tion of the legislature on this particular subsection would be that it is designed to prohibit corporate practice. This may not help

Mr. WHITENER. Thirty years ago, it would have been perfectly plain that there was nothing to be alarmed about. But today it may be something to be really alarmed about.

Mr. McNEVIN. I believe that is true. I think if there are two or three buildings apart, or two or three offices 50 feet apart in a shopping center, this particular section is not designed to prohibit that. If you read this literally you might say, heavens, an optometrist would be relegated to practice in an open field in a tent, because he is going to be in business in some commercial building, no matter where he sets up. The idea and intent of this, of course, is to strike at the socalled corporate practice.

I am not an expert on the statutory construction at the Federal level, but I would say that viewing this thing from the standpoint of our rules in Indiana, the intent of the legislature would come out, and this would not prohibit the type of situation that you suggested, sir, but would only be striking out at the so-called corporate practice set up, the captive optometrist, where they are in business together and shifting business back and forth.

Mr. WHITENER. What you mean is that, what is intended, of course, is sharing a location?

Mr. McNEVIN. This is the intent. I believe that is true, sir.

Mr. WHITENER. There may be some way that the language could be clarified and be a little more specific.

Mr. McNEVIN. Clarification. I think there are points in the bill itself which, on second look, perhaps by all of us would require some clarifying language to overcome this sort of thing. Any time you have a situation like this, you always run the risk of having a court not look at it from the standpoint of the true legislative intent. The legislative intent at any given time is not what the legislature says it is, so clarifying language is always necessary in circumstances such as these.

Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Horton?

Mr. HORTON. I have no questions.

Mr. DOWDY. Mr. McNevin is from the hometown, or at least the home county, of our esteemed colleague, Congressman Roudebush. Mr. Roudebush, do you have any questions?

Mr. ROUDEBUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will say that I think your testimony and your presentation here today, Bob, is excellent. Of course, the committee during the course of its business, is studying, clarifying, and correcting amendments for this legislation. We realize that there are some imperfections.

You mentioned during your oral testimony certain changes that you thought should be made. Would you enumerate those very quickly? Mr. McNEVIN. Yes, very briefly, Congressman. One of the things that I think is too restrictive is the provision found on page 11 under our-I will designate it here as subsection 4, which is to sell or offer to sell eyeglasses, spectacles, frames, mountings, or lenses, or to fit or duplicate lenses, without a written prescription from a physician or optometrist licensed to practice in the District of Columbia.

You have a fluid society here which we may not have in Indiana, although we do not require this same thing in Indiana. Oklahoma does require that the prescription be issued by an Oklahoma optome

trist. We do not in Indiana. But you have a fluid society here in Washington whereby-well, Congressman, you, yourself, are from Hamilton County, Ind., and you come to Washington, D.C., and go back and forth. To limit you, if you have a glasses problem or a breakage or a lens problem here, to limit you in getting repairs or getting duplications only upon prescription of a licensed optometrist in Indiana, I think, is too restrictive. I think if you would just put a period, for example, after the word "optometrist" you would certainly clear the problem.

Mr. ROUDEBUSH. This would make it possible, then, for a prescription, let us say, from Alexandria, Va., to be filled here in the District of Columbia or, for that matter, from Noblesville, Ind.

Mr. McNEVIN. That is right. The prescription, no matter where it is from, if it is from a licensed optometrist, he can get whatever is needed.

Another change raised by Congressman Grider, I viewed with some interest. That was the provision with respect to the protection of the widow of an optometrist who dies and she is permitted then to practice for a period of 1 year. I think it is found at least on page 14 under No. 3. It appears to me, gentlemen, as Congressman Grider pointed out yesterday, this may be eking in a little commercialism to the professional plan of this overall bill.

Now, frankly, it is my attitude and my opinion that if a widow of an optometrist desired in any fashion to continue the business, at least continue to the point where it can be sold, there is going to be an estate open and I think this can be done if it is done all under court order. We have many businesses that the widow is left, seemingly without means, and there is a time when it has to be wrapped up, the business has to be wrapped up, closed out, debts paid, and things sold. The provision in this bill to accomplish this, I think, perhaps is unnecessary, and I think does shed some commercialism on it that detracts from the professional nature of it. I think a court of law under an order from the judge would perform the same deed if it were necessary.

