Second, the ready-to-wear magnifying spectacles play an important role in the comfort of mankind.

Third, these glasses are safe to wear.

Fourth, the merchandising and wearing of these glasses is approved by government authority.

Mr. SISK. Would the gentleman explain to which glasses he is referring?

Mr. WEIR. These (pointing) are magnifying glasses that can be used for reading purposes but they are placed for convenience in frames, primarily used for the benefit of the aged.

Mr. Sisk. I wanted to get that cleared up. Are they exempt as sunglasses and other types?

Mr. WEIR. I will show you the type of glasses that I mean (handing up samples.)

These will merchandise from $1.95 to $3.50. They look like regular glasses. They are in all styles, "granny" type or regular type glasses. They really are magnifying glasses, not prescription glasses, merely placed in a frame for convenience. You could hold them out like this as you do many magnifying glasses or put them on your face.

Referring back to one of the original reasons for the prohibition of the sale of these glasses, if they were provided for in the District of Columbia this would be at variance with the law as it exists in the State of Maryland and in the State of Virginia.

That completes my basic summary.

This pair is for reading purposes only.

Mr. SISK. I do not know how anybody could wear these. I can't see my way around the room in them. Maybe somebody can. I don't know. Mr. WEIR. They are utilized for only the person that could. They go in the store and pick out any one. Use it as you would a magnifying glass. These glasses are manufactured by the same firms that manufacture regular glasses you or I may wear, such as Bausch & Lomb, Pennsylvania Optical.

Mr. SISK. Have you completed your statement?

Mr. WEIR. Yes, sir.

Mr. SISK. I really do not have many questions. I am a little concerned the Board of Trade would oppose what we are thinking of doing here, that is, to protect the people locally from the standpoint of visual care. Having been here and dealt with the Board of Trade, I am rather astonished, Mr. Weir, they would take a position in opposition to anything that would enhance and improve health care. Certainly there is nothing in my opinion that we would be more concerned about than our eyes. I doubt there is anything more precious either to a child or adult.

I can understand that you might disagree with some portions of the bill but not oppose upgrading the eye care in the District; that just doesn't seem to be of benefit to the Board of Trade. That is about the only comment I can make.

I would ask the gentleman this one question. Does the gentleman himself feel that permitting the sale of this kind of glasses is really in the best interests of the public?

Mr. WEIR. I certainly do.

Mr. SISK. Have you tried any of these?

Mr. WEIR. As is evidenced by every state of the union, this type of sale is not prohibited.

Mr. SISK. I question that. I am not questioning your testimony at the moment but I think that there are some state laws in connection with this prohibition. It may be that I am in error.

That is all I have.

Does the gentleman from Maryland have any questions?

Mr. GUDE. In looking at your testimony here, Mr. Weir, the statement, it says that the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade directs its opposition to one particular aspect of these proposals. Is it that the Board of Trade is just considering one particular provision of this?

Mr. WEIR. At this point this is the only position the Board of Trade has taken with reference to the buyer.

Mr. GUDE. It is just objection to this type of merchandise?

Mr. WEIR. That is right. We feel this deprives from the public the privilege of purchasing this kind of merchandise. That is the only position we are taking in the statement.

Mr. SISK. Let me stand corrected then because I understood from your oral statement-unfortunately I hadn't read the written statement-that you were opposed to the entire bill. I was a little disturbed that the Board of Trade would attempt to take a position here on a rather comprehensive bill.

I can understand the concern of the commercial establishments who might lose a few sales. I am not sure that this should be permitted. Mr. WEIR. You are permitted, of course, to buy magnifying glasses in other forms and this is merely an adaptation of that which permits the person to put on this if it suits their purpose.

I might also say in the testimony further there is an indication that it is not damaging to the eye. It is not harmful to the eye. That has been proven medically.

Mr. SISK. Thank you, Mr. Weir, very much for your testimony. Your statement will be made part of the record.

With that, the committee stands adjourned until 10:00 o'clock Friday morning, or as otherwise advised.

(Whereupon, at 5:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at 10:00 a.m., Friday, August 18, 1967.)

