population than did the proponents, the committee took no action on the bill during the 89th Congress. Now, once again. the same groups are appearing before this committee and expressing the same views relative to the proposed legislation. Because the technical frailties of this legislation are being thoroughly covered and will be covered, I would like to address my remarks to a consideration of the end versus the means.

The end which is desired from the passage of this legislation, as stated by the proponents, is the protection of the consumer. The means, is this particular legislation, which once passed will be carried to all the state legislatures with a demand for universal enactment.

Under the currently popular banner of "consumer protection," a small group has come before you asking not really for protection of the consumer, but for protection of their own personal interests, for the opportunity to fatten their own pocketbooks and egos, all at the sacrifice of free enterprise and the consumers' freedom of choice. Recently, a high state executive official told a group of Optometrists and their attorneys that he was not surprise that the "professional" group through their self-serving, self-perpetuating board of examiners wished to gain control of the dollars represented by their industry in their state.

He stated that he. as a government official, did not envision himself being held responsible for the resolution of this interprofessional squabble and he had no desire to act as their referee. At that time, he charged the board of examiners with the responsibility of administering the statutes, as written, for the protection of those for whom the statutes were written to protect, the public, and he stated that they should refrain from utilizing legislative and judicial branches of the government to restrict and harrass economic competition.

I believe this was an excellent statement because it pierced directly and realistically into the real reasons for the persistent requests for this legislation by this small non-public minded group.

This statement placed the responsibility correctly for the resolution of the problems which had been expressed by the group. The gentleman was saying that professionalism and self-respect gained through education and personal application to principles cannot be administered like a coat of paint by the legislative or judicial hands of the government. Rather it must come about as a result of the efforts of the group itself in setting aside personal interests relegating economic factors to their proper level giving prime consideration to the education and development of their own candidates for licensure and the development of proper internal controls.

But contrary to such wise advice this group, which is again appearing before you in support of this bill and proposing themselves to be representative of the consumer has enlisted shrewd publicists and skilled organizers a well-paid staff of political experts who can outwait the legislative process and continuously cultivate legislative interests in their so-called consumer objectives. As reported by the clerk of the house and printed in the Congressional Record the American Optometric Association spent $25,943.59 in 1966 for lobbying purposes in Washington, D.C. I am sure their expenditures during the 90th session of Congress will exceed this figure. These experts have been charged with the duty of developing an umbilical cord connecting Uncle Sam with every consumer of optical goods and services. They recognize and prey upon the reality that every consumer at one time or another has had an unhappy experience with a particular product or appliance or service or merchant. And they attempt to convert these frustrations and thereby establish an atmosphere of public resentment and personal damages to these experiences in the optical business. According to their arguments this atmosphere should logically lead to a consumer-complaint counter backed up by the government and enforced by laws which would be administered by selected and conditioned appointees of the self-seeking group.

What will really follow would be the severence of the business-consumer ties which are at the heart of a healthy private enterprise and the displacement of consumer choice business and professional self-discipline and local regulations with a funneling of every citizen frustration to the legislative bodies of this country there to be supposedly remedied by endless new laws and regulations.

The paid political experts hardened veterans of political wars are patient people with the long view, willing to slog along year in and year out toward a legislative goal accepting repeated reverses along the way, until at last the legislators tire of their doors being battered down and the public becomes sufficiently sloganeered so that the plan can be forced through.

The business community in the United States, including the optical industry, does detest malfeasance and is eager to redress justified complaint.

In fact, scrupulous attention to this very fact on the part of the members of the NAOO and all of the employers of optical personnel has caused them to exist successfully and has brought the optical consumer to their offices and places of business.

And these people continue to return for their services and optical goods through the years. The conveniences of accessible locations, persistent concern for high quality, fair prices, freedom of choice, attractive and varied selection of style, fair and courteous treatment and the satisfaction of their needs and demands have proven to the public they can purchase from these establishments with confidence and trust.

This confidence and trust has been fulfilled and there is no significant evidence presented here at this or previous hearings to the contrary. If there were a lack of confidence on the part of the public in the practices of optometry and opticianry under conditions which this bill would prohibit, then the public would have long ago raised its objections in the form of boycotts. This has not happened. As a matter of fact, just the opposite has happened.

It has been suggested previously and by implication that the concept that a "package price" offered in advertisements by profit oriented companies creates undesirable conditions and is totally wrong. In a statement submitted by Dr. W. Judd Chapman on behalf of the American Optometric Association to the senate subcommittee on Anti-trust and Monopoly, the following statement was made and became part of the record "Explicitly an Optometrist's fee should cover the examination and prescription, as well as selection of a frame which is cosmetically and technically correct taking the facial measurements ordering from the laboratory neutralizing and verifying prescriptions fitting the glasses or lenses to the patient to assure they fit comfortably and that they effectively corrent the vision deficiency."

