nition of optometry in the 1924 act more clearly reflects what optometrists do.

The second point made by the Commissioners in their report relates to reciprocity with the other States. That is section 5 of the proposed bill. The Commissioners feel that the present section on reciprocity is better than the one in the bill, for this reason: The present section is a straight reciprocity provision. If the man who comes into the District seeking license by reciprocity is licensed in his own State, and a person similarly situated would go into that man's State and is licensed here, he would be licensed, as would the man in the District. These are in line with the provision of the bill, one of them being that the man seeking license here by reciprocity must have practiced for at least 5 of the last 7 years and must practice in the District within 1 year of receiving the license by reciprocity. Conceivably, someone who was a very well qualified optometrist might have had a long illness in another State, but then would be denied license in the District because he did not practice for 5 out of the last 7 years before becoming licensed in the District. The same man might become ill shortly after being licensed by reciprocity in the District and not practice in the District during the first year after his licensing. This would mean that he could not get his license by reciprocity.

Mr. HARSHA. Could you not turn that around and say that because I have a license to practice optometry in Ohio but have been engaged in the business of Congress for 6 years, therefore, not having practiced optometry-I might not know very much about it. Improvements may or may not have been accomplished in the field of optometry; yet simply because 6 years ago I had an optometry license in Ohio, I can come here and get one in the District of Columbia?

Mr. MOYER. Well, Mr. Harsha, if you turn that around, if a person from the District who 6 years ago practiced optometry came to Ohio, if he would be licensed by Ohio, we are saying we will license the man from Ohio. We are giving complete reciprocity. What they do for us, we do for them. That is what I am saying, Mr. Harsha, this should be a strictly reciprocal provision.

We would treat someone coming in from another area the same way that that area would treat a person from the District similarly situated. That is the provision which is in the present act and has been there since 1924.

The next provision which the Commissioners refer to in this bill are these provisions about corporate practice of optometry and advertising. The Commissioners quote at length from the Silver case, which has been discussed by many people during these hearings. Although I shall not attempt to quote at any length from the case, I just want to mention the last paragraph, where the Court was relating not only to the 1924 act, but the Court was also relating to the nature of optometry and what it is and what these people are and what things govern them. The Court says:

We find nothing in the statute to indicate that Congress intended to prohibit corporations from employing licensed optometrists. Its primary purpose was to insure that the service would be rendered by competent and licensed persons and thereby to protect the public from inexpertness. That purpose may be fully accomplished, though the person rendering the service is employed by a corpora-

tion.

The Commissioners say in light of this, the Commissioners believe that some of the causes for the suspension or revocation of a license, causes relating to advertising and corporate practice, or for which they may refuse to issue, renew, or refuse to restore such license are not in the best interest of the public.

The Commissioners don't want to refer to these provisions which make certain acts unlawful, not only for optometrists but also for opticians and for the general public.

Relating to the written prescription for eyeglasses broken here in the District, I believe there has been much testimony on the fact that someone coming here would not be able to get their prescription filled unless they had a written prescription from home when they broke their eyeglasses or broke their frames for the eyeglasses. The Commissioners' report points out that this seems to be an inequity and this provision should be reconsidered.

There is a minor provision mentioned in here which relates to the penalty provisions of the bill. Recognize that these penalty provisions have been carried over from the 1924 act, which is a $500 fine for the first violation and $500 to $1,000 for the second with a 3-month minimum sentence for the second violation, or up to a year for the second violation.

The Commissioners make two recommendations in this regard, but if the Congress feels the desirability of this bill, first they put in an alternate jail sentence for the first violation for the $500 fine, and second, the 3-month minimum sentence for the second violation they propose be eliminated. It is the Commissioners' general policy not to recommend minimum jail sentences, because they feel that this is an infringement on the discretion of the trial judge; his sentencing should depend on all the circumstances of a particular case. They have made such recommendations in several different areas where criminal provisions are in statutes.

Also, the Commissioners recommend that the provision that says that this sentence must be served in the District jail be strengthened. Because of the recent publicity, everyone knows that the District jail is overcrowded and incarceration could be in another one of the District's institutions. That should be allowed.

