We were recently shocked to learn that a renewal of our lease for office space in Washington, D.C. would cost us 45% more than we are currently paying. Much to our dismay, a quick survey of office space availability in Washington and current prices showed that our landlord was not out of line in his rent increase. The problem in Washington is not the cost of space but finding it.

You might well ask why so many people, so many professionals want to move to Washington, D.C. While it is a beautiful city, all of you who have visited us in Washington know that there are many areas in this country that are much more desirable.

The office space problem in Washington, D.C. is just another indicator that more and more professional and corporate leaders are reluctantly coming to the conclusion that their destiny as well as the day-to-day operation of their business or professional practice is becoming controlled from Washington, D.C. There was a time when only big business, big labor and large national organizations felt the necessity for a continued Washington presence. Oh! How times have changed! How many of you here today have really seriously inventoried the restrictions, the control that is manifested by Washington bureaucracy over your professional practice, and in many instances even your professional judgments?

Historically, many of us have been guilty of overgeneralizing as to the cause of our growing problems in Washington, D.C. We have over-simplified our criticisms by simply making only the government bureaucrat the scapegoat -- the fall guy for our Washington problems. This is not to say that in many instances it is the apathy, the inefficiency or lack of knowledge of the real world by individual bureaucrats that has caused many of our problems. Fairness and equity demand that we look behind the scenes before, in many instances, we can really understand why bureaucrats do what they do, require unreasonable and redundant paperwork, and hand down decisions which you know are not based on good veterinary medicine and experience.

Much of the blame for many of the growing problems which face us in Washington must be laid squarely in the hands of the Congress. It appears that every day Congress becomes less willing to "bite the bullet" -- less willing to pass definitive legislation. Rather than face the hard decisions and express the courage of their convictions, more and more members of Congress would rather pass on the difficult decisions to the courts or to the individual regulators within the bureaucracy.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act is perhaps one of the best examples of congressional unwillingness to enunciate a clear, consistent and enforceable policy. One top congressional staffer called the Marine Mammal Protection Act "a lawyers' welfare act." It is a classic example of an ambiguous statute that seeks to partially please all parties of interest with the unfortunate victim being the very animals that the act purports to protect. Our friends in the bureaucracy find themselves immersed in a quagmire of conflicting pressures and interpretations. They must contend with the decisions of the courts, pressures of environmental groups, the needs and desires of the public display community, and the physical and biological requirements of the species involved. Unfortunately, as some members of this organization know, the physical and biological requirements of the animals have sometimes taken a back seat to the political and legal decisions which in some instances have even resulted in the needless death of animals.

For over three years, we have been trying to promulgate standards for the capture, transportation and maintenance of marine mammals. First of all it took over a year to get the Departments of Agriculture, Interior and Commerce to agree as to which agency should take the lead role in promulgating such standards. The Department of Agriculture has had the responsibility now for almost three years. Agriculture has held public hearings from coast to coast, received volumes of comments and suggestions from some of the finest veterinary and curatorial minds in the country, and legal and drafting services that could fill volumes. We have yet to receive the final proposed standards. (Eds. Note: these standards became effective September 20, 1979.) The bottom line as to why it has taken the Department of Agriculture so long to promulgate the standards is simply that the lawyers of the Department were more interested in securing regulations that could be absolutely enforceable than they were in drafting-regulations that reflected the latest state of the art in the care, treatment and maintenance of marine mammals. However, in defense of the lawyers, we must recognize that Agriculture has been severely criticized by certain environmental groups and members of Congress for not writing black and white regulations so as to insure convictions in the various courts of the country.

I am sure that all of you would agree that it is virtually impossible to write regulations governing the best care and maintenance of any animal without affording maximum input and the ultimate final decision to the attending veterinarian who is on the scene and knows better than anyone else the best procedures for a particular animal in a given situation. Unfortunately, there are some very influential people in Washington who have publicly questioned whether a veterinarian can be trusted to place his professional concern for an animal's welfare over the orders of the client that pays him. Not only has this lack of trust of the professional veterinarian been expressed in public hearings before Congress, it has even been incorporated in regulations. Until recently, for example, a veterinarian employed by an oceanarium could not sign off as to the adequacy of the facilities and animal care of an institution by which he was employed -- the clear inference being that the veterinarian lacked the professional integrity to place the best care of the animals above possible monetary concerns of his clients or employer.

Then there is the Endangered Species Act. I am sure that none of us questions the need and desirability for an effective program and law to protect species of wildlife from becoming extinct or endangered. Once again, however, we have seen that emotion and politics, rather than reason and fact, have prevailed and in many instances endangered species have become endangered as a result of a poorly written statute which obviously cared more for man and the body politic than the animals which desperately need protection. For example, we find it incredible that under the Endangered Species Act, if the Bronx in New York wishes to secure an endangered species from the San Diego Zoo in California for propagation purposes they must obtain a special permit which can take from 60 to 120 days and requires a detailed application; whereas, within the boundaries of any state, any institution or individual can give, sell or transfer any endangered species to another institution or individual without permits or restrictions. Once again, for over three years we have brought every conceivable pressure on the Department of Interior to simplify the exchange of captive-bred endangered species between and among qualified zoological institutions so as to enhance propagation of endangered species. We have been promised that these new regulations will be forthcoming within the next 60 days; however, we have heard that same story many times before.

We are all anxiously awaiting the release of a recently completed study by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) on the Endangered Species Program. During the course of Reauthorization Hearings on the Endangered Species Act just last week, a GAO representative referred to the soon to be issued report, wherein he referred to the Endangered Species Program as "a complex, emotional environmental issue, deliberated and acted on by the 95th Congress."

The GAO representative told the House Committee that the study of his agency indicates that the Department of Interior suffers from "severe management problems." (I hope they didn't spend too much of our taxpayers' money determining this, because many of us could have documented this fact rather easily.) He went on to say that the GAO analysis of the Endangered Species Program indicates that it presently: (1) jeopardizes the existence of some endangered and threatened species resulting in the possible extinction of others; (2) creates unnecessary conflicts between endangered and threatened species and federal, state and private projects; (3) delays Section 7 consultations with federal agencies to resolve conflicts; and (4) hinders efforts to protect and recover endangered and threatened species. Needless to say, once again I am sure the GAO report will result in additional expenditures of hundreds of man hours and thousands of dollars in efforts to resolve the political, emotional and factual conflicts -- many of which should have been settled by Congress when they passed the original act.

Time will not permit me to further address the topic assigned, "the Legal and Political Issues Which Affect the Aquatic Animal Medicine Industry." However, I hope I have given you some indication that these legal and political issues are many and complex, and that there is literally no end in sight to their impact either on you as a professional, or the health care of the animals to which you are so dedicated.