with very little, or no food or water, thrown again on a truck, transported miles to a laboratory, thrown on a scale, and then into another cage. We learned from NIH last week that 60 to 65 percent of the animals that come in are sick or get sick, and about 5 percent die. From the brutal treatment given them, I am sure the remainder are mentally abnormal or in a state of shock. We can imagine how much of the taxpayer's dollar must be spent to get the animal in shape to be used. The dogs that have been too badly mutilated during their incarceration are rejected, and usually sold by the vendor to medical schools which are not particular.

I have been told that most research institutions require occasional inspection of the dog and cat farms supplying them, but there is no inspection of the middle vendor supplying the farms, nor can they be sure where the initial vendor receives his dogs and cats. There are a number of smaller suppliers who go out on weekends and pick up a few dogs for extra money. They do not deliver to large farms, but rather to the farm suppliers. One large kennel, for instance, is supplied by a smaller dealer, who gets his dogs from different dog wardens. A pet held only a few hours and sold to a dog dealer, was technically stolen. The owner was not given the legally specified time to recover his pet. Once the dog enters the vendor's truck, its chances of ever seeing its owner again are one in a million. Incidentally, we have yet to see a dog vendor's holding place that is not dirty with gang cages filled with dogs of all kinds, pregnant, in season, with males of all sizes fighting. There is always a small empty pan of water or food.

Our organization knows the names and activities of small pet thieves operating in several areas, and we know that a large number of dogs are being stolen each day. Since most research groups contend that pet stealing is minimal, why do they object to legislation making the practice illegal? Any sound business is operated with bills of sale for purchases. And this law would assure them freedom from frantic owners searching for their pets.

I am sure we all agree that cruelty is immoral; and some say that cruelty is as bad for the perpetrator as it is for his victims, but a pet thief has no sensitivity. Only laws are going to protect the helpless animals. Our association wants to thank Congressman Poage and his committee members for their sincere efforts to outlaw pet thievery and its contingent evils.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you very much, Mrs. Allen.

Our next witness is Dr. Helen Taussig, to be followed by Dr. Frank Miller.

We will be glad to hear from you now, Dr. Taussig.

STATEMENT OF DR. HELEN B. TAUSSIG, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION; PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF PEDIATRICS OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

Dr. TAUSSIG. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 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 you as codeveloper with the late

Dr. Alfred Blalock of the blue baby operation and 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.

First of all, let me assure you I am an animal lover. I have two dogs and a cat, and I have brought a few slides with me just to reassure you that I love my animals. Furthermore, I have had a beagle stolen and I am strongly in favor of laws which will lessen the stealing of pets, but to me the stealing of pets is the crime and not the stealing of pets for the purpose of medical research and experimentation. Indeed, I had a lovely beagle gven to me and I was repeatedly told that my beagle was worth money and I had to be very careful not to have him stolen, particularly during the hunting season. I managed to keep him through one hunting season but lost him the next hunting season. I am quite sure that he was stolen because he had an "I belong to" tag on his neck and what is more, the person who found him called my house and told me they had my dog. My maid immediately asked for the name and address where the dog was and told them that I would be out directly, and the reply was, "No, we do not live far, tell Dr. Taussig my husband will be glad to bring the dog to her when he returns at night," and that was the last I ever heard of my beagle. I do not for one instant think that he was sold for a mere $2 or $5 for use in an animal experimentation; that small dog was worth money and the person who stole him, sold him for money. He could easily have gotten $50 for him, even without his pedigree. I truthfully do not think he was kept as a pet bceause if he had lived nearby and had been kept as a pet, I think within a few days he would have escaped and come home. To repeat, it is the stealing of dogs which is a crime, not the purpose for which they are stolen.

Let me assure you that I am interested in the humane care of animals, but humanity first and foremost concerns humans and one great reason for our difficulty at the present time is, the laws which have been passed which make it difficult for medical institutions and scientific research facilities to secure animals, which has promoted underground actvity and disreputable animal farms. My major objection to the Resnick bill is that there is no indication given as to the nature of the regulations or who will enforce the regulations which the Secretary issues.