As to this discussion of contact lenses, the only thing the Commissioners state on this is that these people under 9(b) who are exempted from the act who grind lenses for the doctors, except those who fit contact lenses, the Commissioners point out that the Corporation Counsel, by an opinion dated October 8, 1946, has construed the present Optometry Act as prohibiting the fitting of contact lenses by anyone but an optometrist or an ophthalmologist. It is under that opinion and under that construction of the present act that this recent case is being prosecuted by our office. So we take a position that the present law prohibits the fitting of contact lenses by an optician or anyone else except an optometrist or an ophthalmologist.

I

The next provision is the section 13(c), which has to do with the testimony of an optometrist being that of a qualified witness. think since you indicated, Mr. Sisk, that this is undergoing revision, I shall not direct any more attention to that.

The proposed section 14, which deals with depriving any person of his freedom of choice of practitioner with respect to his visual problems-let me say this; they state as follows:

This provision of the bill is intended to prevent school nurses from advising the parents of children with eye problems to seek medical treatment for them. The Commissioners strongly oppose a statutory provision which prohibits any person, including District personnel, from advising anyone to seek medical care.

Now, I have heard quite a bit of testimony on just what this section 14 means. We have had discussions with the proponents of the bill, representatives of the Optometric Society, and their contention is that they do not want any District employees such as schoolteachers, school nurses, school doctors, or anyone who examines children to say to the parent of the child or write any note to the parent of the child saying, "Take this child to an ophthalmologist." They do not mind any note which says, "Take this child to an ophthalmologist or an optometrist." or "Take this child to an eye doctor." But they do object to an ophthalmologist being singled out, without an optometrist being also mentioned.

Mr. SISK. If I may interrupt, we went over that with the Virginia organization, and I feel basically that what the intent of the committee ultimately would be would not be to mention nondisrimination against referral. There would be no prohibition against referral, but certainly it would be nondiscrimination in referral.

Mr. MOYER. As the committee discussed the other day, in the welfare field, where there is much more chance that the free will be interfered with by the District through referrals to the proper person, I received this morning from the Director of our Department of Public Welfare a statement in regard to this provision of the bill. This is very short, and I would like to quote it. This is signed by Donald D. Brewer, Director of the District Department of Public Welfare. He states:

The Department of Public Welfare raises no objection to this section so long as it is understood that while the Department of Public Welfare cannot require a recipient to go to any particular practitioner, we cannot pay for such services. In the case of aid to the blind, under Federal requirements while certification may be secured by the recipient from either an ophthalmologist or optometrist, all such medical reports have to be reviewed by an ophthalmologist under contract with the Department of Public Welfare.

So in that case, we are bound by Federal regulations in the welfare field where patients must be referred to an ophthalmologist. (The statement referred to follows:)

MEMORANDUM FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WELFARE

MARCH 18, 1966.

To: Milton D. Korman, Acting Corporation Counsel, District of Columbia. From: Donald D. Brewer, Director. Subject: H.R. 12937, a bill to amend the act of May 28, 1924, to revise existing law relating to the examination, licensure, registration, and regulation of optometrists and the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

We have reviewed the conditions of H.R. 12937 with particular reference to the proposed section 14, page 19.

The Department of Public Welfare raises no objection to this section so long as it is understood that while the Department of Public Welfare cannot require a recipient to go to any particular practitioner, we cannot pay for such services. In the case of aid to the blind, under Federal requirements while certification may be secured by the recipient from either an ophthalmologist or optometrist, all such medical reports have to be reviewed by an ophthalmologist under contract with the Department of Public Welfare.

DONALD D. BREWER. Director.

Mr. SISK. We have made the entire statement, of course, part of the record, so I do not think except for the highlights you wish to make, that we need any more detail. We are making the entire statement part of the record.

Mr. MOYER. That was the last point I wanted to make.

Mr. SISK. Dr. Heath, did you want to add anything to what Mr. Moyer stated at this time?

Dr. HEATH. Just a short statement, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, my regrets that I could not spend the other days during the hearings of your subcommittee, but it just was not possible. have been here this morning and I have listened to the testimony.

I would like to point out that the Department of Public Health's principal interest is to serve the interest of the public health in the District of Columbia and not the interest of ophthalmologists, optometrists, or opticians. We did review the bill, and we sent our comments to the Commissioners and the Corporation Counsel, and they have been incorporated in the Commissioner's letter to Congressman McMillan of which you have a copy.