Apparently, it is correct to offer a "package price" so long as you are a member of the AOA. Advertising of optical services and materials has been criticized and labeled as injurious to the public welfare. Advertising has served the public to inform it of what is available, what can be expected in terms of cost, what the selection is and where particular services and materials can be conveniently obtained. There is no reason to deny this basic right to any legitimate, ethically operated company or individual.

Optometry has progressed greatly since its emergence from the field of dispensing opticianry. Educational facilities have been expanded and improved. Members of the profession donate much time and effort and service to the care of those who cannot afford medical eye care. However, there have been many problems in the area of student recruitment, and over the past years the number of optometrists being graduated has been far below the demand for their services. According to health source statistics of the United States Public Health Department, the average number of optometric graduates from all of the optometric colleges in the United States for the past eight years has been 389 per year, less than eight per state. This is far from being a sufficient number to serve the public adequately. What the optometrists should do in order to improve themselves and upgrade their status and their image with the public is: 1) concentrate more heavily on student recruitment and development of the educational facilities available to students. 2) furnish greater assistance to these young men when they graduate from school in becoming established in practice. 3) expand and develop research facilities so that the services which optometrists are legally licensed and authorized to provide can be provided in the best possible manner. They might not then be so eager to usurp the province of medicine and medical practice.

If all of the time, money and effort which is currently being put into legislative attempts by the optometric groups were put into these three areas of activity. optometry would find itself growing rather than diminishing. It is unfortunate that the small powerful groups who control the politics of optometry continue to attempt to replace education, self-discipline and personal development with legislative attempts.

Members of the committee, we cannot allow these small groups to influence us to pass legislation which can serve only personal interests and which can contribute greatly to the detriment and the inconvenience of the consumers seeking the services we are discussing here.

I thank you for your consideration in allowing me to speak before you today, and if there are questions, I would be happy to answer them.

Thank you.

Mr. SISK. I would like a little more information on the people you represent. As I understand it, you represent the National Association of Optometrists and Opticians. Are you president of an Association? Dr. Rowe. I work for the Cole National Corporation. I am not president of it.

Mr.SISK. What is your official capacity?

Dr. Rowe. My official capacity is Director of Dispensing, Development and Research.

Mr. SISK. What is Cole National Corporation?

Dr. Rowe. Cole National Corporation is a publicly-held company. Mr. SISK. I beg your pardon?

Dr. Rowe. Cole National Corporation is a publicly-held company with five major divisions, one of which is the Optical Division. This division operates an optical department in various department stores, in exclusive locations. They employ opticians and optometrists.

Mr. SISK. Do you know approximately what your company grossed last year?

Dr. Rowe. The total of the company or the Optical Division?
Mr. SISK. Your total company?

Dr. Rowe. It grossed-this is a pro forma figure, because one of the divisions has been sold and the gross sales have been revised to reflect the sale. The total was $34,000,000 for the fiscal year, last year.

Mr. SISK. The optical section earned about how much?

Dr. Rowe. About $10 million.

Mr. SISK. You operate primarily, as I understand it, in the Penney, Montgomery, Sears-Roebuck stores, for example?

Dr. Rowe. The majority of our offices are in the Sears-Roebuck stores, yes, sir.

Mr. SISK. One other question with reference to the people you represent. I note in your statement that your Association is a national organization comprised of optical firms, companies, and individual optometrists and opticians engaged in the optical business throughout the United States.

Last year, as I recall, from the record, Congressman Whitener of North Carolina, questioned you as to whether or not individual opticians could become members of your organization.

Has your position changed from that of last year or not? I note you stated then: "No, an individual optician can not be a member". Is that correct or not correct at this time? You state today that you do represent individual optometrists and opticians.

Dr. RowE. May I take a look at the statement?

Mr. SISK. That is on page 234 of last year's hearings. I am not trying to trap you.

Dr. RowE. That is all right.

Mr. SISK. This was the discussion occurring between Congressman Whitener, yourself and some other members of the committee.

Dr. Rowe. They would probably have to be on the premises, the owner of the firm or company-limited to a number of the general offices which would be a qualification. This does hold true.

Mr. SISK. That is what I wanted to make clear.

Really, then, you represent the owners or the management of the corporate interests concerned with the optical stores rather than the professional people? I am using professional in regard to the optometrists and even the technical professional opticians.

Dr. Rowe. I represent the management and the employees of these companies, yes, sir.