Another point is this point on expert witnesses. This was brought out yesterday, and it certainly was discussed prior to that time, and I have considered it myself. I feel that the intent again, even though the statute or the bill may not say it expressly, the intent is this, that if an optometrist who is otherwise qualified goes into a court of law for the purpose of testifying in the area of his knowledge, the fact that he is an optometrist, that in and of itself, should not prohibit him from being able to state his opinion.

Now, in the final analysis, if it is going to be the judge of that court who is going to decide whether this particular optometrist or ophthalmologist orthopedic surgeon, or whatever he may be in the medical field, the judge is always going to decide to render an expert opinion and to say that he shall be considered an expert, I think, is begging the question, and a little circuitous. I think what it should say is that if, in the court's opinion, the man possesses the qualifications and is otherwise qualified, he shall not be barrel or prohibited from testifying and giving his opinion merely because he is an optometrist.

I think that that will get the same result, and I think that it is a desirable result, but I think you get the same job done and clarify the language that now exists in there.

Another point that was raised by Congressman Broyhill yesterday, I think, was well taken. That is on the element of repairs to the temple bars or the nose bar or something of this nature. If you are here, Congressman Roudebush, from Noblesville and your glasses get broken, the temple bars or the nose bridge, it seems to me you ought to be able to secure some repair at an optical store or some place else in order to keep you going until you have an opportunity to get back to your optometrist.

When we deal with the lens, itself, I think under the Indiana law there is a prohibition against the duplication of lenses or repair or working with the lenses without a prescription, the reason beingmaybe this is a built-in safeguard which many people do not need, or maybe they do not want, but I think part of the idea is this: that is, after a period of time, your lense is broken and you go back and take it to some place where they readily without prescription duplicate this, then there is a danger that the prescription may not be ground properly, the glasses may not be properly duplicated, and it could end up in serious injury and detriment to you.

So the idea being, I think this statute, this section, could be very easily clarified to include the requirement of a prescription only for the duplication of the lens.

Mr. ROUDEBUSH. What if one lens still exists? Can they duplicate a lens from the existing lens by measurement?

Mr. McNEVIN. It is my understanding that they can, Congressman, and this is often done. The only thing that I can add to that is that we have had some experience through our inspectors with the State board. Dr. Corns can point this out if necessary but, apparently, when these things have been done and the inspectors would go in with a broken lens and try to get it reground and bring it out, in many instances they were not done the same. There are errors in them.

I think it is 54 percent errors in some of the instances, where this was done without a prescription. Maybe this is not a great evil; I do not know.

Mr. ROUDEBUSH. Could not the error be made also with a prescription?

Mr. McNEVIN. Yes, this is quite possible. I think the safeguards around securing the prescription are much greater than they would be if you just walked in off the street and said, "One of my lenses is broken, can you grind another one, put it in there just like the one over here?"

I think there is a tendency-I do not say in every instance there will be, but I think as a matter of safety, a new prescription is quite proper and I think it is a reasonable requirement. But I think it goes too far and becomes an absurdity if you are required or called upon to have a prescription just to repair your temple bar or nose bar. When you get into lens, I think it more reasonable and a better safety requirement to require a prescription than for the other mechanical parts of the eyeglass frame.

Mr. ROUDEBUSH. You feel if a tourist were here from, say, Birming; ham, Ala., and broke one lens of his glasses and he went to a local repair place, he should not be allowed, that our law should preclude the local practitioner from making another lens by measurement; he should have to have a complete new prescription for his glasses?

Mr. McNEVIN. In answer to your question, Congressman Roudebush, we are talking about practitioners. If we are talking about walking into a jewelry store

Mr. ROUDEBUSH. I am talking about an optician.

Mr. McNEVIN. Then I think the answer would be "Yes." I think he should be required to go to a licensed optometrist and be examined, get a prescription, get the eyeglasses ground, repaired and then I think one of the big keys to this thing is the idea-he does not necessarily need to-the idea of taking it back to the licensed optometrist, the licensed professional at that time, to make sure that what he has done was proper. This may be a vacation. He may or may not be driving an automobile. We have enough accidents as it is. If he gets a bad lens in there and strikes out on the highway back to California or to Indiana or wherever, if he cannot see or if his vision is so distorted or limited that he cannot see well on the highway, then we have an accident on the highway out of a seemingly simple problem.

