Mr. MOYER. Mr. Whitener, I will certainly ask the Commissioners the first opportunity I get as to what their feelings are or what they would do if the bill were enacted in substantially the form it now exists in, with the exception of possibly section 14.

Mr. WHITENER. You have been here a couple of days at the hearings, have you?

Mr. MOYER. Yes.

Mr. WHITENER. I think you have pretty well captured the ideas that are out in the wind now about amendments. I think you could do about as well as anybody in the room in sensing what the areas of amendment would probably be. You could probably have a meeting with them and this might be helpful to know.

Mr. MOYER. I will certainly let you know as soon as possible, Mr. Whitener.

Mr. WHITENER. It may well be that they may have other suggestions which will make the bill palatable. I do not think that these gentlemen who propose the legislation want to engage in an exercise of futility. What they want is meaningful legislation, and if we have any, that is what we want it to be.

Mr. SISK. That is right.

Mr. MOYER. I am sure, Mr. Whitener, if the Commissioners conclude that the evils which this bill is attempting to solve do exist here and that these provisions are necessary, they will support such a position. They have said in their report that they know of no evils that will be taken care of by this bill.

Mr. WHITENER. Suppose the Commissioners have some strong ideas about certain provisions in the bill, say two or three provisions that are, in their judgment, unacceptable under any conditions. I think it would help us if we knew that that is the position they are going to take. If they say, "We can live with this thing and we will agree to it if we can do something about section A, B, C, or so-and-so" then maybe we could get our heads together and work out something.

Mr. MOYER. I'll try to get the Commissioners' feelings as to the different sections of the bill.

Mr. SISK. Mr. Moyer, I wanted to ask you just briefly, you mentioned a hearing which apparently the District of Columbia Commissioners called, a public hearing on this bill the other day; is that right?

Mr. MOYER. No, Mr. Chairman, it was a Commissioners' board meeting, one of their regular board meetings. It was on Thursday afternoon. The representatives of the Guild of Opticians had asked the Commissioners to be present so that they could present their views for the Commissioners' consideration. Then the District of Columbia Medical Society also appeared, and the representatives of the District of Columbia Medical Society and the Guild of Opticians presented their positions to the Commissioners.

Mr. SISK. Who called the hearings?

Mr. MOYER. This is one of the Commissioners' regular board meetings.

Mr. SISK. Who put this on the agenda, the consideration of the pending bill?

Mr. MOYER. This was under the usual-when the Commissioners consider legislation or proposed legislation, they do this at all their meetings. During the discussion on this bill, where the Commis

sioners' report had not yet been drafted, the Commissioners permitted the opticians and the District of Columbia Medical Society to come and state their views.

Mr. SISK. Did they invite the American Optometric Association? Mr. MOYER. No, Mr. Chairman, but they invited the District's Board of Optometry.

Mr. SISK. I wonder why, because it seems to me this bill is pretty much of concern to the optometrists, is it not?

Mr. MOYER. Yes, sir. The Commissioners invited their own Board of Optometry, which is a part of the District of Columbia governHowever, none of the members of the Board appeared.

Mr. SISK. Is this the usual situation when you have a bill under consideration, that you invite the members of the public in and hold a hearing?

Mr. MOYER. This was the regular Commissioners' Board meeting, not a hearing. On regular things that affect people in the District, Commissioners have been known to allow them to appear at Commissioners' Board meetings to state their views on a thing in consideration.

Mr. SISK. I was unaware that they had a practice of holding public hearings on legislation of this nature, and particularly if they know we were going to have such a hearing and I am sure it was known beforehand. This was planned, I assume, because the other groups would not have been there. I was curious to know if the American

Optometric Association were invited.

Mr. MOYER. Not the American Optometric Association.
Mr. SISK. Why were they not invited?

Mr. MOYER. The Commissioners invited their own Board of Optometry. As I understand it, a good number of the members of the Board of Optometry are also members of the American Optometric Association. They are members of the Board of Optometry, the Commissioners' Board.

Mr. SISK. I am still, let us say, somewhat puzzled. I noticed you mentioned a number of times that there was not any need for this bill because the District Medical Society said there was not any need. I wonder if that was the complete determining factor of the Commissioners on any matters of this kind?

Mr. MOYER. As well as that the District Department of Public Health has stated that these provisions of the bill which I have now going into in our report are not desirable.