OPTOMETRY

FRIDAY, AUGUST 18, 1967

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE No. 5 OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D.C.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in Room 1310 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. B. F. Sisk (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Sisk, Jacobs, and Gude.

Also present: James T. Clark, Clerk; Hayden S. Garber, Counsel; Sara Watson, Assistant Counsel; and Leonard O. Hilder, Investigator. Mr. SISK. Subcommittee No. 5 will come to order for the continuation of hearings on bills concerning the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia.

On the last day of the hearings we skipped around on our witnesses list. Today, we want to hear in order those remaining on the list. Our first witness this morning will be Mr. Jerry A. Miller, Executive Secretary, Guild of Prescription Opticians of America, Incorporated, the Guild of Prescription Opticians of Washington, D.C., and the District of Columbia Association of Dispensing Opticians.

We will be happy to hear from you now, Mr. Miller.

The subcommittee wishes, if at all possible, to complete our list of witnesses today, and I am going to request that we follow the 10-minute rule.

I understand, Mr. Miller, that you do have a statement here. Without objection your entire statement will made a part of the record. You may summarize with the thought that the Subcommittee will. consider your entire statement.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF JERRY A. MILLER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, GUILD OF PRESCRIPTION OPTICIANS OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AND ITS WASHINGTON AFFILIATE, THE GUILD OF PRESCRIPTION OPTICIANS OF WASHINGTON, D.C., AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ASSOCIATION OF DISPENSING OPTICIANS; ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH STOUTENBURGH, SPECIAL COUNSEL, AND ROBERT W. BURTON, COUNSEL

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I appear in opposition to H.R. 12276 and other substantially similar bills relating to the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia.

82-754 0-67—16

233

My name is J. A. Miller, I speak as Executive Secretary of the Guild of Prescription Opticians of America, Inc. on behalf of our national association and our Washington, D.C. affiliate, the Guild of Prescription Opticians of Washington, D.C. The Guild of Prescription Opticians is a national non-profit membership corporation representing skilled and ethical dispensing opticians throughout the United States, including the District of Columbia.

Mr. Paul Pattyson, President of the Washington, D.C. Guild and also president of the District of Columbia Association of Dispensing Opticians planned to be here this morning. He has been here on other days of the hearing, but, unfortunately, he has been in an automobile accident and is unable to be present today. Mr. Alfred Teunis will be here a little later. He has been delayed. These opticians has asked me to speak for them and for other opticians similarly situated.

These opticians are engaged solely in the dispensing of eyeglasses. and/or contact lenses and other optical materials. They and their employees do not refract eyes nor are they in any way associated with any refractionist, whether he be physician, surgeon, osteopath and optometrist.

Also with me is Joseph Stoutenburgh of the firm of Dawson, Griffin. Pickens and Riddell, special counsel for our national association, and Robert W. Burton, counsel for our local organization.

Since it is my understanding that the transcript of the hearings last year on H.R. 12937 and similar bills will be made part of the proceedings of this hearing, I will direct my remarks primarily to the new provisions contained in H.R. 12276, which has been referred to as a cure-all. Gentlemen, it is not.

At this time, however, I wish to submit for the record a copy of my letter of March 31, 1966 which was hand-delivered to the Committee and to each member of the Committee but which was not printed in either edition of the transcript of the hearings on H.R. 12937. This letter, which was prepared in response to a request by the committee, contains our suggested amendments which are equally applicable to the bills under consideration as they were to the bills considered by the 90th Congress.

Mr. Chairman, will this letter be made part of the transcript? Mr. SISK. Without objection, that may be submitted for the record and will become a part of the transcript.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

Mr. SISK. Do I understand that last year you requested a letter to be made part of the record, and you did turn it over but, however, we failed to make it a part of last year's transcript?

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

Mr. SISK. Let me say, as one member of this subcommittee, although last year I was not chairman, I am sorry that happened. I do not know what the circumstances may have been; but, at any rate, your letter will be made a part of the record.

You may proceed.

Mr. MILLER. We look with favor on efforts to upgrade and improve the practice of optometry but this bill goes farther than that. It takes away traditional rights of dispensing opticians who have an older place in the history of eyecare than the optometrist and restricts his legitimate and appropriate business of serving the public both to