OPTOMETRY (3) requires the adoption of a seal to certify and authenticate documents. Provides that certified copies of documents shall be rereceived in all courts in the District, and requires records to be open to public inspection. Sec. 11-authorizes inspections, investigations and studies to gather Sec. 12-grants authority to apply to the District of Columbia Court Sec. 13(a)-requires the Corporation Counsel to prosecute viola- Sec. 14-prohibits officers and employees of the District government § 515-requires the Board of Optometry to adopt a seal and license. § 508 requires Board records to be open to public inspection. No specific provisions as to evidentiory quality of certified copies, but as a matter of court practice and rules, certified copies are acceptable in evidence, and § 14-501, D.C. Code provides that a document under seal of the keeper thereof is sufficient proof of the fact of the record, and is prima facie evidence of that fact. (a)-§ 502 is the same, but carries no reference to the court. (b) -no comparable provisions. No comparable provisions. 32 COMPARISON OF H.R. 595 AND PRESENT LAW-Continued H.R. 595 Sec. 15-authorizes and provides that: (1) all functions hereunder may be delegated to the present (2) licenses currently in effect shall remain in effect until the (4) sets the effective date of the Act (90 days after its enact ment). TITLE 2, D.C. CODE No comparable provisions. Mr. SISK. Are there any other statements? Mr. HARSHA. I would like to ask Mr. Fuqua a question, if I may. Is there any difference between your bill, H.R. 595, in the 90th Congress and the one you introduced in the 89th? Mr. FUQUA. Yes. Mr. HARSHA. There are changes? Mr. FUQUA. Yes. As a result of those hearings, we tried to correct some objections that certain individuals had expressed. There are some minor changes in H.R. 12276 that the Chairman and I introduced last week. Mr. HORTON. In that connection, could we have a breakdown from the staff for our purposes of the various bills regarding the differences between these bills and those introduced in the last Congress? Mr. SISK. I think a breakdown is available. To the extent it is not, we shall provide that. At this time, then, I would like to call to the witness stand our first witnesses, from the American Optometric Association, Dr. W. Judd Chapman, Chairman, Committee on Legislation, and with him Dr. Henry W. Hofstetter. At this time I again recognize the gentleman from Florida who has some comments with regard to Dr. Chapman. Before you testify, Dr. Chapman, I would like also to recognize our colleague, Congressman Jacobs, to make some comments. Mr. FUQUA. I have a distinct honor this morning, gentlemen, in the opportunity to introduce Dr. W. Judd Chapman, an optometrist from Tallahassee, Florida, whom it has been my privilege to know for many years. Dr. Chapman has attended the University of Florida, preparatory to his graduate work at the Northern Illinois College of Optometry in Chicago, where he was awarded the O.D. degree in 1949. Typical of the modern-day professional optometrist, Dr. Chapman has returned to well-respected schools of optometry to further his education on a post-graduate basis since entering practice, including postgraduate work in the contact lens field at the University of Houston School of Optometry. Within the past decade, Dr. Chapman has served as President of the Florida State Board of Examiners in Optometry, and he knows very well the laws of our state governing practice of the profession. Within the framework of professional optometric organizations, he is a Fellow in the American Academy of Optometry, and a member of the American Optometric Foundation, as well as an active member of the American Optometric Association which he represents here today. Indicative of the esteem of his fellow practitioners is the fact that he was chosen by them to serve as President of the American Optometric Association in 1964, and he served the profession with distinction as an outstanding spokesman for optometry and for the improvement of the profession through better education and improved standards of ethical practice. Dr. Chapman has also given freely of his time in the service of his country, and is currently serving as National Consultant in Optometry for the U.S. Air Force. I know Dr. Chapman's testimony here today will be most enlightening to the subcommittee, and I feel sure he will welcome any questions you may wish to direct to him. It is a pleasure for me today to present to the Committee to enlighten us regarding some of the provisions of this bill my good friend, Judd Chapman. Mr. SISK. I would like to recognize Mr. Jacobs for some comments. Mr. JACOBS. As a representative from Indiana, I would like to underscore how privileged I think we are today to have with us a gentleman who has distinguished himself in this field of optometry in many ways. He graduated in 1942 from Ohio State University with a Ph.D in Physiological Optics. Dr. Henry W. Hofstetter is Director of the Division of Optometry at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana. His leadership in this important area of study has brought honor to the University, certainly in matters dealing with this profession. While Dr. Hofstetter is a native of Ohio we are pround to claim him as a full-fledged Hoosier for both his past and present contributions at Indiana University. Having taught elementary school in the