In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the committee and to you for the opportunity of discussing our financial needs for next year. We feel sure when you have considered all of the facts that you will agree that the States must have the full $325,819,000 in the request if we are to do the kind of a job that you and others expect of us. Thank you. RANDOLPH COMMITTEE ON UNEMPLOYMENT Senator HILL. You referred to the report of the Special Committee on Unemployment Problems and yesterday we appointed a subcommittee to our Committee of Labor and Public Welfare, the subcommittee to be headed by Senator Randolph of West Virginia to carry on this study, so you will have that subcommittee, headed by Senator Randolph, who will continue to gather the facts about this matter of employment and unemployment, you see. Now, Senator Monroney, I know of your particular interest in this problem. Do you have any questions? Senator MONRONEY. I appreciate your very full statement, Mr. Harding. I would like to ask you if it is not a fact that in perhaps straining to reduce the $5 million administrative cost, we might not buildup, due to the lack of proper Federal-State employment services, or keeping the rolls clean of those who are malingering, even a far greater cost than the $5 million would add to your administrative capabilities? Mr. HARDING. Senator, I think you are absolutely right. You will appreciate the fact that we are paying benefits to a great number of workers and, in order to pay benefits to those that are entitled to them and at the same time deny benefits to those who should not receive them, it is necessary that we have sufficient funds to investigate and determine the availability of those that apply for benefits. I certainly agree with your statement. Senator MONRONEY. Then you also sometimes have to follow up to see if a man referred to a job had a real reason for declining a job. rather than merely to stay on unemployment compensation, is that right? Mr. HARDING. You are absolutely right. Senator MONRONEY. Only by meeting the budget requirements of administrative funds can this program run as the Congress and the States intended it to run and that is to make benefits available to those who justly and truly need them and cannot find employment, is that not right? Mr. HARDING. Again you are right and I am glad you appreciate the fact that we must handle the great number of individuals that file claims in our office and if all of our time and effort is consumed in merely handing a check to these individuals we certainly will not have the time which is necessary to make sure that they are not paid to those that should not receive them. JOB DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES Senator MONRONEY. You are anxious to create more jobs through your area of industrial opportunity development and the youth program and other programs of that kind, are you not? Mr. HARDING. We have made considerable advance in recent years, I think, in our job development activities. Our economy at the present time is changing very rapidly. It is a very dynamic economy and we must continue our efforts, under this economy, in our job development activities to make it possible for our people to improve their employment opportunities and at the same time make it possible for employers to have the number of workers that they need to man the jobs which are developing. Senator MONRONEY. I want to thank you for your very careful documentation and a fine statement. Senator HILL. I want to join with Senator Monroney in thanking you for your fine statement. You came a long way, coming from the State of Utah, and we thank you for that, too. Mr. HARDING. I certainly appreciate the opportunity of being here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRANTS TO STATES FOR EMPLOYMENT SERVICES Senator HILL. Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine, a member of this committee, desired to be with us today, but due to other committee obligations was unable to do so. She has written me a letter however concerning the reduction by the House in the employment service grant program of the Department of Labor. Senator Smith's letter will appear at this point in the record. (The letter referred to follows:) U.S. SENATE, Hon. LISTER HILL, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I have received a communication from Mr. Adrian T. Cloutier, chairman of the Maine Employment Security Commission, in which he states among other things: "The House reduced the grants to States appropriation by $5 million to $320,819,000. If this cut stands, its effect will be to reduce the operations of the State agencies below the level of the current year. You will recall the agency's correspondence with you at the start of this fiscal year when we pointed out the desperate situation we were in due to reduced appropriations and allocation of funds. "The request to the House of $325,819,000 was $10 million higher than the amount for the present year 1960. All of this $10 million is necessary to maintain the 1960 level of operations; $7.5 million is for expected salary increases during the year, $1.6 million is for the workloads associated with the normal growth in the number of employers and workers covered by the unemployment insurance program, and the balance of the $10 million is to meet a minimum increase in the cost of rents, equipment, and rents premises. "The $5 million reduction by the House is the equivalent of about 1,000 fewer jobs in the State agencies. The reduction would only permit the States to process workloads associated with 1.3 million level of insured unemployment instead of the conservative 1.4 million level in the request. Currently insured unemployment is running at a level of about 1.7 million on an annual basis and States will enter the new year at a higher level than anticipated thus increasing the likelihood that the level for 1961 will be above the request. "Other factors which make the need to restore