Mr. SISK. What is your membership, in round numbers, do you know, nationally?

Mr. MILLER. Our members own and operate approximately 1,000 stores in 48 States in the Union.

Mr. SISK. And of course, there are a number of opticians in a single store?

Mr. MILLER. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SISK. Let me ask you whether or not you appeared or someone representing your guild appeared before a committee of the other body, the Senate, on a bill last year, I believe, or maybe the year before last it started, Senator Hart's subcommittee, dealing with the question of dispensing. Are you familiar with that bill, the bill I am referring to?

Mr. MILLER. Well, to answer your question, the two parts of your question, Mr. Chairman, someone from our organization did appear. He appeared, however, in connection with an investigative hearing, as I am quite positive that this took place before any bill was introduced, and no hearings have been held on this bill to date.

Mr. SISK. In other words, the guild has offered no testimony on S. 2568?

Mr. MILLER. No one has.

Mr. SISK. There has been no testimony on it.

Mr. MILLER. No, there has been no testimony on it.

Mr. SISK. Do you know what the position of the guild would be with reference to that piece of legislation?

Mr. MILLER. We adopted a statement on November 14 of last year on the general subject, without specific reference to this bill but on the general subject of sale of glasses by physicians. I do not have a copy with me, but it states essentially that we would support every effort by the American Medical Association and other interested groups to make any legislation unnecessary in this area.

Mr. SISк. In other words, then, as I understand your statement, Mr. Miller, and I am not trying to put words into your mouth, the guild has actually not come out officially in support of Senator Hart's bill?

Mr. MILLER. That is correct.

Mr. SISK. Has any other organization of opticians that you know of specifically come out and endorsed this piece of legislation?

Mr. MILLER. No one has. The occasion, Mr. Chairman, has never arisen for anyone, nor any opticians organizations, to endorse this legislation. As we understand it, the endorsement or the positions. will be stated during the legislative hearings and we understand, at least, that this will be the purpose of the legislative hearings when they are held.

Mr. SISK. Well, the reason I was inquiring, I am sure, Mr. Miller, you are generally familiar with statements that were made during the investigative hearing by opticians. I do not want to lengthen the hearing by going through those statements, but I was somewhat interested, because as I recall, the statements by representatives of the guild did indicate at that time that they felt that three was some question as to whether or not, let's say ophthalmologists per se, should dispense eyeglasses. I assume you are generally familiar with that.

Mr. MILLER. First of all, there was only one representative from our organization that spoke and I believe there was a total of 21 witnesses called before that committee, so that we were 1 out of 21. Our position at that time was that if the practice of physicians selling glasses where there was no necessity for them to sell glasses continued, it certainly would have the effect, if allowed to go unchecked, it would have the effect of putting opticians out of business.

Mr. SISK. In other words, the fact that a certain percentage of ophthalmologists and optometrists increased to the extent of dispensing glasses, there would come a point at which, of course, there would cease to be a need for the opticians. Is that what you are saying?

Mr. MILLER. We believe the need for an optician will never cease, whether the need is recognized or not.

But yes, you are correct, that if this trend would progress in an unchecked manner, then there would be no opportunity for the op

tician to be in business.

Mr. SISK. Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Just one further thing, as a general question in line with your statement, Mr. Miller, and also that of Mr. White. I understand from your statement that you feel that if the present proposed legislation should be enacted, it would substantially cut the employment of opticians in the District of Columbia. Is that in essence what you

have said?

Mr. MILLER. That is correct.

Mr. SISK. This goes to one of the reasons I was asking you about your national membership. Provisions of my present proposed bill, some of the provisions of that bill, are in effect in every State in the Union. In other words, what I am saying is that not all of this bill in its entirety is in effect in a single State.

Mr. MILLER. I like the way you put that.

Mr. SISK. But these specific provisions are in effect in the various States, so that actually, there is nothing new. There is not, so far as I know, a single new provision that has not been used in some of the States of the Union.