Mr. SISK. Of course, this bill, I think you will agree, Mr. Moyer, is strictly for the regulation and so on of the practice of optometry here in the District. I do not necessarily think that the District of Columbia Medical Society should be the sole arbitor of regulations or rules pertaining to another group that has to do with practices in matters concerning health in the District.

I will say this quite bluntly to you, Mr. Moyer, because there is nothing personal in it, but I am somewhat critical of the way this proceeding went on and has been reported to me. I am perfectly happy to make it known to the Commissioners that it seems to me that if they were going to have such a hearing and such a discussion, the interested people should have been invited.

Mr. MOYER. I know for a fact that the District Board of Optometry was invited and they did not appear.

Mr. SISK. By the way, Mr. Whitener inquires, are opticians licensed here in the District?

Mr. MOYER. No, sir, they are not.

Mr. SISK. Do the Commissioners have any authority to license them?

Mr. MOYER. Under the General Licensing Act, the Commissioners can include different fields of licensing. They could license opticians if the public need arose.

Mr. SISK. Is there any requirement at all for opticians to practice in the District of Columbia?

Mr. MOYER. No, sir.

Mr. SISK. In other words, some of these fellows are doing some of the fitting of eyeglasses and contact lenses and are not licensed and there are no requirements of any kind? Then you just said a bit ago as far as you knew, everything was perfect here in the District, there was no problem in this field.

Mr. MOYER. As to contact lenses, opticians are not permitted to fit contact lenses under our office's interpretation of the 1924 act. Mr. SISK. Do you assume that it is not happening here in the District?

Mr. MOYER. If it is happening, it is in violation of the act, and the law is being broken if it is being done.

Mr. SISK. Here again, as I say, Mr. Moyer, it is nothing critical of you personally or anyone else, really, but certainly, I think you will find the record rather replete with situations in the District that are not quite as nice as the Commissioners have apparently been led to believe. Of course, the sole purpose of this bill, as I have many times stated, is to do something to upgrade the eye care in the District. I would hope that that would be considered in, let us say, further discussions with the Commissioners as to their attitude on this bill or this bill as amended. Because I think if you read the record, which we will have available here before too long, things are not quite as pretty, the picture is not quite as good, as apparently they have been led to believe by those who have been advising them.

Here again, let me say, maybe they have been rather restrictive in calling their advisers in.

That will be all, Mr. Moyer.

Thank you, Dr. Heath, for appearing.

Dr. HEATH. It is a pleasure, sir.

Mr. SISK. I have a letter here from the District Wholesale Drug Corp., addresses to the chairman, Hon. John L. McMillan, which I would like to have made part of the record at this point.

(The letter referred to follows:)

DISTRICT WHOLESALE DRUG Corp.,
Washington, D.C., March 18, 1966.

Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN,

Chairman, District Committee,

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I am writing in reference to H.R. 12937 to amend the present act relating to the practice of optometry and regulation of optometrists in the District of Columbia.

In reading this act, I find there is a great possibility that the passage of this bill would prohibit the sale of ordinary sunglasses in retail pharmacies in the District of Columbia.

Sunglasses have been sold by retail pharmacies for a long time. The consumer has depended upon obtaining a pair of sunglasses that would avoid the sun's glare in any drugstore at a moderate price.

The passage of this bill would certainly handicap the consumers in the District of Columbia by requiring them to visit a licensed optometrist and pay a professional fee for an ordinary pair of sunglasses which have not proved harmful to the consumer in the past. This would create a burdensome expense and inconvenience to the District of Columbia consumer which I feel is not the intent of this bill.

We are distributors in this area of sunglasses manufactured by many of the largest and most reputable manufacturers in the country. Your consideration of the above-mentioned viewpoints is kindly requested.

Sincerely,

DAVID I. ESTRIN, President.

Mr. SISK. I also have a statement of Mr. Douglas Anello, general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters, on this bill. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS A. ANELLO, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS

This statement is presented by Douglas A. Anello, general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) is a nonprofit organization of radio and television broadcasters whose membership included as of March 9, 1966, 2,201 standard broadcast stations, 980 FM broadcast stations, 478 television stations, and all the radio and television nationwide networks. This statement is submitted by NAB in furtherance of the objective of the association which, in accordance with its bylaws:

"*** shall be to foster and promote the development of the arts of aural and visual broadcasting in all its forms to protect its members in every lawful and proper manner from injustices and unjust exactions; to do all things necessary and proper to encourage and promote customs and practices which will strengthen and maintain the broadcasting industry to the end that it may best serve the public." The NAB has traditionally sought to prevent regulation of free enterprise endeavors where it was not shown that there were countervaling public-interest considerations which required the regulation.

