treatment of animals during actual research or experimentation; (3) requiring the regulation of exhibitions which would include zoos, circuses, dog and cat shows, State and county fairs, horse shows and other exhibitions; and (4) by including certain provisions for regulating pet dealers.

During fiscal year 1970, we are enforcing the provisions of the Act with an appropriation of approximately $337,000. This Department is doing everything possible to carry out its assigned responsibilities under Public Law 89-544 within the limitations of available resources.

This Department agrees with the objective of the bill concerning the need for the humane care and handling of laboratory animals during actual research and experimentation. However, we believe that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is the appropriate agency to administer such an activity. We would expect to work with that Department to help assure consistency of standards and make other necessary arrangements to promote the objectives of both Public Law 89-544 and H.R. 13957.

If Federal regulation of laboratory animals is extended to all warm-blooded animals, we suggest it would be appropriate and consistent to extend the species of animals presently regulated under Public Law 89-544, to include all warmblooded animals. Also, we would suggest to the Committee that regulating the humane care and handling of animals by exhibitors and pet dealers should be the responsibility of State and local agencies rather than the Federal Government. The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.

Sincerely,

J. PHIL CAMPBELL, Under Secretary.

Mr. PURCELL. Our first witness is Dr. Maurice Visscher, president of the National Society for Medical Research of the University of Minnesota.

We will hear from you at this time, Dr. Visscher.

STATEMENT OF DR. MAURICE VISSCHER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., ACCOMPANIED BY DR. HARRY KINGMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Dr. VISSCHER. Mr. Chairman and Mrs. May, I am Maurice B. Visscher, regents professor of physiology at the University of Minnesota, and president of the National Society for Medical Research.

The National Society for Medical Research is an organization representing scientists concerned with biological research and teaching, in medical, agricultural, and pharmaceutical fields. I am speaking in behalf of the board of directors of our society. Their names and affiliations are included for purposes of the record:

Dr. Hugh H. Husey, American Medical Association.
Dr. Luther Terry, University of Pennsylvania.
Dr. Bernard Zimmermann, West Virginia University.
Dr. H. Stanley Bennett, University of North Carolina.
Dr. Clarence Dennis, Downstate Medical Center (N.Y.).
Dr. Sigmund Rich, University of California.

Dr. Norman E. Shumway, Stanford University.
Dr. Emanuel Suter, University of Florida.

Dr. Isaac M. Taylor, University of North Carolina.
Dr. Harold Hillenbrand, American Dental Association.

Dr. Brian Hoffman, Columbia University.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to testify with respect to H.R. 13957 and to convey our support of the basic principles which Mr. Whitehurst embodied in his bill. We also wish to present several

specific changes in the language of H.R. 13957 which we believe are essential to insure that biomedical research will have an unfettered opportunity to carry forward its vital work in behalf of all mankind.

In 1966, when the Committee on Agriculture was holding hearings on the Poage bill, later enacted as Public Law 89-544, a great many witnesses, including myself, expressed their concern that interference with the use of animals in biomedical research would result if unwise. laboratory animal welfare legislation was enacted.

Your committee at that time clearly recognized this danger and included two sections in the bill preserving for the research facility necessary freedom from regulation by the Secretary of Agriculture or harassment by individuals searching for alleged lost or stolen pets. Section 13 of Public Law 89-544 anthorized the Secretary of Agriculture to establish standards governing the humane handling and care of laboratory animals. This section reads:

The Secretary shall establish and promulgate standards to govern the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals by dealers and research facilities. Such standards shall include minimum requirements with respect to the housing, feed, watering, sanitation, ventilation, shelter from extremes of weather and temperature, separation by species, and adequate veterinary care. The foregoing shall not be construed as authorizing the Secretary to prescribe standards for the handling, care, or treatment of animals during actual research or experimentation by a research facility as determined by such research facility.

H.R. 13957 would amend this section by changing the restriction now placed on the Secretary of Agriculture to a directive requiring him to promulgate standards for the handling, care, and treatment of animals during actual experimentation in which the inclusion of the word "treatment" leaves some ambiguity.

