previously undiscovered disease of rats apparently developed on his premises. Such diseases can be transmitted to whole colonies of animals when sick animals are purchased. It may mean an epizootic, destroying long-term research projects. However, Mr. Hill said he had no authority to omit from the NAS-NRC listing the names of dealers who had animals for sale, regardless of the conditions under which they were kept.

Thus, it may be seen that the health and well-being of animals on dealers premises is intimately tied in with those in the laboratories themselves and that it is of prime importance, both for the welfare of the animals and the proper conduct of research, that minimum standards be set and enforced throughout. The unaccountable reluctance of scientific groups to act with firmness to stop abuses means that it is up to the Congress to supply the mandatory standards and inspection. The suggestion that laboratories can accomplish self-regulation through the new American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care cannot be viewed with credulity by anyone who has studied the situation.

From the moment legislation was introduced to require humane treatment of experimental animals, the groups now comprising the AAALAC sought to convince the Congress that they would do everything necessary to insure proper treatment of experimental animals and that, except for wanting still more money, they had the situation well in hand. At the 1960 Animal Care Panel in in St. Louis, for example, the National Society for Medical Research had a large display intended to calm any doubts about the treatment of animals. The Animal Care Panel, they said, represents "the largest pool of information on laboratory animal care in the world," while the National Institutes of Health were credited with providing "funds for new and better animal care facilities," and the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources puts emphasis "on obtaining more nearly uniform animals for more efficient research."

In 1962, a press release from a National Society for Medical Research committee at the meetings of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in Atlantic City, describes "a program of self accreditation of animal facilities and care by scientific organizations," and a wish for more Federal funds. Not, however, until after the hearings in two House committees last September did the groups represented on the above-mentioned committee actually announce their accreditation scheme. It is a pitiful offering that at last comes on the scene after so much advance publicity.

The trustees of the AAALAC are the same group that spoke under a different name in 1962; chief among them, the American Medical Association, Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, and other large medical and scientific groups. A council is made up of veterinarians and others who would make "site visits" and accredit institutions for fees ranging from $100 to $1,000 with an annual "voluntary" tribute of $100. Once accredited, the institution would be in the clear for 5 years and could assure all concerned that its treatment of animals was beyond reproach, as proved by the accreditation by the AAALAC. The fact that some of the site visitors are men who argue the merits of perpetual caging of dogs and who refuse to administer any painrelieving drugs to animals after severe surgery is blithely overlooked.

This distinguished committee, I am confident, will not be taken in by such an obvious attempt to whitewash a bad situation. The idea of accreditation is simply a response of a sizable group which has consistently fought effective humane controls. Breeders, dealers, scientific institutions, and manufacturers of equipment for sale to laboratories all have vested interest in animal experimentation. whether or not it produces results beneficial to humanity. It is beyond their powers to police themselves, for there are too many pressures preventing them from doing an honest and effective job.

Therefore, we earnestly request the Congress to enact the Poage bill. H.R. 12488, which can, through inspection and licensing, promptly bring an end to the widespread abuses in the handling and housing of animals by those who sell and those who buy experimental animals and which will prevent theft of pets for sale to laboratories.

(Miss Stevens presents the following documents in connection with her statement above given :)

Miss STEVENS: I was asked to write to you about the disappearance of my dog.

Last December my dog, named Lancer, who for 2 years went to school with my 7 children faithfully every morning and came back a half hour later to wait for them to come home so he could go out and play with them disappeared. My dog had never strayed or gone anywhere without the children. You could set a watch on his schedule, that's how he was, until one morning he didn't come back from school. He never stayed out overnight in his life so when he wasn't back the next morning everyone started to look for him. We asked the children in school, the neighbors, and the Animal Rescue League in Boston. We then called the police in Newton, Mass., and Brighton, Mass.

The police in Newton, Mass., where we live, told us to call Dr. Schofield who was the city dog officer.

We called him and he told us that the police had no right to refer him to us because he had nothing to do with lost dogs so we believed him and concentrated our efforts on looking elsewhere.

My husband took time off from work to go to the Animal Rescue League in Boston to look at dogs and the Angell Memorial Hospital in hopes of finding him and if you ever had a lost dog and went to look for him there you would know the feeling when after opening a half dozen doors and looking at a hundred dogs you come to the last door and behind that door is all your hopes of him being in the last room and you open it and he isn't, you know how we felt. Then one morning after Christmas a neighbor called me and told me she thought Lancer was at the back door trying to get in. I went out and couldn't believe it was him. He was so thin and dirty. I wasn't sure myself it was him so I brought him in the house. I found out then it was him but he had lost his voice probably from barking so much when he was held captive or what caused it I don't know.

