Senator Inhofe. I will start with you, Mr. Bibi.  Something that was going through my mind during your testimony is, it would appear to me that we could be subjecting ourselves, if this type of behavior would continue, with losing some of our top scientists, researchers and others to countries, as I said in my opening statement, like China and India and other places.  Do you have any thought about that?

Mr. Bibi. I would tend to agree with you, sir.  Scientists deserve the right to conduct their vital research in a safe and secure environment.  If proper protections are not afforded by our Country to permit that, I have little doubt that unfortunately they would look elsewhere.

Recent developments in the U.K. are perhaps instructive in this regard.  ItÕs been reported in the press that as the animal rights terrorism issue grew significantly worse over the past couple of years, the CEOs of a number of leading British pharmaceutical companies confirmed directly to Prime Minister Blair that they would not spend one additional dollar on research facilities in the U.K. until the matter was brought under control.

In fact, I read in the newspaper just this week that a number of African countries, including South Africa, have made an affirmative effort to reach out to the scientific community in the United Kingdom and the United States to say, come work here, it is going to be safer for you to do so.

Senator Inhofe. ThatÕs interesting.

Mr. Boruchin, we hear about this type of perverted terrorism, and you never think about it being close to home, at least I donÕt, until I read your testimony before this hearing.  I think you and Mr. Bibi have both been personally subjected to something thatÕs just__itÕs hard to believe that that could happen in Oklahoma.

I would ask you, you mentioned free speech.  Having been the target of this for the last three years, do you think that SHACÕs form of activism is protected by free speech?  You may not have the background to respond to that, but IÕm sure you have talked to others and gotten opinions.  What do you think?

Mr. Boruchin. My personal opinion would be that by removing my freedoms to advance their beliefs, I donÕt believe that is protected by free speech.

Senator Inhofe. The idea of the listing, and Mr. Bernard, of course, we want to hear from you on this, but do you think that it is a costly thing either to you, or you might answer the same thing, Mr. Bibi, on not achieving the listing that you had anticipated you would receive?

Mr. Bibi. Obviously, the postponement of our listing has had a very negative effect on our company and our stockholders.  The confidential review process that Mr. Bernard alluded to was in fact conducted in connection with our application early in the process.  That would have been the time, obviously, for any issues or concerns to have been raised.  In fact it was not, and we were affirmatively told in writing that we had cleared the eligibility review process and were invited to submit the formal application.

The fact that our listing was postponed only after it had been made public has been nothing short of disastrous, quite frankly.  Our stock price, for example, had traded consistently in the $12 to $14 range in the weeks leading up to the announcement of the listing, closing at $14.05 on the day before that announcement.  On the day of the listing, the stock traded up as high as $18.30 a share, before closing at $16 a share.  On the day before the listing was postponed, we closed at $17.50 a share.  And then on the day when we announced the postponement, we fell $2.50 to $15.00 a share, or roughly $30 million or so, immediately out of our shareholdersÕ investment portfolios as a direct result of that.

For a couple of weeks after the announcement, three or four weeks after the announcement, the stock held roughly in the $14 range, and I can only speculate that the investment community believed that the New York Stock Exchange simply had to list us.  It was inconceivable that that would not be the case.  Regrettably, it appears that the investment community is now losing faith in the likelihood of the Stock Exchange doing the right thing, as our stock has now traded down to about $10 a share.

So roughly $100 million of market value has been lost, as well, if we are ultimately denied the listing, we would lose all the benefits that the New York Stock Exchange offers, in terms of increased liquidity, better stock platform.

Senator Inhofe. And I would assume, Mr. Boruchin, that you have suffered similar types of economic loss.

Mr. Boruchin. IÕm a little confused.  As I understood, the company met all the requirements of the New York Stock Exchange.  I know there are two other companies that do similar testing in their business, and they are on the Exchange.

For me personally, it probably would have resulted in a loss of income, because as a market maker, I am not on the New York Stock Exchange.  However, the other side is, the target on my back probably would have been eliminated.  I question why they are not on the Exchange, and am concerned, as you are, whether the terrorists, SHAC, had any influence on that.

Senator Inhofe. We have a witness we will be asking those questions of.

Before we do that, I would like to ask my two colleagues if there is any objection to taking a little bit longer on each one.  We do have a vote at 4:15, and if we could just have a little bit longer than the five minutes, if thatÕs all right.