We doubt that the sponsor of H.R. 13957 intended this to be a provision which would possibly open the door to a situation in which the Secretary would be empowered to regulate the design of experiments, nor that the Congress which so carefully drafted this section 4 years ago would wish to reverse itself now.

We would therefore urge that section 13 proposed by H.R. 13957 be altered.

If it is the desire of Congress to extend the existing USDA standards for housing, feeding, watering, sanitation, ventilation, shelter, separation by species and adequate veterinary care throughout the research facility, we believe this should be the position of prescribing how research should be conducted.

The substitute language we suggest for section 13 is as follows:

Sec. 13. The Secretary shall establish and promulgate standards to govern the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals by dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors. Such standards shall include minimum requirements with respect to the housing, feeding, watering, sanitation, ventilation, shelter from extremes of weather and temperature, separation by species, and adequate veterinary care. The foregoing shall not be construed as authorizing the Secretary to prescribe standards for the experimental treatment of animals during research or experimentation by a research facility as determined by such research facility.

As previously mentioned, the Committee on Agriculture in reporting out the Poage bill in 1966 took special pains to avoid any interference with the design of research.

Even though section 13 provided an exemption from standards for the period of actual research, section 18 was written into the law to

further safeguard biomedical research from interference that might occur inadvertently as a result of inspections, or deliberately through harassment by private citizens or law enforcement officers.

We seriously question the advisability of simply repealing section 18 of Public Law 89-544 as provided for in H.R. 13957. On again reading the conference_report which accompanied the enactment of the Poage bill (Public Law 89-544), it is clear as to the intent of the Congress, and experience has shown that this section has contributed to the successful implementation of the present law as administered by USDA.

The conference report (rept. 1848), states:

"It is the intent of the conferees that section 18 be construed to apply throughout this legislation, and particularly with regard to section 17." It is necessary then to read section 17 in the light of the intent of the committee and the Congress in which the report states:

Section 17-This section directs the Secretary to establish rules and regulations which would require licensed dealers and research facilities to permit inspection of their animals and records by legally constituted law enforcement agencies. The purpose of this section is to expedite the search for stolen pets. It is the intent of the conferees that inspection under this section be specifically limited to searches for lost and stolen pets by officers of the law (not owners themselves), and that legally constituted law enforcement agencies means agencies with general law enforcement authority and not those agencies whose law enforcement duties are limited to enforcing local animal regulations. It is not intended that this section be used by private citizens or law enforcement officers to harass research facilities. Such officers cannot inspect the animals when the animals are undergoing actual research or experimentation.

Again, if the framers of H.R. 13957 wish only to extend standards for housing and care throughout the laboratory without interference with the research processes, then section 18 should be allowed to remain in the bill but with the words "handling, care" eliminated from this section.

Section 18 would then read:

Sec. 18. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the Secretary to promulgate rules, regulations or orders for the treatment of animals during actual research or experimentation by a research facility as determined by such research facility.

There are several additional comments I would like to make regarding H.R. 13957.

Undoubtedly the inclusion of all warmblooded animals under Public Law 89-544, if H.R. 13957 is enacted, will raise some serious problems and the committee may wish to consider granting the Secretary some discretionary powers in this regard. The law presently requires the Secretary to promulgate standards for six species now covered. The task of preparing comparable standards for the many additional species of animals would be a large and expensive undertaking. Likewise the licensing of livestock dealers who may sell sheep, goats, cattle, or horses for research, exhibition or as pets may be an expensive program to establish and enforce.

The problem of recordkeeping and identification of the smaller research animals, which includes several million mice, rats, and chickens, can possibly be resolved by permitting the Secretary to establish requirements which he considers reasonable and practicable.

The present law may grant him this authority; however, it would be helpful to have this clarified in the committee report.

Public Law 89-544, which H.R. 13957 would amend, has worked rather well in the 4 years since its enactment. Remarkably well, when you consider the budgetary restrictions which have been applied to the Department of Agriculture, as well as to other Federal support

programs.

I am sure that there are some research facilities that do not as yet fully comply with the USDA standards insofar as all cages are concerned. These facilities depend to a large extent on funds derived from both State and Federal sources for improvements.