While the NAB takes no position with respect to the bill in general, it is in opposition to the inclusion of section 7(a)(8) therein. It is the NAB's position that legislation is unnecessary in the area of advertising of optometric services for the following basic reasons:

The question of advertising in other professional services has been considered a matter of self-regulation. Many associations of professional people requiring equally high standards of ethics as those of the optometrists have established codes which outline the minimum professional standards which should be maintained by their members. The American Medical Association and the American Bar Association have, through the use of such codes, obviated the necessity of Federal, State, or local regulation.

The American Optometric Association, the nation al organization representing the profession of optometry, also has a code of ethics which is required to be adhered to by each member. Article III-C of a supplement to that code spells out in great detail those advertising practices which the AOA deems to be unethical and to constitute unprofessional conduct. They are included as an appendix to this statement for your information. It is the position of the NAB that this is the proper way for members of a profession to maintain the high standards necessary to gain the respect of the people they serve.

The NAB is aware of the worthwhile purposes of this bill and feels that the deletion of this provision would not seriously impair them. Its retention, however, would be an unnecessary regulation of commercial advertising when the same result could be obtained by the use of internal professional controls.

APPENDIX

SECTION C. ADVERTISING

The following are deemed, among others, to be unethical and to constitute unprofessional conduct:

Soliciting patients directly or indirectly, individually or collectively through the guise of groups, institutions, or organizations.

1 AOA Rules of Practice, American Optometric Association, Inc., Manual of Professional Practice for the American Optometrist (rev. 1960).

Employing solicitors, publicity agents, entertainers, lecturers, or any mechanical or electronic, visual or auditory device for the solicitation of patronage.

Advertising professional superiority, or the performance of professional services in a superior manner.

Any advertising or conduct of a character tending to deceive or mislead the public.

Advertising one or more types of service to imply superiority or lower fees. Holding one's self forth to the public under the name of any corporation, company, institution, clinic, association, parlor, or any other name than the name of the optometrist.

Holding one's self forth as possessed of, or utilizing exclusive methods of practice or peculiar styles of service.

Displaying certificates, diplomas, or similar documents unless the same have been earned by the optometrist.

Guaranteeing or warranting the results of professional services.

Advertising of any character which includes or contains any fee whatsoever, or any reference thereto, or any reference to the cost to the patient, whether related to the examination or the cost or fee for lenses, glasses, frames, mountings, or any other optometric services, article, or device necessary for the patient.

Offering free examination or other gratuitous services, bonuses, premiums, discounts, or any other inducements.

Permitting the display of his name in any city, commercial, telephone or other public directory or directory in the lobby of public halls in an office or public building, using any type which is in any way different from the standard size, shape, or color of the type regularly used in such medium.

Permitting his name to be put in any public directory under a heading other than "Optometrist.”

Printing professional cards, billheads, letterheads, and stationery with illustrations or printed materials other than his name, title, address, telephone number, office hours, and specialty, if any.

Displaying large, glaring or flickering signs, or any sign or other depiction containing as a part thereof the representation of an eye, eyeglasses, spectacles, or any portion of the human head."

Using large lettering or other devices or unusual depictions upon the office doors or windows.

Mr. SISK. Now, so far as the Chair knows, this concludes all the witnesses who have sought to make a statement. I might say that this morning, Mr. Harsha raised a question of Mr. Kohn with reference to a legal question at the time of discussion.

He apparently had hoped you would have some chance to comment on it, Mr. Kohn. I do not want to cut you off or anything, but I believe you were in the room at the time that mention was made. Are you aware of what I am mentioning?

Mr. KOHN. Sir, there were so many legal questions referred to, I really do not know particularly which one you mean.

Mr. SISK. Well, that is fine.

There was a specific question at one time raised, as I say, I believe by Mr. Harsha of Ohio, which he thought at a later time you would want to make a comment on. The Chair will have to admit at this time that he does not know what the question was. If you have a brief comment, I would be glad to hear you; otherwise, we are ready to conclude the hearing.

(There was no response.)

We shall leave the record open for 10 days. This concludes the hearing on this bill.

(Whereupon, at 4:05 o'clock p.m., the hearings were adjourned.) (Subsequently the following statements were received for the record :)