HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 53 
It is with a great deal of regret that I learn that he did not seek 
reelection this time. We have served, as you "probably noticed, side 
by side on this committee for many, many years, and we have always 
had, you might say, almost similar views on legislation, and I am 
sure that I speak the sentiments of all the members of the committee 
when I say we are certainly going to miss you next session, Mr. 
Moulder. 
Mr. Moulder. Thank you, Congressman. 
Mr. Roberts. I know wherever you go and whatever you do, you 
will be just as successful as you have been here. 
STATEMENT OF HON. MORGAN M. MOULDER, A REPRESENTATIVE 
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 
Mr. Moulder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
I am, as you know, the author of H.R. 3556, one of the bills that 
you are today considering. I introduced this bill in the House on 
January 30, 1961, and in the intervening time I have become con- 
stantly more firmly convinced that it is desirable and necessary 
legislation. 
The fundamental purpose of my bill is to provide for humane treat- 
ment of animals used in experiment and research by recipients of fi- 
nancial grants from the United States and by agencies of the U.S. 
Government. 
There is a moral imperative behind this purpose. I am sure that the 
entire American people agree that cruelty, whether to other human 
beings or to animals, is immoral. To cause or to permit pain that 
can be prevented or avoided is morally wrong. There is no doubt in 
my mind that the American people, including all of our scientists, 
agree on this premise. 
We of the Congress recognized and acted on this same issue when, 
in 1958, we enacted into law the Federal “humane slaughter” law, 
which quickly brought about a beneficient reform of methods of kill- 
ing livestock in our packing plants. The law of the United States 
and of the several States and political subdivisions of the Nation con- 
tains many other precedents that reveal the agreement of our people 
that cruelty is immoral and should and must be prevented, when 
necessary, by law. 
I doubt that there can be found anyone who will soberly oppose the 
idea that animals used in medical research and in the production of 
pharmaceuticals — and I quote now from my bill — 
shall be spared avoidable pain, stress, discomfort, and fear, that they shall be 
used only when no other feasible and satisfactory method can be used to obtain 
necessary scientific information for the cure of disease, alleviation of suffering, 
prolongation of life, or for military requirements, that the number of animals used 
for these purposes shall be ijeduced as far as possible, and that all animals so 
used shall be comfortably housed, well fed, and humanely treated. 
I have never met a scientist, or anyone else, who did not agree that 
these are desirable and morally imperative objectives. 
H.R. 3556, in my opinion, is practical and sensible legislation that 
would achieve the fundamental purpose that I have defined. The bill 
should be enacted into law even if it had no other purpose of merit. 
But this bill would have further effects that would be directly bene- 
ficial to our people as well as to the animals that we use in medical 