A commission should be set up and the composition of such a commission should be specific. The various groups interested in research and medical science and 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 Service, the National Institutes of Health, the dean of one leading medical school, the dean of one of the leading schools of public health, one of the leading research institutes, one from a leading dental school, one from the American Medical Association, one of the leading pharmaceutical companies (or the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association), one of the large private universities, a national educator from a prominent high school, a veterinarian from Government and one from the American Veterinary Medical Association, two members representative of national humane societies, and a representative of

the Animal Care Panel. This 14-man commission should determine the regulations and be responsible for the control of animals used in medical science, research, teaching, and training. Such a commission clearly belongs under the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and not under the Department of Agriculture.

Such a commission, I believe the medical profession would endorse. The Resnick bill, however, in section 3 definitely states that it is unlawful for any research facility to purchase or transport dogs unless they have obtained a license and it is a totally open-ended bill as to what will be the regulations.

In section 4, the dealers must obtain a license from the Secretary but again that is open ended. Section 5 is quite reasonable. Section 6 and section 7 are also reasonable. Section 8 should be elaborated and, when various States in the United States are encouraged to adopt model pound laws, I think something should be put in concerning making model "pound" laws, enabling medical institutions and research scientists to purchase or obtain dogs from the pound. The pounds must, of course, be well-run model pounds and comply with certain standards. Members of the general public cannot be paid to bring animals to the pound. If the pound is well run according to high standards, such as is being proposed for the Prince Georges County Pound of Maryland, such animals should be available for medical research. The pounds are an excellent source of animals. Gentlemen, I do not know the number of pounds in the United States or the total number of dogs and cats that are put to death at the pounds without serving any useful purpose whatsoever, but I can give you the figures for Maryland. In 1963, 115,293 dogs and cats were impounded in Maryland— slightly over one-half of these were dogs. In Baltimore City, 14,210 dogs and 2,058 cats were impounded. In Montgomery County, 6,617 dogs and 6,332 cats were impounded and of these 3,019 dogs and 5,264 cats were destroyed. The figures in Baltimore City included both dogs and cats supplied to the medical schools and research institutions, those returned to their owners, and those for which homes were found, so that only 6,027 dogs and 1,818 cats were destroyed.

From these figures it is clear that approximately one half of the animals collected, that is, 57,000 were dogs. Not all dogs are suitable for research but the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutes used 4,500 dogs last year and the University of Maryland approximately half that number. Thus the two medical schools used 6,800 dogs or approximately one-eighth of the dogs impounded.

On the basis of one small State with two medical schools and four metropolitan districts, you, gentlemen, can calculate the number of dogs which are destroyed in the pounds of the 50 States and 250 metropolitan districts in the United States. If these dogs are not sufficient for our needs, dogs should be bred for this purpose.

Gentlemen, it will be said that scientific research is expanding rapidly and more dogs will be needed. This is true but it is also true that the number of stray dogs is increasing rapidly in our rapidly expanding cities. For example, in 1963 the Prince Georges County pound impounded 7,000 dogs and 6,000 cats and 6,200 dogs and 5,161 cats were destroyed, whereas now in 1966 Prince Georges County faces a real problem, because 14,000 dogs were impounded last year. I do

not have the figure for cats but broadly speaking cats multiply as rapidly as dogs. Prince Georges County is trying to set up an ideal pound and release dogs and cats to medical research as is permitted by Baltimore City. In the great dog fight of 1950 the voters supported the medical and scientific institutions by 160,269 to 38,495, that is, more than 4 to 1, and I believe if the problem was placed squarely before the people of the United States, they too, would equally strongly support medical research, teaching and training and the advancement of science.

Returning to the bill, section 9 of the Resnick bill is reasonable, but dogs with license tags or dogs who are obviously well kept and appear to be owned but who have lost their tags should be held for 10 days or 2 weeks.

Section 10 should be deleted as it is difficult to know for what purpose animals are bought. Furthermore, if research institutes have a legitimate source for dogs, such a regulation is not necessary.

Section 11 has been covered in my recommendation that the rules and regulations and inspection be the charge of the special commission.

Section 12 through 14 will not be necessary if the commission develops rules and regulations, including penalties otherwise a section on enforcement of the act may be necessary.