the $5 million of utmost importance include the fact that with States (California, Illinois, Connecticut, North Carolina, Idaho, and Vermont) amending their State unemployment compensation laws to provide for additional weeks of benefits when unemployment reaches a fixed level. If unemployment reaches the predetermined level in any or all of these States a large workload will have to be processed that would not have been necessary prior to the amendment of the law. Payment of benefits under these new provisions in California went into effect April 1 of this year. "There has also been an increased demand for the service of the public employment service. As a result placement and other workloads are running at peak levels. Reductions in the program would be detrimental to the best interests of workers seeking jobs including older workers, youth, the physically handicapped, and other similar groups whose needs have frequently been the subject of congressional interests." I would appreciate this letter being made a part of the hearing record. MARGARET CHASE SMITH, U.S. Senator. PROPER QUARTERS FOR DOGS STATEMENTS OF MRS. PAYTON HAWES DUNN, WARDS, WELFARE OF ANIMALS USED FOR RESEARCH IN DRUGS AND SURGERY, WASHINGTON, D.C.; MRS. HELEN E. JONES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CATHOLIC SOCIETY FOR ANIMAL WELFARE; FRED MYERS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES; AND MRS. ANN COTTREL FREE GENERAL STATEMENT Senator HILL. We will next hear from Mrs. Peyton Hawes Dunn and several other witnesses on the same matter, and Mrs. Helen E. Jones and Mr. Fred Myers. Mrs. Dunn, I had the great honor of serving in the House of Representatives and also the Senate with your very distinguished father, the Honorable Harry Hawes from Missouri, and we certainly welcome you here this morning and are delighted to have you with us. I see Mrs. Ann Cottrel Free. Would you like to come around and join us because I know how deeply interested you are in this matter and also I have a letter here from Mrs. Free on this matter of the care of our dogs by the Food and Drug Administration and I also have some clippings which she has very kindly furnished me with her letter and I shall place this letter, Mrs. Free, together with your clippings at this point in the record of the committee. (The material referred to follows:) Hon. LISTER HILL, MAY 4, 1960. Chairman, Health, Education, and Welfare Appropriations Subcommittee, DEAR SENATOR HILL: As a newspaper correspondent greatly concerned over the housing of the Food and Drug dogs, I am happy to provide for the record some of my findings in regard to FDA's proposed "special pharmacological research facility." Not unlike some members of the HEW subcommittee when first hearing FDA's estimates for the facility, I was unfamiliar with costs of this type of structure combining laboratory, office, and animal quarters. Therefore, I have undertaken some research into costs of similar establishments. I have talked to veterinarians, pharmacologists, animal welfare experts, architects, engineers, accountants, and contractors, both in and out of Government. It appears that FDA estimates-if the requirements of its scientists are to be met are in line with costs of similar facilities. Though precise comparisons cannot be made, FDA's estimates do not differ greatly from total actual costs (adjusted to rise of costs) of the animal hospital and dog and cat buildings at the National Institutes of Health. NIH's buildings receive heat from a central plant, whereas FDA's facility will provide its own and other basic mechanical equipment. FDA's requirements differ somewhat from those of NIH due to the nature of the long-term tests. The new animal annex of the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in New Mexico provides a better comparison. The Atomic Energy Commission states that this 11,500-square foot structure costs $305,000. Thus, the cost per square foot was $26.52, somewhat more expensive than the square foot cost of the FDA proposed facility. Exclusive of the cost of approaches, sewers, etc., the proposed FDA pharmacological facility is estimated at $24 a square foot with outside space to be occupied by the dogs, of course, costing much less-under $10 a square foot. The dog space-inside and out-for the FDA facility is estimated at about $17.60 a square foot. This includes duct work, provisions for heat, plumbing for drains and water connections for daily hosing, specially surfaced walls and floors, and other detailed requirements of the FDA pharmacologists— making it different from the specifications and costs of an average kennel. The Los Alamos building includes inside-outside runs for its long-term beagles. It is air conditioned and provides radiant heat. It also provides auxiliary lighting and heating should normal power fail. Dr. Thomas Shipman, director of the Los Alamos health division, maintains that expenditure of these funds will save money in the future and insure greater accuracy in the results of the experiments. FDA's estimates also are in keeping with the animal quarters at Georgetown, George Washington, and Howard Universities. The quarters at the latter two are air conditioned. The first two were financed in part under the NIH health research facilities construction program. Some of the matching funds were furnished by WARDS. Further justification of FDA's estimates can be found in the American Animal Hospital Association's authoritative "Planning Your Animal Hospital" volume published in 1956. It states: "Considering 1955 building costs, it can be said that suitable construction can seldom be obtained for less than $25 a square foot, and if the finish is detailed, the price is seldom less than $35 a square foot." The book's editor, Dr. Wayne Riser-here on a research project at Walter Reed Hospital-agrees that the FDA estimates are definitely in keeping with costs for this type of construction. In the "Architects' Estimator and Cost Reference Guide of 