HUMANE TREATMENT OP ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 213 
are pressed for time, and when you are weary with many problems 
at the end of a Congress. 
But if I may say so, with the utmost respect, the fact that this 
hearing is only now being held, and that a relatively very few hours 
were allocated to the purpose, indicates that the Congress is not yet 
aware of the significance of these bills. 
The House has appropriately referred this legislation to its Com- 
mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, but I wonder whether 
the members of the committee realize what a magnitude of interstate 
commerce is here involved. We are talking about a problem that in- 
volves the use of 300 million animals a year. 
Very recently, quite recently, a sober and responsible spokesman, 
addressing a meeting of scientists concerned with this problem, pre- 
dicted to them that by the year 1970 the value of the animals to be 
used annually in research and allied pursuits would equal the mone- 
tary value of all of the livestock produced by all of America’s farms 
and ranches, and this is not a fantastic statement. 
A Commission appointed by the Senate some months ago, headed 
by Boisfeuillet Jones of Emory University, predicted to the Senate 
that by the year 1970 the laboratory interests will be asking the Con- 
gres for more than $2 million a year for this purpose. 
We are, in other words, talking about something which is a major 
part of interstate commerce of the United States. And I believe, 
in response to a question addressed by the chairman to a previous 
speaker, that it is entirely possible that the interstate comerce magni- 
tude of this subject would provide a basis for law applying to the 
entire subject, without relevance to the limitation imposed by grants. 
Mr. Roberts. Mr. Myers, let me break in at that point. How does 
this get to be an interstate commerce problem? I agree with you, 
but I would like for you to explain it. 
Mr. Myers. Well, virtually all of the animals now being used, the 
300 million per year, are in interstate commerce, just as are hogs, 
sheep, cattle, and other livestock. And the Congress has found it 
very easy under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution in 
many ways to regulate the livestock industry. 
I believe, therefore, that there would be no constitutional impedi- 
ment to a different approach to this problem. We have proposed 
Mr. Rogers of Florida. May I ask a question ? 
Mr. Myers. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Rogers of Florida. Do you mean that these 300 million are 
shipped from one State to another ? 
Mr. Myers. Yes, sir. And there are other interstate commerce 
aspects of the problem, such as the flow of funds, the flow of people 
involved — if you go back to all of the precedents that involve the labor 
laws, for example, you will find that in this situation there are so many 
aspects of interstate commerce that it clearly is accessible to regulation 
under that constitutional clause. 
Mr. Roberts. Now, right along that same line, what about the inter- 
state handling of cattle and swine, lamb, and other meat products ? 
Mr. Myers. Well, the Congress did, for example, in — I think it was 
1908 — and it has subsequently by amendment, enacted a law governing 
the conditions under which livestock are to be shipped ; that is, by the 
railroads in interstate commerce. 