Mr. SISK. As I understand it, individual opticians and optometrists could not be members of your Association?

Dr. Rowe. We have members who are optometrists, licensed in one state and practicing in another state. We have a new member from Michigan who is an optometrist there. He has several offices and he has optometrists employed in the several offices.

Mr. SISK. Is he operating a business and employing people?

Dr. Rowe. Yes.

Mr. SISK. In other words, you are not a society representing professional people?

Dr. Rowe. Well, if optometrists are professionals, we represent optometrists. The majority of the officers of the organization are optometrists.

Mr. SISK. I find it somewhat difficult to compare the representatives of different companies and individual optometrists who are considered to be professionals. I think nationally that the profession of optometry is recognized as a profession. It is recognized by all Federal agencies, including the Veterans' Administration. As I understand your statement of last year and this morning, you represent a group of business firms dealing in the dispensing of optometric equipment and material. Is that correct, basically, or not?

Dr. Rowe. Well, I can go back to say that I represent-I can give you the names of the people, the companies, that I represent, if you would like, so that you will know that.

Mr. SISK. Could I ask you, locally here for example, if you would name some of the firms you represent?

Do you have a list of those firms?

Dr. Rowe. I represent Colton Optical of D.C. This is a company owned by Cole National.

Mr. SISK. Is Sterling Optical a member of your Association?

Dr. Rowe. Sterling Optical is a member.

Mr. SISK. Is Kay Jewelry Store a member?

Dr. Rowe. No, they are not.

Mr. SISK. Kinsman Optical Company?

Dr. Rowe. No, sir.

Mr. SISK. Vent-Air Contact Lens Specialists?

Dr. Rowe. No.

Mr. SISK. King Optical Company?

Dr. Rowe. They are a member of our organization, yes, sir.

Mr. SISK. Are your members the same as those of the Guild of Prescription or the United Optical Workers Union? Is there an overlap?

Dr. Rowe. No, sir.

Mr. SISK. Neither of them are in your organization?

Dr. RowE. Sterling is a member of our organization.

Their employees are members of the United Optical Workers Union, but they are not synonymous with the United Optical Workers Union nor with the Guild of Prescription Opticians.

Mr. SISK. Do any of your members manufacture optical goods? Dr. Rowe. Yes, sir.

Mr. SISK. Would you name those for the record?

Dr. Rowe. Optics, Incorporated.

Mr. SISK. Optics, Incorporated?

Dr. Rowe. They manufacture frames. That is the only manufacturer that is a member of our group.

Mr. SISK. Is that the only manufacturer that your Association represents?

Dr. Rowe. The only manufacturer, yes.

Mr. SISK. What about dispensing companies?

Could you have for the record a list of those companies, or does the materials you submitted list the dispensing companies you represent?

Dr. RowE. No. I can tell you the names of some of them.

Mr. SISK. If you will, to save time, supply those for the record. Dr. Rowe. Certainly, I will.

(The information requested was not furnished.)

Mr. SISK. Do you have any questions, Mr. Gude?

Mr. GUDE. No questions.

Mr. SISK. Mr. Jacobs?

Mr. JACOBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I take it from your testimony, both prepared and oral, that you do not think that there is any conflict in interest where a corporation such as a department store hires an optometrist for the purpose of that optometrist serving the public when at the same time that corporation is in the business of selling glasses?

Is that your general statement?

Dr. Rowe. At one time I was Director of Operations of the company that I now work for. I directed the operations of the offices. I can assure you that there was no conflict of interest. He is given complete authority in the eye examination. He determines what to prescribe for the patient and is not in any way influenced in the results. otherwise. As a matter of fact, our research program continues to place additional instrumentation in the offices of these people, to acquire the necessary training in the use of these new instruments, so that they can perform a better examination. We have those programs going on at the present time. We are conducting research into the effectiveness and the feasibility of various types of instrumentation which has not yet been proven scientifically to accomplish what they purport to accomplish. We want to know how they work. There are some electronic instrumentations, one of which claims to be an accurate screening device for screening out glaucoma, that is, potential glaucoma. We are not satisfied that they actually do this. We are conducting research programs. We have placed these instruments out in the field. We have 15 of these instruments, approximately, outas a matter of fact we have 17. We have 12 electronic; we have four what we call "applanation", and we have one applanation-electronic combination. We are comparing the results of these, from the standpoint of how effective they are in screening potential glaucoma patients, because when we find that this instrument communicates the possibility of glaucoma, we refer this to a physician for verification of the information that comes back from the instrument. A number of referrals have been made. A number of examinations have been made, and we are attempting to determine the effectiveness and the veracity of these instruments.