I think that from what I have heard this morning, practically all the points that we have had questions about have been raised. I do not mean that we had questions about everything that was raised this morning, but some of our questions you have already had under discussion in quite a bit of detail.

I appreciate the opportunity of being here. If you have any specific questions that you would like to ask, I am not an ophthalmologist or optometrist, I am a public health specialist, and I would answer any of your questions which would be related to the public health and welfare of the District of Columbia.

Mr. SISK. Thank you, Doctor.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Moyer, I would take it from the statement of the Commissioners and from your followup statement that they feel very strongly that this legislation should not be enacted upon favorably?

Mr. MOYER. Yes, sir, that is their position.

Mr. WHITENER. Well, now, I know that you probably cannot speak for the Commissioners on that, but does this imply that if Congress should pass it the Commissioners would then urge the Executive to veto it?

Mr. MOYER. I could not speculate on that, Mr. Whitener. The Commissioners have been informed by the D.C. Medical Society that the standards of eye care in the District are excellent and that this bill is not needed. They have accepted that statement, and on that basis, they have recommended against enactment of this legislation.

Mr. WHITENER. Well, would it be proper for you to seek to ascertain what their attitude would be on that?

Mr. MOYER. In this present form, or what form?

Mr. WHITENER. Substantially the present form. If that is going to happen, it would be well, I think, for us to know it as soon as possible. Not that we are going to legislate in a way that will be directed by the Commissioners, but I think if they have any idea of following through and trying to get whatever we do vetoed, we ought to know it. This is what we usually ask when we have bills in the Judiciary Committee and the Justice Department objects. We try to find out, if we can, if we are going to be running head on into a veto.

60-677-66-17

Mr. MOYER. Mr. Whitener, I shall ask the Commissioners.

Mr. WHITENER. I am not suggesting that they ought to recommend it. I am just trying to find out where we stand. I know Mr. Sisk has spent a lot of time, not only in hearings but in preliminary work on the bill. He does not have any time to waste, and I do not believe that the rest of us do. It would be interesting to know, because there is no point in our doing a vain thing here.

Mr. MOYER. It is just, Mr. Whitener, that there have been statements by the members of the committee that there are going to be substantial revisions to the bill. Of course, I can only speak to the bill the way it is now.

Mr. WHITENER. I do not think there is any doubt that even the proponents of the legislation now, in the light of the hearings, are agreeable to some rather significant amendments, and on some of the provisions which the Commissioners have mentioned, such as the expert-witness section. I have an idea that everybody pretty well understands now that there will have to be some new language added or some change in the language in section 14 to which they object.

But this is the position of the Commissioners, as I see it. The Commissioners are saying we do not think you ought to have any kind of legislation except the massive piece of legislation giving the Commissioners absolute authority to regulate all the trades and professions. If they have that attitude and they are going to adhere to it, there is nothing we can do in this bill to meet that objection.

Frankly, and I can only speak for one member, I do not think that that big broad bill is going to come down to the District Building any time in the near future.

Mr. SISK. I agree.

Mr. WHITENER. I do not think it is the mood of this committee to turn all that authority over to the Commissioners. It is not that we do not like or trust them, but some of us feel that we have a constitutional responsibility. So if that is their attitude, we either get our big bread baskets full or nothing, and anything short of that we are going to recommend a veto on; I think we are entitled to know it.

Mr. MOYER. Mr. Whitener, when these comments were prepared, we understood from the staff that comments should be prepared not only the basis of the licensing procedures bill, but also the comments should be directed to the merits of the bill. On the merits of the bill, the Commissioners have come to this conclusion.

Mr. WHITENER. But before they got to the merits of the bill they started commenting that they still adhere to all propositions that nothing short of their broad-based piece of legislation they have sent up there will suit them. Is that not what they said at the outset?

Mr. MOYER. I think the report says first of all, regardless of the merits of the bill. They say if after that paragraph, they came to the conclusion that they were in accord with the provisions of the bill, they would not say that the bill should not be passed, but they would still say that they think the better approach would be by a broad licensing bill to cover this.

Mr. WHITENER. It may well be but when you go down to talk to them, they will say, well, "that is meddling in our business by the Congress," and we will not comment on it. I think it would be helpful to us to know how adamant their positions are going to be, because they are going to have the last whack at this thing when it gets over to the White House, if it does.