Now, my State of California, as you know, does regulate the profession of optometry. Yet we have, as far as I know, a rather thriving business of cpticians. I know in my hometown-in fact, I have in my files here some letters representing three optical companies in the area. I do not see any indication, have not found any indication, that it has lessened their business or caused a lessening of call on their services. That is why I cannot see why a similar provision in the District would be substantially different from the way it affects California, Oklahoma, New York, Indiana, or any of the other States. Mr. MILLER. I think there are two parts to the answer, Mr. Chairman. The first is that in California, the optometry law is offset by a similar law for opticians, so that under the opticians law are spelled out the things that the optician can do in the State of California, which is excellent. So that while we might sit down and from the viewpoint of theory, maybe, criticize this or that or the other provision in the definition of optometry in the California law, the California definition has relatively little practical effect upon the practice of the dispensing optician in California because of the dispensing opticians law there. So, to apply this first part of my answer to the present situation, if

we were to have a District of Columbia law spelling out what it was that the opticians could perform in the District of Columbia (taking the parts not necessarily out of the definition, but adopting certain phrases in that definition of optometry in this proposed bill, the parts which belong to opticianry and give opticians the unqualified, the definite right to do these things), then certainly our opposition to the definition of optometry would be materially lessened.

Now, the second part of my answer is that it is true that while the various provisions of the proposed legislation may be found in various other States, I do not know of any State, with perhaps the exception of Oklahoma, and even that law, I believe, is not as strong as this law, where all of these things are added up into one such complete package, and by putting all of these things in a complete package, it perhaps puts I am sure it would put the opticians out of business in the District of Columbia, especially without a law spelling out what an cptician could do. It would put them at a much greater disadvantage than it would in any other State of the Union.

I might also bring out the fact that we can relate these various provisions in these other states in connection with the District of Columbia optometry definition in this law here to this extent. Opticians, I think rightfully, ask the question whether or not these various provisions are not being assembled together here in this one definition, and in so doing, whether or not this is not part of the announced plan of optometry eventually to eliminate any exceptions in an optometry law to opticians. Once the exceptions in a bill such as this are eliminated, then your optician is eliminated.

Mr. SISK. The point that I wanted to make is that certainly, as far as what I understand to be the California law, as well as several of the other States, and we have the excerpts here from various State laws, they do recognize the practice of optometry as a profession and I am sure you are aware of some of the discussions we had earlier with the members of the medical society here. In those cases, it has not eliminated the optician and the services that he performs.

As I say, I think that here again, we are doing a certain amount of speculating as to the possible effects of some of these provisions.

I am sure you are aware, we have indicated that the committee, of course, will during the markup stage consider a number of amendments to this legilsation. There have been some things already brought out with reference to certain interpretations that were not the intent, certainly of myself and I am certain other authors of the bill.

As the bill is perfected, we hope, your profession in the District will be, let's say, no more adversely affected than it would be affected in Oklahoma or New York or Indiana or California.

Mr. MILLER. This is our purpose in appearing, Mr. Chairman, because we are sure that you would give every consideration to the traditional functions of the optician in the District of Columbia. Mr. SISK. I appreciate that very much.

I might say, Mr. White, with reference to your statement, as I read it here, it indicates no strong opposition to the present Virginia law, is that right, the Virginia law as it pertains to the regulation of optometry; you find no serious objections to it and the way it is being administered in the State of Virginia?

Mr. WHITE. The present law of optometry?
Mr. SISK. Yes, that is right.

i

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. You will find, I think, that we in Virgin have cooperated very closely together. That did not exist man many years ago. But since the inception of this board-and cidentally, there is one optometrist on this board. We have tv ophthalmologists, two opticians, and one optometrist on our boar I think since the inception of the board, with an optometrist on ther it has helped-certainly I think so, from my own personal experience to cement the relations of the optometrist and the optician. I thin there is a place for all, the optician as well as the optometrist. W do not wish to infringe on them in any way and as far as Virginia i concerned, we have not, and we certainly would not want them to de that to us.