Mr. Bernard, you had used the term postponing and deferring the listing.  Is it your anticipation that the process is still ongoing, or would you like to respond to any of the comments that have been made concerning the Exchange?

Mr. Bernard. The process is ongoing, and I otherwise have no comment.

Senator Inhofe. Okay.  Dr. Vlasak, do your fellow animal rights activists understand that animal testing is required by law and therefore the people who are performing this testing are merely following the law.  Do they understand that, and do you understand that?

Dr. Vlasak. I understand that they are merely following the law, and the law in this case is wrong, just like the law that allowed slavery was wrong at one time.

Senator Inhofe. Well, you mentioned slavery, you also mentioned slavery in several of the comments that you made, as well as your testimony.  You analogized the plight of animals to that of the African-American slaves of early American history, asserting that the animal rights movement is similar to that of the Underground Railroad.  You even at one time or several times have talked about the Jews in Nazi Germany.

It sounds to me, in looking at this, like youÕre evaluating the lives of human beings in a similar way that you are animals. Do you think animalsÕ lives are as precious as human life?

Dr. Vlasak. Non-human lives, non-human animal lives, are as precious as animal lives.  At one time, racism and sexism and homophobism were prominent in our society.  Today speciesism is prominent in our society.  It is just as wrong as racism.

Senator Inhofe. So you do put them in the same category, the animals of non-human and human lives?  Is that correct?

Dr. Vlasak. They are morally equal.

Senator Inhofe. They are morally equal?

Dr. Vlasak. They are.

Senator Inhofe. One of the statements you made at the animal rights convention when you were defending assassinating people, murdering people, you said, let me put it up here to make sure IÕm not misquoting you, ÒI donÕt think youÕd have to kill, assassinate too many.  I think for five lives, ten lives, fifteen human lives, we could save a million, two million, or ten million non-human lives.ÕÕ 

YouÕre advocating the murder of individuals, isnÕt that correct?

Dr. Vlasak. I made that statement, and I stand by that statement.  That statement is made in the context that the struggle for animal liberation is no different than struggles for liberation elsewhere, whether the struggle for liberation in South Africa against the apartheid regime, whether the liberation against the communists, whether it was the liberation struggles in Algeria, Viet Nam or Iraq today, liberation struggles occasionally or usually, I should say, usually end up in violence.

There is plenty of violence being used on the other side of the equation.  These animals are being terrorized, murdered and killed by the millions every day.  The animal rights movement has been notoriously non-violent up to this point.

But I donÕt believe that__I believe as my statement says __

Senator Inhofe. Let me interrupt.  You said it has been notoriously non-violent up to this time?

Dr. Vlasak. That is correct.

Senator Inhofe. You donÕt think there is violence in the testimony youÕve heard?

Dr. Vlasak. I think when you compare the 500 animals being murdered every single day at Huntingdon Life Sciences, which is just one company, I think when you look at the amount of violence that goes on at Mr. BoruchinÕs house, getting a little spray paint on the wall, I think if you look at the amount of violence that went on at this yacht club in New York, where again some spray paint was slapped up on a wall, I donÕt think you can compare that kind of vandalism with the murder of millions of animals.

Senator Inhofe. And so you call for the murders of researchers and human life?

Dr. Vlasak. I said in that statement and I meant in that statement that people who are hurting animals and who will not stop when told to stop, one option would be to stop them using any means necessary and that was the context in which that statement was made.

Senator Inhofe. Including murdering them, is that correct?

Dr. Vlasak. Pardon?

Senator Inhofe. Including murdering them?

Dr. Vlasak. I said that would be a morally justifiable solution to the problem.

Senator Inhofe. Senator Lautenberg.

Senator Lautenberg. Dr. Vlasak, you approve of these dastardly acts in the name of liberation, of a liberation movement.  Do you have any children?

Dr. Vlasak. I have no children.  And just to be clear, I donÕt approve of any unnecessary suffering.  And I wish these things didnÕt have to happen.

Senator Lautenberg. Fine.  You do.  And what you have said confirms it.  So I just want to go there.  I want to know who you are, what makes you tick.  Because it is so revolting to hear what you say about the murder.  These arenÕt extermination camps.  WhatÕs being done, whether you like it or not, is to try and improve the quality of life for human beings.  This isnÕt Germany.

How do you feel about people, you said you think people who have a cause have a right to violence.  How about the guys who kill our soldiers and who killed the people in the Trade Towers?  They have a cause.  Is that okay with you?