1957" construction costs for laboratories was listed to average $24.50 per square foot, not including separate mechanical facility buildings. Applying the current construction cost index to this figure, the comparable construction today would average $28.60 per square foot. (The NIH dental building, now under construction illustrates how meeting special needs pushes up costs. It is running about $39 a square foot.) Engineers and architects at the Federal Housing Agency, the Home Builders Association and the Associated General Contractors stated that costs of residential buildings and laboratory and animal quarters buildings are not comparable. The former always runs a great deal less. One architect said, "Envision your living room cut up into cubicles. Then surface your walls and floors with material that will withstand daily steaming or washing with sanitizing solvents. Visualize, also, the plumbing need with a drain to each compartment. This will only begin to give you an idea of the difference." Though laboratory-animal quarters usually cost more than humane society shelters, FDA estimates for total basic facility do not differ greatly from the costs of the modern Baltimore County Humane Society shelter. It has radiant heat and floors of terrazo, which are considered desirable both from humane and long-term economic reasons. If the beagles were to be housed humanely-with space and fresh air and daylight-in FDA's proposed $25 million midtown building, known as FOB 8, they would occupy space costing $36 a square foot. These costs run higher than the usual office building because each room is fitted out for actual or potential laboratory use. When FDA draws up its final plans and specifications, undoubtedly it will consult further with other institutions with similar facilities. It will findas I have that the space it is now planning to allocate to each dog is less than the average. It plans on 3 by 6 feet inside and 3 by 10 feet outside. Inside pens of about 4 by 6 feet and outside runs of 4 by 12 feet are considered more desirable. Also, FDA may find that other institutions (such as Los Alamos) --equally concerned about contagious diseases-permit their dogs more companionship than FDA contemplates. Barriers between pens are not so high that each dog is in virtual solitary confinement. And in some cases more than one dog shares a pen. If FDA scientists could devise some means for dogs eating separately so as not to upset the feeding tests, perhaps two dogs could be assigned to a pen. This could cut down on the number of pens and would be more humane. If the proposed FDA facility is approved by the Congress, it will be more than a year possibly before its completion. Therefore, the question is being raised as to whether FDA intends to make any provisions for offering some temporary relief for these constantly caged dogs. Though there is no substitute for a proper facility such as is proposed, it has been suggested that for the time being some parts of the subbasement garage of the South Building of Agriculture could be used for temporary runways used on a rotating basis. General Services Administration, I understand, on request from FDA, could allocate this space which virtually adjoins the dog rooms in the subbasement of that building. The Appropriations Committee's policy declaration on providing better quarters for test animals, I faithfully report, has received warm nationwide applause. Sincerely yours, ANN COTTRELL FREE. [From the Sunday Star, Washington, D.C., Nov. 15, 1959] A HUMANE QUESTION: PROPER CARE FOR SCIENCE'S ANIMALS (By Ann Cottrell Free, contributing writer) The increase in the use of animals in medical, military and space science has created a new national industry and has brought with it problems now attracting congressional concern. Few persons outside the test laboratories know that more than 51 million animals will be used this year for research. Mass production and consumption brings headaches. But recent events here make clear that if dividends are to be realized in dollars, discoveries, and good will, top priority must be given to the care, breeding and handling of these servants of humanity. "Good care is good business" emerged as the synthesis of a recent 3-day session here of 700 experts in the test-animal world. They were scientists, veterinarians, humanitarians, animal breeders, makers of cage equipment and dog, mouse, and monkey food. Each had an important connection with this mushrooming $232million-a-year business-which may have a far-reaching effect on the destiny of the American people. These experts at the 10th Animal Care Panel were still feeling their way in this new complex field, even to the point of seeking clearer definitions of good care. They found a valuable guidepost in the first congressional policy statement on this subject. The Senate Appropriations Committee recently declared that providing "suitable and comfortable" quarters for animals used in Federal research is a "proper expense." BRITISH AUTHORITIES HERE Two visiting high authorities on Great Britain's laboratory animal law reminded the panel, indirectly, of what could lie ahead. The holding of the panel here pointed up the fact that Washington occupies a unique position in the test-animal kingdom. What happens here, both from the standpoint of policy and research, can influence the Nation. Few places use so many animals to fight so many different battles for man. The enemies they are pitted against range from deadly cancer to colors and chemicals added to food, medicines and cosmetics. Also their care and quarters vary from the ideal to the medievally inadequate. One million mice are being used by the National Cancer Institute alone in its $22 million chemotherapy program. Larger animals, even horses and cows, are employed at the Army's nearby Fort Detrick, Md., in germ and chemical warfare tests. Pigeons, beagle hounds as well as rodents are used by the Food and Drug Administration to test the purity of many products. |