recently, as the attorney for the Indiana Optometric Association. As I stated earlier, from this vantage point, I hope to be able to discuss with you some of the problems in the eye care field as it relates to protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.

H.R. 12937 is, in my mind, designed to eliminate some of the problems in the District of Columbia, and for this reason, I believe it is commendable that you are taking your time to discuss this legislation.

Let me preface my remarks by saying that it seems to me that this bill, this particular bill, is no different from any other legislation which you, as Members of the Congress, are called upon to consider. Basically, you will examine it to see, as you do others, to determine whether or not it is in fact legislation that is needed. Certainly, you will want to know why it is needed. Then you will proceed, I think, to determine whether or not this particular bill provides the maximum benefit and protection to the public and does so with the least amount of inequities and detriments, perhaps, to other affected and interested groups.

We think this bill accomplishes this desirable end even though we recognize, as you do, that it does not have some of the changes needed for clarifying the present statute.

Anybody looking at this bill may ask why the present bill is necessary. I think the primary answer is that the use of eyeglasses in this country today touches every family, touches the old and the young, the poor and the rich. No one looking around this room can question that practically everybody in this room uses eyeglasses. Fortunately, I have not come to that point yet, but I think it is fair to say that practically everybody in this room is affected in some way by the use of glasses.

Mr. DOWDY. I do not wear mine except when I want to see.
Mr. McNEVIN. That is the most important time.

Thus, from an economic standpoint, there is a big market for the end product, the eyeglasses. Whenever there is a big market or demand, a large demand from the economic standpoint, there seems to be a corresponding readiness to meet this demand and, in some instances, to capitalize on it. This brings forward, in my opinion, to opposing groups, particularly in the eye care field; that is, the professionals and the nonprofessionals, the one group being concerned exclusively, in my opinion, with professional service, service to the person who finds himself in need of buying eyeglasses, without the commercial exploitation of the uninformed, the other being concerned, I think primarily with commercialism and, therefore, resting on the theory of caveat emptor in their relationship with the general public and those who come in contact with them.

In my opinion, this legislation is basically this simple: If you feel, if this committee and this Congress itself, feels that commercialism in eye care is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare then perhaps we are wasting our time in considering this legislation. If, on the other hand, you feel that the volume market in the eye-care field is such that it needs control to protect the consuming public from unnecessary injury to their eyesight or health and safety, and exploitation, if you please, then this bill, with only minor changes, in my opinion, should be passed and enacted into law. This committee should report favorably on it.

If the people cannot or do not protect themselves in the area of eye care or if, for some reason, they are subject to deception or perhaps fraud, if the ability to deceive is present in a given area, I think it has been the traditional attitude of government to enter into the picture or into the field with legislation in order to protect the people from attendant evils. Certainly I think in this area we have certain evils that predominate in the form, if you please, of corporate practice and price advertising because of their tendency-that is, the corporate practice and price advertising the tendency to lean toward commercialism rather than professionalism in the area of eye care.

This is not to say that all advertisers or price advertisers are bad or evil. At the same time, I do not think we need so say that all professional practitioners are at all times completely professional. But the statute is to get at the greater group, the commercialized operation. By way of illustration, we have had instances of licensed optometrists in Indiana on both sides of the fence. They have, for one reason or another, abandoned their connection with commercial practice and, as a result thereof and in conjunction therewith, have supplied us with documents and, in a sense, testimony which points out the type of evils that are attendant in this commercialized practice.

We had one instance where a disenchanted ex-wife supplied us with considerable material, not only verbally but also with documentary evidence. I guess this points out the old saying that Hell hath no fury like the woman scorned, because she certainly gave considerable information in this particular instance.

Dr. Robert Corns is here today from Indiana, and he has, if the committee wishes, illustrations along this line.

I do not propose to exhaust the subject, but I do want to refer briefly to what we know of the problems, and we certainly are confident that your good judgment will maintain the safeguards that are needed in the present area of optometry legislation. Certainly House bill 12937 is designed to do the very thing we were, the very thing we consider most needed in the optometry field.