The passage of the Poage bill in 1966, resulting in Public Law 89-544, has without doubt assisted scientists in obtaining funds for upgrading facilities for the housing and care of laboratory animal facilities, by making the need for such funds more evident to administrators of research and teaching institutions. Some funds were available in the past from Federal sources for upgrading facilities. However, at the present time, and for the past 2 years, funds for construction of medical research facilities have not been available, and the Congress should recognize that new authorizations and appropriations for construction of new laboratory animal facilities will be imperative if H.R. 13957 is passed.

I am not in a position to estimate precisely how much money would be needed, but I would be sure that the Congress should not enact a law calling for expensive new regulatory activities and construction projects without authorizing the necessary funds to implement them. Therefore, I urge that Congress attach an authorization for appropriations both for the regulatory functions of the USDA and for the construction of research laboratory animal facilities through appropriate agencies.

I am indeed sorry that Congressman Whitehurst, the author of the proposed legislation, is not here to comment, not only on the changes we are asking the committee to consider, but also to elaborate on other sections which do not directly affect medical research but could result in great benefits in the welfare of pets, animals in exhibitions and others moving in interstate commerce.

We have discussed this bill with Mr. Whitehurst and members of his staff and believe that the changes we are suggesting meet with their approval. I say this with considerable confidence since Mr. Whitehurst has told me that he does not wish to interfere in any way with biomedical research. The changes we suggest are intended to make this clear without in any way interfering with the major objectives of his bill, which would extend the USDA standards to a rather sizable number of animals not now protected by Public Law 89-544, since they are outside the realm of biomedical research.

And I should say also, to add to the text that I have presented, to give protection to a large additional group of species of animals. We are strongly in favor of humane care and handling of all animals. I am not too familiar with conditions existing in pet shops, exhibitions, zoos, et cetera, but can see no reason why they should not be afforded the same protection that research animals enjoy.

I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to present our views to the ?ommittee.

If there are questions that I can answer or Dr. Harry Kingman, the executive director of the National Society for Medical Research, who is sitting beside me, we shall be very happy to do so.

Mr. PURCELL. Thank you very much, Doctor.

Are there questions of this witness?

Mr. Mayne?

Mr. MAYNE. I know that Congressman Whitehurst regrets very much his inability to be here today. But as I am sure the witness and others in the hearing room are aware, Congressman Whitehurst is one of four Congressmen sent by the President to Southeast Asia on a factfinding mission from which he is just returning today. So he certainly has a very good excuse. But I know that he would have much preferred to be able to be here at the time of this hearing. Mr. ZWACH. Mr. Chairman

Mr. PURCELL. Mr. Zwach.

Mr. ZwACH. I would just like to comment that I would have liked to have been here to introduce the eminent gentleman who has been a long and renowned member of the university staff, and who is speaking on a subject of which he has great knowledge.

Mr. PURCELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Zwach.

Mrs. May?

Mrs. MAY. Dr. Visscher, in your statement you distinguish between the handling and care of animals and the experimentation process. I wonder if you could comment briefly on why you consider this as being so important. And the question often comes up, can they really be separated?

Dr. VISSCHER. I am very glad you have asked this question, Mrs. May, because this is perhaps the most important point that we are dealing with. It is really the ambiguity in the meaning of the word "treatment" that is responsible for our suggestion that this be very carefully defined in the bill. If treatment means handling and care, then of course we are all in favor of having animals under actual research conditions treated with proper care. However, the word "treatment" can also be interpreted to mean the design of the research and the character of the procedures that have to be carried out in order to obtain the knowledge that one is hoping to get from the research studies.

In our opinion it would be unfortunate if there were to be put into the hands of the Secretary of Agriculture or any other official the responsibility for approving or disapproving research design.

Mrs. MAY. Dr. Visscher, if Government inspectors, Federal inspectors are not allowed to exercise any control of the actual experimental work on animals-which is the inference that you have just made, or rather the definition which was given-if they are not permitted to exercise any control of the experimental work on animals, how can we assure the public that there are not serious abuses taking place in the laboratory of the type that we were trying to get at?

Dr. VISSCHER. Well, I first of all would say that so far as I know, Congressman Whitehurst is not really worried about there being sig