54 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
research and in industry. I summarize these additional benefits as 
follows : 
1. H.R. 3556 would save money for taxpayers. 
2. The bill would improve the quality of such medical research. 
And either of these results would justify enactment of the proposed 
law. 
Mr. Chairman, with your permission I wish now to offer substantia- 
tion and proof of some of the statements that I have made about the 
merits of this bill, but, before I do so, I think that I should make a few 
remarks of general nature that will contribute, I hope, to a rational 
and friendly discussion and understanding of H.R. 3556 and of Mrs. 
Griffiths’ bill, H.R. 1937, by both proponents and opponents of this 
kind of legislation. Because I do believe that both scientists and hu- 
manitarians — I probably would be more accurate if I said scientists 
and other humanitarians — are agreed about the desirability of elimi- 
nating preventable suffering, I think that it ought to be possible to 
achieve in this hearing an atmosphere of cooperative effort to reach a 
goal desired by all. 
Mrs. Griffiths will speak for herself. For my own self, I assure you 
that I would not sponsor any bill that would impede beneficial medi- 
cal research. I have heard and read statements that my bill would tie 
scientists up in redtape, that in some way it would hinder the work of 
combatting disease. Were that true, I would withdraw my bill. But 
I have studied this bill very carefully — up to this point probably more 
carefully than anyone else in the Congress — and I so far see no justi- 
fication at all for any contention that the effect of this proposed law 
would be antiscience or would be in any way burdensome to conscien- 
tious research workers. I think that it ought to be noted that all of the 
so-called antivivisection organizations of the United States have regis- 
tered violent opposition to my bill. They oppose the bill because it 
would not interfere with any necessary use of animals in research. 
So I hope that your committee and the Congress, Mr. Chairman, 
will not permit a confusion of the issues before you. Whether ani- 
mals are to be used in research is not at issue. My bill contemplates 
that animals will be used in research of all kinds. The issue before 
you is solely whether, when animals are used, their suffering shall be 
reduced to the minimum possible. 
It may be useful for me to call your attention to some of the techni- 
cal features of H.R. 3556. 
First of all, it should be noted that this bill actually is not ad- 
dressed to scientists or others who use animals in research. Instead, 
the bill is simply a proposal that the Congress impose certain con- 
trols over gifts of Federal funds, and expenditure of Federal funds. 
The bill is addressed to Federal agencies that make grants for medical 
research and that spend money in such research or in allied fields. 
H.R. 3556 would have absolutely no effect on any individual worker 
or institution that is not using Federal funds. The effect would be 
very widely inclusive, of course, because we are this year spending and 
giving away more than $1 billion of Federal money on medical re- 
search, but my bill would not affect any scientist or laboratory that 
did not voluntarily seek public money. 
It seems to me to be eminently reasonable that the Congress should 
impose conditions on grants of the taxpayers’ money. We do the 