I know that you gentlemen have a busy schedule. I had intended, within the framework of my statement here, to discuss in a very brief way four or five areas that I think you need to be concerned with and areas which I think the statute which you now have under consideration adequately covers. Those are the areas of corporate practice, price advertising, aiding and abetting unauthorized practice, and the fitting of contact lenses. I do not want to take up unneeded time here. The statement will be before you. I have attempted to discuss each one of these things, and in order to reserve your time as well as my own, I would be willing to answer any questions which you gentlemen have at this point, rather than to go into a more detailed analysis of what we feel is needed in this area. So rather than belabor the point, let me then at this point conclude my statement formally and ask the committee's indulgence to permit me to introduce my statement as a whole in the record.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. DOWDY. That will be done.

(The complete statement of Mr. McNevin follows:)

recently, as the attorney for the Indiana Optometric Association. As I stated earlier, from this vantage point, I hope to be able to discuss with you some of the problems in the eye care field as it relates to protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.

H.R. 12937 is, in my mind, designed to eliminate some of the problems in the District of Columbia, and for this reason, I believe it is commendable that you are taking your time to discuss this legislation. Let me preface my remarks by saying that it seems to me that this bill, this particular bill, is no different from any other legislation which you, as Members of the Congress, are called upon to consider. Basically, you will examine it to see, as you do others, to determine whether or not it is in fact legislation that is needed. Certainly, you will want to know why it is needed. Then you will proceed, I think, to determine whether or not this particular bill provides the maximum benefit and protection to the public and does so with the least amount of inequities and detriments, perhaps, to other affected and interested groups.

We think this bill accomplishes this desirable end even though we recognize, as you do, that it does not have some of the changes needed for clarifying the present statute.

Anybody looking at this bill may ask why the present bill is necessary. I think the primary answer is that the use of eyeglasses in this country today touches every family, touches the old and the young, the poor and the rich. No one looking around this room can question that practically everybody in this room uses eyeglasses. Fortunately, I have not come to that point yet, but I think it is fair to say that practically everybody in this room is affected in some way by the use of glasses.

Mr. DowDY. I do not wear mine except when I want to see.
Mr. McNEVIN. That is the most important time.

Thus, from an economic standpoint, there is a big market for the end product, the eyeglasses. Whenever there is a big market or demand, a large demand from the economic standpoint, there seems to be a corresponding readiness to meet this demand and, in some instances, to capitalize on it. This brings forward, in my opinion, to opposing groups, particularly in the eye care field; that is, the professionals and the nonprofessionals, the one group being concerned exclusively, in my opinion, with professional service, service to the person who finds himself in need of buying eyeglasses, without the commercial exploitation of the uninformed, the other being concerned, I think primarily with commercialism and, therefore, resting on the theory of caveat emptor in their relationship with the general public and those who come in contact with them.

In my opinion, this legislation is basically this simple: If you feel, if this committee and this Congress itself, feels that commercialism in eye care is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare then perhaps we are wasting our time in considering this legislation. If, on the other hand, you feel that the volume market in the eye-care field is such that it needs control to protect the consuming public from unnecessary injury to their eyesight or health and safety, and exploitation, if you please, then this bill, with only minor changes, in my opinion, should be passed and enacted into law. This committee should report favorably on it.

If the people cannot or do not protect themselves in the area of eye care or if, for some reason, they are subject to deception or perhaps fraud, if the ability to deceive is present in a given area, I think it has been the traditional attitude of government to enter into the picture or into the field with legislation in order to protect the people from attendant evils. Certainly I think in this area we have certain evils that predominate in the form, if you please, of corporate practice and price advertising because of their tendency-that is, the corporate practice and price advertising the tendency to lean toward commercialism rather than professionalism in the area of eye care.

This is not to say that all advertisers or price advertisers are bad or evil. At the same time, I do not think we need so say that all professional practitioners are at all times completely professional. But the statute is to get at the greater group, the commercialized operation. By way of illustration, we have had instances of licensed optometrists in Indiana on both sides of the fence. They have, for one reason or another, abandoned their connection with commercial practice and, as a result thereof and in conjunction therewith, have supplied us with documents and, in a sense, testimony which points out the type of evils that are attendant in this commercialized practice.

We had one instance where a disenchanted ex-wife supplied us with considerable material, not only verbally but also with documentary evidence. I guess this points out the old saying that Hell hath no fury like the woman scorned, because she certainly gave considerable information in this particular instance.

Dr. Robert Corns is here today from Indiana, and he has, if the committee wishes, illustrations along this line.