Dr. Vlasak. No.  Unnecessary loss of life is never okay with me. I extend that loss of life to animal life, non-human animal life as well.

Senator Lautenberg. YouÕre the super moralist, youÕre deciding where itÕs right and where itÕs wrong.  Many people who have causes, some of them justified, but to take tactics like the intimidation of people to spoil their lives or spoil their ability to make a living is an outrageous thing to propose.  YouÕre anti-social in your behavior, obviously.  But to sit here so smugly and be proud of the fact that you stand by this statement about five or ten lives, if those lives were your kids, well, maybe you donÕt have anybody you love.  You donÕt have any kids.

Can I ask you a question?  Mr. BoruchinÕs life has been exposed, credit card numbers, everything else.  Where did you go to medical school?

Dr. Vlasak. I attended medical school at the University of Texas, in Houston.

Senator Lautenberg. And where do you practice now?

Dr. Vlasak. I practice in the Los Angeles area.

Senator Lautenberg. At a hospital?

Dr. Vlasak. I do.  A number of hospitals.

Senator Lautenberg. What is your favorite, what is your dominant hospital activity?

Dr. Vlasak. I practice at several hospitals in the Riverside and San Bernadino area.

Senator Lautenberg. Name one.

Dr. Vlasak. Loma Linda University.

Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think in terms of the New York Stock Exchange, a place I am familiar with through my earlier business life, ADP, and also my company, my ex-company, provided restoration of activities after 9/11.  The assault took place on a Tuesday and by Monday, my company, my ex- company, without contract, without pricing discussions, had a company named Cantor Fitzgerald back and operating, in less than six days, never had any business with them before.

So I am directly involved, have been, and we listed on the New York Stock Exchange.  We could subpoena records, I guess, Mr. Chairman, and find out why it is that the New York Stock Exchange decided not to permit this companyÕs listing.  Because if all things are in order, this isnÕt the local golf club or something.  Someone applies and they have the qualifications financially and there is no scandal attached, I assume that you have no right not to list.  Is that so, Mr. Bernard?

Mr. Bernard. No, sir, thatÕs not so.  Those so-called blackline criteria are the minimum bar, and the Exchange has the right, in its rules approved by the SEC, to bring in other factors in making a listing decision.

Senator Lautenberg. Right.  But if they meet the criteria thatÕs established, is someone saying, I donÕt like the way he combs his hair or something?

Mr. Bernard. Well, itÕs certainly not to be trivialized, but the Exchange has minimum criteria that are financial and corporate governance.

Senator Lautenberg. Right.

Mr. Bernard. After that, itÕs making a business decision, just as ADP would in choosing to help Cantor Fitzgerald, for which ADP should be very much appreciated.

Senator Lautenberg. I think we ought to go further.

Dr. Vlasak, how do you feel about animals like rats and mice?  The use of experimentation on them to see how they react to different medications, things of that nature, would you permit that?

Dr. Vlasak. I think itÕs a hugely wasteful use of scarce resource dollars that we have in the medical industry.  We have much better ways of showing whether a drug is toxic to a human being or not, rather than choking it down a ratÕs or a mouseÕs throat.

I think from a scientific standpoint __

Senator Lautenberg. If they are injected __

Dr. Vlasak. Pardon?

Senator Lautenberg. If they are injected with a material, is that okay?

Dr. Vlasak. As I was trying to explain to you, I think from a scientific standpoint, there is so little validity to doing that that weÕre wasting hundreds of millions of scarce health care dollars.  Even if it did work, though, and it doesnÕt, but even if it did, IÕd still be against it.  Because the same reason IÕm against the experimentation that happened on human beings against their will, whether it was in Nazi concentration camps or whether it was here in the United States __

Senator Lautenberg. We shouldnÕt experiment on human beings.

Dr. Vlasak. There were people who were experimented on against their will.  They got good, useful results and they published it in the same medical journals that I read today.  But it was wrong.  Whether it worked or not doesnÕt matter.

Senator Lautenberg. Since I have the mic on this side, I would prefer that we follow my line.  So you would say, there is something called the Lautenberg Cancer Research Center.  I helped establish that, because my father died when he was 43 years old.  He got sick at age 42, he worked in a mill in Patterson, New Jersey, as did his brother, my uncle.  He died when he was 52, also cancer, their father died also of cancer when he was 56.

