of dogs to be sold for medical research and also to permitting dogs which are to be destroyed to serve a useful purpose. At least since I testified last week, I have received letters signed by 15 persons asking me how I would feel if that poor, stray, homeless dog, or even my own pet, was submitted to "the tortures of experiments," instead of being put to death. My answer is, as regards my own pet, if I had to choose between his being killed for no purpose and his dying in an attempt to save a human life or that of another animal, I would clearly prefer to have him die to save a life than die for no purpose at all.

The question is asked, Why do the medical scientists and research institutes not breed their own dogs? The answer is one of cost. It is estimated that it costs approximately a dollar a day for each dog that is raised, that is at least $300 for a year-old dog. That means that the 8,600 dogs used in the two medical schools of Baltimore would cost approximately $2,580,000. Some say this cost is excessive and it may only cost $150 per year. I think that figure is low when you include keeping the dogs, their quarters, the men who feed them and care for them, as well as the food for the dogs themselves. Even if it were that low, it would still cost more than a million dollars. In the last analysis the public will pay for the major cost of medical research, as the cost would be added to grants, special grants would be asked for to pay the costs. At the same time the taxpayer pays for the pounds. Pounds in Maryland last year (1965) cost approximately $800,000. It seems to me the height of folly for the taxpayer to pay for dogs to be impounded and destroyed and then pay another million dollars to raise dogs.

It goes without saying that if the pound dogs are used, the States must hav good pound laws, and as in Maryland, anyone may bring a stray dog to the pound but the person is not paid for bringing the dog to the pound. Furthermore a dog with a license tag or even a dog which is obviously well kept and may have lost his collar, is held twice as long as are the pitiful, truly stray, dogs Therefore, we urge you to improve the pounds, improve the pound laws, pay the additional cost of holding the dogs for 5 days instead of 3, and indeed, holding dogs with license tags for 10 days instead of 6. It will cost more to keep the de longer and it will require larger pounds; nevertheless, if the dogs which are ultimately to be destroyed can be made available for medical research, such a measure will save the taxpayer enormous sums.

Another legitimate source for dogs is the poor farmer who wishes to sell his dogs and is grateful to the physicians and the veterinarians. When he is willing to sell his dog to a research institute why should he not have the privilege to di so without obtaining a license. On page 3, line 5, the regulation should be cor rected to read "buys and sells" not "buys or sells" dogs. Furthermore, the i word "compensation" on page 3, line 4, should be deleted because this would preclude a pound from receiving compensation for the dogs which were released to medical research, and those who are using the dogs are entirely willing to pay a reasonable fee for such dogs and thus help to defray the cost of the pound Our final criticism concerns the effective date. The effective date is given as 120 days from the enactment of the act. This leaves no time for the appoint ment of the Commission, the setting up of standards, for the inspection of dealers and the certification of licenses to dealers and to laboratories. Probably al dealers will not have to be inspected before they are certified but if licensing is not to be perfunctory they should be inspected and also the purchasers, that is, the medical institutions, should be inspected. It is estimated that there are more than 2,000 institutions in this country that are using dogs for research and scientific work. It would be utterly impossible to inspect those laboratories in 120 days. Thus, either it would all be a complete farce of scientific work teaching and training, and the advancement of science, teaching of sciences, schools and universities, and the advancement of work in the medical schools, would all grind to a standstill.

In conclusion may I make it clear that we in the medical profession deplore the disreputable farms that are selling animals for research work. We are strongly in favor of the humane care of animals in the laboratories, but I stä maintain that doctors are fundamentally kind people and we are not sadistie, We do not undertake experiments for the opportunity to hurt animals. We undertake experiments to help man. Mishandling of animals really comes in the purchase of animals from disreputable farms, in the care of animals before and after an experiment. The answer to the former is sound pound laws whic enable the pounds to hold the dogs longer and then permit the dogs which are to be destroyed to be made available for research, teaching, and training: ard the answer to the latter-that of giving better care to animals before and after the actual experiment, it is a matter of money. Our medical institutions do need money for the renovation and reconstruction of animal quarters. Hospital erpenses have escalated, building of hospitals is terrifically expensive, everything is wanted for patient care. When a request is put in for better animal quarters, that is the section that is likely to be knocked off the bill.

The President's Commission on Heart Disease. Cancer, and Stroke recom mended that $5 million be made available for the reconstruction and the renova tion and the building of new animal quarters, the building and construction of animal farms, for the first year; increasing to $10 million at the end of 5 years Gentlemen, returning directly to the two bills, S. 2322 and S. 3059. S. 3059 included all vertebrates and S. 2322 affects all institutions of learning which receive Federal funds, not only medical and research institutes but also univer sities, colleges, and many high schools; if they receive Federal funds regardless of whether they receive them for animal experimentation.

Both bills state that their objective is to regulate the transportation, sale, and handling of animals, intended to be used for purposes of research and experi mentation and other purposes. In reality these bills place control of research. teaching and training, and of all experimental work in medicine and science under the control of a single individual who is given unlimited power to make the rules and regulations concerning the handling of animals in the research and medical institutions. He is empowered to do so without any advice from