Section 16, I think, is probably not nearly carefully enough spelled out. The program will cost money and certainly it is reasonable to collect reasonable fees for licenses issued to dealers. I very much doubt having the fees deposited as miscellaneous receipts as the programs will cost more money than will be collected.

Finally, section 17 concerning the effective date: the effective date of 120 days from the enactment of the act leaves no time for the appointment of a commission, the setting up of standards, and although I do not suppose they will be inspecting all the dealers, they will still be issuing certificates for dealers engaged in commerce. As I say, there are 250 metropolitan areas, there must be at least 4 or 5 pounds outside each metropolitan area; many States will need to change their laws and there must be more than a thousand pounds that will have to have licenses.

Two thousand or more applications in 120 days, omitting the time it takes to set up the commission, set up the regulations, inspect the places, means that it would be utterly impossible to do it unless it were a complete farce; and that scientific work, teaching, the advancement of science, the teaching of science in the schools and in the universities, and also the advancement of medical research, would all grind to a standstill.

Gentlemen, it is for these reasons that I oppose the Resnick bill. The Poage bill, H.R. 12488, has many of the objections in it which I have outlined in the Resnick bill and in addition it not only applies to the handling of dogs and cats but to all vertebrates, it means down to the lowest echelon, including salamanders. It is reasonable to have some regulation on the sale of rabbits, and yet, if anyone set out to catch the rabbits that go across my lawn and eat at my gardens, I would be grateful to them. I do not think the feeling is very strong against catching rabbits out in the country and bringing them into the medical

institutes, or the research institutes, or even selling them. I believe that most of the firms that raise animals for medical research-rabbits, hamsters, rats, or mice are well-run institutions and do not need to come under these regulations. As far as I know there is no great feeling about frogs or of goldfish, nor are they inhumanely treated. Most frogs are pithed and are killed at the end of the experiment or demon

stration.

The purchase of small animals presents no major problem. I know that at the Hopkins all small animals, rats, mice, guinea pigs, and hamsters, are purchased from licensed dealers, or special laboratories such as the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine. This is cheaper than raising them ourselves. Fish and frogs are purchased from the Marine Biological Laboratories at Woods Hole, Mass., or special supply houses. I believe that most other medical institutions follow the same practice. Although we wish humane treatment of all animals, I do not believe that anyone is deeply concerned with cold-blooded vertebrates, nor do I believe that anyone in our country would feel it was necessary to license or certify a technician who is inoculating a guinea pig with material suspected of containing tubercle baccilli. Such tests are, of course, done throughout our country in the detection of tuberculosis.

As regards the use in colleges, my knowledge is limited. Dr. Gardner Moment, professor emeritus of biology at Goucher College, advised me that Goucher College uses a few rabbits-1 or 2 dozen per yearapproximately 300 frogs, 200 rats, 75 mice, and some earthworms, and salamanders. All small animals are obtained through licensed dealers except for rabbits which are obtained from a local rabbit farm, and the salamanders are either caught by the investigator or purchased from a man in North Carolina who raises salamanders for laboratory use.

In conclusion, we are strongly in favor of the humane care of animals in the laboratories, but I still maintain that doctors are fundamentally kindly people; we are not sadistic-we do not undertake experiments for the opportunity to hurt animals; we undertake experiments to help man. The mishandling of animals really comes in the source from which animals are procured; for that, good permissive pound laws are the answer. Perhaps in the care given the animals before and after an experiment, for that, better animal quarters are the answer. Many of our medical institutes need money for renovation and reconstruction of the animal quarters. Hospital expenses have escalated, the building of hospitals is terrifically expensive, everything is wanted for patient care, and when we come to putting in requests 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 recommended that $5 million be made available for reconstruction and renovation, for the building of new animal quarters, and the building and construction of animal farms; that $5 million be available for the first year, increasing to $10 mililon in 5 years. Gentlemen, I really think that that sum of money is needed for the improvement of animal quarters, for the building of animal farms.

Gentlemen, this concludes my prepared testimony. If there are questions that I can answer, I shall be happy to do so.

Thank you for letting me present this testimony and I hope that it will be incorporated into the record.