I think you will find that so far as the association in Virginia is concerned, it is very harmonious, far more so than ever before. I think it is a question of live and let live.

Mr. SISK. Fine.

I appreciate your statement very much, Mr. White, and as I say, in line with some of our earlier questions, both yesterday and this morning, dealing with what seems to be a problem in the minds of the medical society here, it seems to me from your statement that Virginia law does recognize optometrists along with physicians or ophthalmologists on an equal basis with reference to referral and with reference to prescriptions for contact lenses, and so on.

As I understand your statement, it does recognize the fact that they are an important part of the eye-care profession in the State of Virginia.

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

May I add this? You will find in our law-of course, I read just a portion of it-you will find that we incorporated in our law-I had a part in the making of that, a very small one, incidentally. But in that we make a statement that we in Virginia as opticians cannot say that one is preferable to the other to make a refraction of the eyes. I cannot say the ophthalmologist is preferable to the optometrist. That is in our law. You will find that.

Mr. SISK. I do not wish to ask you to comment, and I do not want to put you on the spot, but I suppose you heard my discussion with the attorney for the local society this morning in reference to a letter which he read, and my interpretation of what the letter in essence said and what the attempt was of the administration of the Virginia law, to see that there be no discrimination in referrals. That was your interpretation, then, as I understand you, Mr. White?

Mr. WHITE. I think you are right, sir.

Mr. SISK. Thank you, Mr. White.

No further questions. Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate your appearance very much.

Mr. MILLER. May I say two things?

Mr. SISK. Yes.

Mr. MILLER. First, I would like to say if there are any questions. about what the optical situation is in suburban Maryland, Mr. Frank Jones will be able to answer the questions. If there are any questions about contact lenses as the optician performs them in the District of Columbia, we have one here who can answer questions on that subject.

If there are no questions of them, the second thing is, we have some very strong objections against the bill as it is presently written.

We would be very happy, however, to have the opportunity first to review the suggested changes presented by the District of Columbia Medical Society, and we would be very happy to work with the committee on any amendments that might affect the welfare and the good of the dispensing opticians in the District. We would very much appreciate that opportunity as we appreciate this opportunity to appear before you.

Mr. SISK. Thank you.

Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if Mr. Miller would prepare for the committee any amendments that he thinks are necessary to this legislation and submit it for the record at a later date.

Mr. SISK. I join with my friend, Mr. Harsha, on that. I thought of suggesting that if you have specific amendments, please present them, as I do not believe that they were specifically included in your statement. We would like to have those. We will keep the record open for a few days and if you would like to prepare suggested amendments, I think it would be well to prepare those for us and submit them to us.

Mr. MILLER. We would be very happy to. We appreciate the offer.

Mr. SISK. Fine. Thank you.

Thank you very much, gentlemen. We appreciate your being here.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. SISK. The next witness on the list is a representative of the District of Columbia Bar Association, Mr. John F. Mahoney, Jr., Esq., representing the District of Columbia Bar Association.

We will be very happy to hear from you at this time, Mr. Mahoney. STATEMENT OF JOHN F. MAHONEY, JR., ESQ., DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR ASSOCIATION

Mr. MAHONEY. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am John Mahoney, appearing on behalf of the District of Columbia Bar Association, which opposes two sections of the proposed bill: The first sentence of section 2 which declares optometry to be a profession, and also section 13(c) which requires the local courts to recognize an optometrist as an expert witness and receive his certificate of visual competence as evidence. I understand that the committee will revise that section.

Mr. HARSHA. May I interrupt you, Mr. Mahoney? I do not think you need to take your valuable time to elaborate on that one particular section. On expert testimony, I do not think that is going to be in the bill.

Mr. SISK. That definitely will be rewritten, at least if I have anything to say about it. That section will be rewritten. In fact, we already have new proposed language which, as far as I am concerned, we would be glad to have you look at. It will clarify what the intent was. I agreed, after examination of the bill's language, that it did not, I think, clearly show the intent, so we definitely propose to rewrite that section.

What was the first objection you have?

60-677-66--15