I do not propose to exhaust the subject, but I do want to refer briefly to what we know of the problems, and we certainly are confident that your good judgment will maintain the safeguards that are needed in the present area of optometry legislation. Certainly House bill 12937 is designed to do the very thing we were, the very thing we consider most needed in the optometry field.

I know that you gentlemen have a busy schedule. I had intended, within the framework of my statement here, to discuss in a very brief way four or five areas that I think you need to be concerned with and areas which I think the statute which you now have under consideration adequately covers. Those are the areas of corporate practice, price advertising, aiding and abetting unauthorized practice, and the fitting of contact lenses. I do not want to take up unneeded time here. The statement will be before you. I have attempted to discuss each one of these things, and in order to reserve your time as well as my own, I would be willing to answer any questions which you gentlemen have at this point, rather than to go into a more detailed analysis of what we feel is needed in this area. So rather than belabor the point, let me then at this point conclude my statement formally and ask the committee's indulgence to permit me to introduce my statement as a whole in the record.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. DOWDY. That will be done.

(The complete statement of Mr. McNevin follows:)

STATEMENT BY ROBERT W. MCNEVIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, ATTORNEY FOR THE INDIANA OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION

This statement is submitted to the House District Committee, Subcommittee No. 4, by Robert W. McNevin, as attorney for the Indiana Optometric Association.

The Indiana Optometric Association has had an opportunity to review the proposed legislation under consideration and wishes to report to the committee that it is in favor of H. R. 12937 and would therefore recommend that your subcommittee give it favorable consideration for enactment.

In support of the foregoing statement and recommendation I want to testify orally and try to answer any questions which the subcommittee may have.

I have had several years experience with the optometrists as chief departmental counsel to the Indiana attorney general and I am currently the attorney for the Indiana Optometric Association. From this vantage point I hope to be able to discuss with you some of the problems in the eye-care field as it relates to protection of the public health, safety, and eye care. H.R. 12937 is designed to eliminate some of these problems in the District of Columbia and for this reason it is commendable that you are taking your time and showing an intense interest in this legislation.

Let me further preface my remarks by saying that this bill is no different from any other legislation you are called upon to consider. Basically you will examine it to see if it is needed, why it is needed and then proceed to determine if the particular bill provides the maximum benefit and protection to the public and does so with the least amount of inequities and detriments to other interested groups.

We think this bill accomplishes this desirable purpose; even though we recognize, as you do, that some minor changes are necessary for clarification.

Anyone looking at this bill may ask why this is necessary. The primary answer is that the use of eyeglasses in this country today touches every family, the young, the old, the poor, and the rich. Thus from an economic standpoint there is a big market for the end product. Whenever there is a big market or demand there is a corresponding readiness to meet this demand and to capitalize on it. This brings forward two opposing groups, the professionals and the nonprofessionals. The one group being concerned exclusively with professional service without commercial exploitation of the uninformed, the other being concerned primarily with commercialism, and therefore resting on the theory of caveat emptor in dealing with the public.

In my opinion the whole thing is basically this simple; if you feel that commercialism in eye care is not detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the public, then throw out this bill. If, on the other hand you feel that the volume market is such that it needs control to protect the people from unnecessary injury and exploitation then this bill, with only minor changes, should be passed and enacted into law.

If the people cannot or do not protect themselves; if they are deceived or if the ability to deceive is present in a given area, government has traditionally entered the picture with legislation to protect them from such evils.

These evils predominate in the field of corporate practice and price advertising because of the tendency to commericalize rather than professionalize. This is not to say that all advertisers are bad or evil or that all professional practitioners are at all times completely professional.

By way of illustration we have instances of licensed optometrist, who for one reason or another, abandoned their connections with commercial enterprises and have supplied us with documentary and oral evidence of what occurs in this type of operation. One explained to us that he regularly did 65 examinations per day while so employed. We also had a disenchanted ex-wife who supplied us with documents and information on these operations and how the public may often suffer from such commercialized practice. Dr. Robert Corns, from Indiana, also has numerous illustrations of what dangers exist in the price advertising, corporate practice operations.

I do not propose to exhaust the subject but I do want to briefly refer to what we know of the problems and trust your good judment to preserve and maintain the safeguards which are present in this proposed legislation.

The problems which surround the practice of optometry are manyfold and any legislation in contemplation of regulating and limiting these problems to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the District of Columbia should be concerned with such matters as corporate practice, price advertising, aiding and abetting unauthorized practice, and the fitting of contact lenses. In order