Around his neck he had a heavy silver chain and a medal with the initials H.M.S. and a number.

My husband was not with me at the time so I called him at work and he said it must be another license number. So I called the police and they said it was Harvard Medical School. I then called Harvard Medical School and they told us that they had received the dog from Dr. Schofield in Newton who had already told us he had nothing to do with lost dogs. When I called Dr. Schofield with this information he still denied having him until Harvard showed the receipt in their files to him. Then he tried to make excuses that he thought I was talking about a cat or someone else must have taken him. I wouldn't mind but this same Dr. Schofield treated my dog when he was a pup.

It turned out anyway that my dog had been sent from Harvard Medical in Boston to a farm in Hopkinton, Mass., that belongs to Harvard Medical for experiments with dogs. After 2 weeks in Hopkinton, Mass., they were sending him to another place for dogs belonging to Harvard Medical School on

Shattuck Street in Boston. As they were preparing him for the trip back to Boston he broke the chain holding him and got away.

This was told to me by Harvard Medical School.

How he ever found his way home, I will never know, because the distance from Hopkinton to Newton is about 20 or more miles, but dogs are smarter than we think. He lost about 35 pounds in his ordeal, but with all the love he gets at home and good food he looks just as good as ever now.

I hope my story helps you in changing the laws so they can help people keep the pets they have instead of destroying them.

Harvard Medical claims what they do is legal; so does Dr. Schofield. So if it is why isn't the public informed of these places so they can look for their lost animals there instead of the wrong places?

Why do they keep these places a secret?
Thank you for reading my story.

Mrs. THOMAS F. CONNOLLY,

Newton, Mass.

TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF THE POAGE BILL, H.R. 12488

New York University Medical Center, New York University School of Medicine.

New York, N.Y.

This statement is one that is in complete agreement and support of the Poage bill, H.R. 12488. It is guided by a careful review of the subject, and has involved speaking with many people engaged in research where animal experimentation is involved. Some of our views is patterned after a comprehensive report prepared by the Committee of Public Health of the New York Academy of Medicine. A few of the main points are presented:

I. Federal legislation on the regulation of the proper and humane care of laboratory animals is desirable and necessary.

II. "Reasonable standards and regulations for proper animal facilities and for humane care in the maintenance and use of laboratory animals should be established and enforced."

III. While there should be local, State, and Federal means of inspection, the main responsibility of control should be a self-regulating setup involving internal responsibility of each institution. This would ideally require an executive officer, a specialist in veterinary medicine, and well-trained animal technicians. IV. Excessive abuse of animals and failure of a grantee to comply with standards and regulations should result in discontinuance of support or contract. V. Dealers of laboratory animals should be licensed: The requirement in licensing of research institutions is justified if it is restricted to the humane care, housing, feeding of animals, and to the prevention of needlessly cruel experiments that involve prolonged, severe pain.

An important part of Federal legislation in the care of laboratory animals must involve safeguards for the experimenting individual and institution. There must not be overregulation, discrimination, dictation, or restriction on the use of animals. It is my understanding that the Poage bill does not involve redtape that would result in sterile, nonproductive, preventive performance in the carrying out of laboratory experiments.

NATHAN ENTNER, Ph. D., Associate Professor in Preventive Medicine.

STATEMENT OF MARJORIE ANCHEL, SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, NEW YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN, BRONX, N.Y.

I wish to submit the following statement in support of a strong bill to regulate the procurement, handling, and sale of verebrate animals to be used for research or other experimental purposes. In the interests of research, as well as of humane treatment of animals, and in order to protect pet owners from theft, regulation of animal dealers is an obvious necessity. The right to inspect animals at their ultimate destination is a further requisite for accomplishing the object.

60-678-66- -3

This was made apparent to me many years ago, as a graduate student in a medical school physiology course: Many of the cats we used were still wearing collars of a kind used only for valued and cared-for pets.

The intolerable situation with regard to theft and mistreatment of animals by dealers has recently been overwhelmingly and irrefutably demonstrated. The so-called solution of pound legislation which has been proposed is to my mind both unethical and unrealistic. It is based on subversion of humane societies from their proper purpose and on either the acceptance of there being an inexhaustible supply of homeless animals, or on the expectation that pet owners, in general, would be willing to have pets they cannot keep used for experiments. The use of animals of known origin, healthy animals raised specifically for the purpose, can only be of ultimate advantage to research. The use of animals of unknown background can vitiate results, wasting time and sentient life. When the present absence of control results also in mistreatment and theft of animals, legal control is justified and called for.