Mr. ROUDEBUSH. Is this more restrictive than the Indiana law? Mr. McNEVIN. No, I think in Indiana, this is required likewise, but we require this in Indiana.

Mr. HORTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROUDEBUSH. Yes, I yield to Mr. Horton.

Mr. HORTON. Mr. Roudebush asked a question with regard to tourists who happened to break a lens and the requirement to have a prescription. As I read this bill, it would require not only a prescription, but a prescription from an optometrist licensed to practice in the District of Columbia. Suppose I happen to have a prescription from an ophthalmologist and I took that in. According to this bill, I could not get the lens replaced.

Mr. McNEVIN. You are absolutely right, and I disagree with the bill to that extent. As I stated earlier to Congressman Roudebush, it would be my opinion, as a lawyer having dealt with the problem generally, that on page 11, paragraph 4, I would place a period immediately after the word "optometrist" thereby deleting, "licensed to practice in the District of Columbia."

I think it is an unreasonable provision, an unreasonable restriction, because if you are from New York or California and you are here and need something to be done, we think our Indiana optometrists are equally well qualified to repair, as well qualified as one from the District of Columbia. We think if Congressman Roudebush has a prescription from Indiana, it ought to be recognized around here the same as your ophthalmologist or optometrist from New York or wherever.

Mr. HORTON. We certainly do not want to require a monopoly, it seems to me, and that is what this statement on page 11, section 4, seems to do, to require a license to practice in the District of Columbia. It seems to me that is an unreasonable restriction.

Mr. M.NEVIN. I would agree with you, Congressman; that is right.

Mr. SISK. Will you yield?

Mr. HORTON. I would be happy to yield to my colleague from California.

Mr. SISK. We are working out some language on this. I think I have just as fine licensed ophthalmologists and optometrists in

California, and I agree with the gentleman from New York completely. This is one of the things I would agree with him on.

Mr. HORTON. I certainly have no objection to requiring a written prescription, but I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

Mr. McNEVIN. I think there are safety features built in the requirement for a prescription, but the fluid population here cries out against this type of limitation, it seems to me.

Mr. ROUDEBUSH. And the tremendous amount of tourism that we have here.

Mr. McNEVIN. That is right.

Mr. HORTON. I think you made some comment with regard to the frames and the like. This provision also requires a prescription for frames, mountings, and so on.

Mr. McNEVIN. This, again, is where I stated, I think, to Congressman Roudebush, perhaps, or Congressman Whitener, that I think it needs some clarification and some loosening up. This appears to me to be unreasonable. Congressman Broyhill, as he indicated yesterday, if he broke his temple bar or the nosepiece, it is absolutely essential to him that he get a prescription in order to get this done. These are emergency repair items, and I do not speak with any expertise on this because, as I have said before, I do not wear glasses, but this seems to me a matter requiring immediate attention. To get a prescription for that seems unreasonable.

Again, the area which is covered in this statute on that point certainly needs clarification, perhaps amendments. I think with that in mind you will get a better application of the law and a more reasonable application, one that will fit in with the needs of the public generally, and not the inequitable insofar as it is applied to the man on the street, the general public. This is what we want, after all, to create something that will protect the consumer against his own injury, something on which he is uninitiated, and that is the area of eye care, but at the same time, not to make it so unduly harsh on him that he will go along without eyeglasses at all.

But I think your point is well taken, that ought to be clarified in the statute.

Mr. HORTON. Let me ask you another question. Have you given any attention to the provisions in here with regard to advertising? Mr. McNEVIN. Yes.

Mr. HORTON. Yesterday I asked some questions with regard to advertisements for sunglasses, or glasses that did not require a prescription. The general information seemed to be that these provisions would prohibit that. What are your views with regard to that?

Mr. McNEVIN. My views are basically this, that we isolate sunglasses as a matter for advertising. I do not feel that perhaps there is any great evil in that, because I regard these items, sunglasses, as ready-to-wear articles that one can walk in off the street, if he likes the looks of them, the color of them, he pays $1.98 or whatever, and walks out with them. Those, as a matter of fact, are not the articles that are widely advertised, like the advertisements you see in the paper. Most of these things are advertisements out of which evils grow, the advertisement of ophthalmic lenses.

In Indiana, one of the big problems we have had dates back to 1942, where the Indiana Supreme Court decided The State ex rel. Booth et al. v. Beck et al., 1942. The Indiana Supreme Court at that point,