And when I had the good fortune of success in business, I put some resources into a group of New Jersey scientists who were moving abroad, to learn more about cancer research.  After watching my father suffer for a year, 13 months, he was athletic, he was strong, he exercised, he was very careful about his diet, I had enlisted in the Army when my dad finally died, and I made the decision then that I would do whatever I can to try and prevent another family from undergoing the same torture and grief, the same individual.

But you are so smug, if youÕll forgive me, about what is right and what is wrong.  If I asked you a question about mice, mice that are raised particularly, Mr. Chairman, for learning more about the anatomy of the animal and see if we can convert that.  And right now, there is all kinds of talk about using, even using animal organs for life saving.  You wouldnÕt permit that, would you?

Dr. Vlasak. Well, IÕm sorry to say that your organization is wasting money on mice and rat experimentation, when we know much better ways to find cures for human beings.

Senator Lautenberg. IÕll tell the scientists there about that.

Dr. Vlasak. Let me just address the transplantation issue that you brought up.  As you know, transplantation, or placing animal organs into human beings, thatÕs not going to work.  It hasnÕt worked, and itÕs not going to work any time in the near future.  We have a hard enough time transplanting human organs into human beings and all the immunosuppressives that are required to do that.

Senator Lautenberg. We canÕt find them all that we need.

Dr. Vlasak. Well, we could, if we had a presumed consent law, for instance.  If you guys would pass a law that says everybodyÕs an organ donor unless proven otherwise, or unless they declare they donÕt want to be.  This has been done in Belgium, they get all the organs they need by doing laws like that.

There is not a shortage of organs absolutely, there is a shortage of organs that we can get at the last minute.  I deal in trauma patients, I see people die every day.  I save lives, but I lose lives sometimes as well.

Senator Lautenberg. But youÕre willing to take lives.  ThatÕs the anomaly here.  You are willing to say that somebody you donÕt know, somebodyÕs kid, somebodyÕs parent, somebodyÕs brother, somebodyÕs sister, take that life, thatÕs okay.

Dr. Vlasak. These are not innocent lives.

Senator Lautenberg. YouÕll teach those SOBs a lesson about killing those mice or killing those animals, or doing experimentation thatÕs going to make this world__why are we living longer?  It is because we experimented in different ways.  And for you to sit there and you decide what the proper course of action is in the sanctity of your practice and the rules of your club here, which is identified in your statement, Òmorally acceptable,ÕÕ I donÕt want to waste my own energy any more.

Mr. Chairman, this is an outrage to have an individual sit here and impose a standard that is supposed to fit all of society.  I donÕt know whether, at Mr. BibiÕs company, everything they do is exactly right.  I know that what theyÕre trying to do is to help us live better lives, all of us.  And I hope that they continue.

And when I see a kid down here, at Walter Reed Hospital, whoÕs lost a leg or lost a part of his body, and they find ways, because they have experimented with things, maybe to regrow even bone, itÕs fantastic, and I want it to continue.  And you have no right to intimidate people who are engaged in a proper practice under our laws.  You want the law changed?  Write letters.  Come down here and ask for a change in law about whether or not animal experimentation is right.  DonÕt take the law into your own hands.  ThatÕs a bad mistake.

Dr. Vlasak. HLS isnÕt trying to save human lives.  TheyÕre trying to turn a profit, nothing else.

Senator Inhofe. Senator Lautenberg, thank you.  I think you and I can go a long ways to correcting what we have seen here today with the law that we are introducing, and I look forward to working with you on the floor of the Senate to make sure that we get this thing passed and give the FBI and the Department of Justice the necessary tools to stop this type of perversion in our society.

My son called me up right before this hearing, he noticed we are having this hearing.  HeÕs a doctor.  He said, at some point, you need to explain to them that itÕs either going to be the lives of these animals or human life.  When I call him back, Dr. Vlasak, that we have a witness who equates animals lives with human lives, then that takes away all the argument.  If you believe that in your own heart, what you do, and you have advocated the assassination, the murder of human lives, of human beings, of researchers, then I donÕt see any reason to go any further with this.

I can just assure you that we are going to give law enforcement the necessary tools to stop this type of thing from happening.  I can assure you of that.  ThatÕs not a maybe, thatÕs a definite.

And the rest of you, for having the courage to come here and relate this to us today, I can assure you that there are many members who arenÕt here who are on this panel whose staff is here.  They will be submitting questions for the record to all four of you.  I hope that you will be able to respond to those, and I can assure you, this has been a very useful hearing.  I appreciate your presence here.

We are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]