I strongly urge passage of an effective, enforcible law. I have read the Poage bill, H.R. 12488 and believe it embodies the essential requirements.

STATEMENT OF DR. F. BARBARA ORLANS

I wish to express my approval of Congressman Poage's bill, H.R. 12488. I hold a doctor's degree in physiology and have engaged in medical research in both England and the United States. The provisions for licensing both research facilities and animal dealers and for authorizing the Secretary to promulgate humane standards of handling and transportation would do much to promote good care for research animals.

In administering these provisions, some form of inspection would be required to see that adequate standards are in fact met. I would urge the subcommittee to be explicit as to the nature of these inspections. From any announced, prearranged inspection, basic physical equipment of animal housing can be assessed but not the day to day standards of handling and care. An announced inspection would be prepared for; overcrowded and unsanitary cages, the lack of food and water would probably not be noted. On the other hand, unannounced inspections would serve as a continuing stimulus to maintain satisfactory standards. It would be reasonable for inspectors, who should have medical or veterinary qualifications, to make unannounced visits to marginally acceptable premises several times each year and those with known high standards infrequently. I believe that such unannounced inspections should be made mandatory.

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 12488 TO PROTECT ANIMALS BEING SOLD TO LABORATORIES

Shaker Heights Veterinary Hospital, Shaker Heights, Ohio

I urge the early passage and enactment of H.R. 12488 introduced by Congressman W. R. Poage to protect animals being sold to laboratories, in order that strong and effective enforcement of his recommendations may be applied as soon as possible.

K.K. GOEKJIAN, D.V.M.

Mr. POAGE. The pictures you have there, Miss Stevens, if you will pass them up, we will let the members see them.

I think that will help.

Mr. Resnick was not here when I called him. We will be glad to hear from him now.

Let me say that we, without objection, will insert all statements, and those who appear may read such portions of their statements as they desire, or to make such comments as they desire, and their entire statement will be included in the record as if read.

We will now hear from Congressman Resnick for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH Y. RESNICK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. RESNICK. Thank you, Mr. Poage, and members of the committee. I want to thank you for having these hearings and to commend you on your interest in this very serious matter. However, as you know, I introduced a bill H.R. 9743, dealing in this general area, and I feel that there are certain facts that I should mention. Although I, generally, support H.R. 12488, H.R. 9743 would specifically control transportation of stolen animals, the handling of laboratory animals, such as dogs and cats, and would have remained out of the humane field.

I feel that this whole area is being handled in a very comprehensive manner in other bills that are presently before other committees of the House, and I feel that it might be a mistake to mix the two together.

The most shocking abuse I feel is the use of stolen animals for medical research, and, therefore, I felt that if a bill were designed specifically to take care of this abuse rather than to get into the other area of humane treatment, it might very will lead to more comprehensive measures in both fields.

During the hearings that this distinguished committee had on H.R. 9743 and other bills similar to it, the main thrust of the medical testimony was the cost of the program if the dogs were specifically raised for research. They did not particularly deny the source of research animals, rather they testified time and time again, that the cost of the animals would be prohibitive if they were forced to raise them commercially as I suggested. I have since learned that a full-grown beagle can be purchased for $85. While this is more than they pay for each individual animal today, the fact that this would be a healthy animal would be an animal bred specifically for research purposes the final cost would not be prohibitive.

Along these lines, I wrote to the National Institutes of Health on February 3, and I request permission to put this letter into the record. Mr. POAGE. Without objection, that may be done.

(The letter referred to and reply thereto are as follows:)

Hon. JOHN W. GARDNER,

Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Washington, D.C.

FEBRUARY 3, 1966.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: The animal procurement practices of the Nation's research laboratories have become a national disgrace. I am sure that there is no need to recount once again a story that is now familiar to all of us-the story of family pets, dogs and cats, that are stolen off the streets, sold to disreputable dealers, and eventually wind up in the hands of suppliers to hospitals and laboratories.

Most users of these animals are indifferent to the manner in which their suppliers obtain them, and are as equally indifferent to the inhumane treatment the animals are subjected to before being delivered to the laboratory. While I realize that the National Institutes of Health inspects its suppliers and insists that standards of treatment and cleanliness must be rigidly maintained, two facts nevertheless stand out: First, that the great majority of hospitals and laboratories cannot and do not demand their suppliers' adherence to such standards; and, second, even NIH has no way of avoiding the purchase of animals which originally were illegally obtained by suppliers.

Another undesirable side effect of the present procurement system is that the general run of animals provided to laboratories is extremely poor-they are