Middlefield, Ohio public schools prior to starting his optometric education, Dr. Hofstetter very early in his career gained a keen firsthand awareness of the importance of good vision, especially as it applied to the ability of students to live and work in an increasingly complex world. His later positions as instructor and professor of optometry in some of the Nation's top optometry schools and Dean of the Los Angeles College of Optometry prepared him well for his present position with our now famous and growing Division of Optometry at Indiana University. I might say that is my own alma mater, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Hofstetter is one of the most requested speakers on the optometric circuit for post-graduate lecture courses around the Nation. He is one of the most published of all American optometrists, writing on a wide range of subjects relating to the scope of modern optometric education and optometric practice. His work includes an important reference work, the Dictionary of Visual Science, as well as 126 other papers, reviews, books and literature on such important aspects to optometry as Vision of the Aging Patient, Night Drivers Vision, Careers in Optometry, Industrial Vision, and numerous other technical subjects. Dr. Hofstetter has served in responsible positions within recognized organizations at the local, state and national levels ever since his graduation from optometry college. Currently he serves as Presidentelect of the American Optometric Association, an organization of over 14,000 professional optometrists, and will succeed to the AOA presidency next June. He is a man who also has given generously of his time for the visual welfare of the Nation. For example, he recently completed a term as a member of the Advisory Council for the Education of the Health Professions, under appointment by the Public Health Service of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. He is currently a consultant to the Division of Physician Manpower, Bureau of Health Manpower of the Public Health Service. Dr. Hofstetter is here to supply any additional technical or general information that any committee members may desire after hearing the testimony of Dr. Chapman. I am sure the committee will benefit considerably from questioning Dr. Hofstetter, particularly with reference to the affluent training of his students in optometry which they receive at Indiana University and the country's other respected schools and colleges of optometry. I might say, Dr. Hofstetter, both literally and figuratively it is a pleasure to see you here this morning. Mr. SISK. Thank you. The committee will be glad to hear from you gentlemen now. I understand you have a substantial statement which, without objection, will be made part of the record. STATEMENT OF DR. W. JUDD CHAPMAN, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION OF THE AMERICAN OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. HENRY W. HOFSTETTER, DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF OPTOMETRY, INDIANA UNIVERSITY; AND HAROLD KOHN, GENERAL COUNSEL, AMERICAN OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION Mr. SISK. You may proceed to make any other statement you desire. (Dr. Chapman's prepared statement follows:) STATEMENT OF W. JUDD CHAPMAN, O.D., ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman, members of Subcommittee Number Five, of the House District Committee, it is a pleasure to appear before you today and to speak in support of H.R. 1283. I am Dr. W. Judd Chapman, practicing optometrist from Tallahassee, Florida, and Chairman of the American Optometric Association's Committee on Legislation. PURPOSE OF BILL The purpose of the bill is simple. It elevates the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia to the level of a profession as recognized in the other states and territories of our Union. By doing so, it takes away from the unlicensed, the unqualified and the unscrupulous the power to use the license of an optometrist for selfish profit-motivated purposes. It also places some limits on those who would lure the public to a commercial establishment for the primary purpose of selling them a pair of glasses at a profit. Those who oppose this bill do so because it limits their ability to make a gain from the practice of optometry. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the usual rule of the market place should not apply to the practice of optometry. The classical, free market, supply-and-demand system of economics, cannot, by itself, effectively control or regulate today's practice of optometry. An essential feature of a free market operation is wide open competition to contain prices and to promote quality of the product. We, of the American Optometric Association, recognize the great value of the American system of free competition. We are an organization of competing individuals but we have banded together for the purposes of better service to the public and we recognize that there must be limitations placed on the manner and scope of our competition for the protection of the public. The consumer finds it far more difficult to judge the quality of health service he receives than he does the quality of other types of services and products of the market place. He usually has only a vague and often erroneous understanding of the kind of optometric service he needs, and a very inadequate basis for judging the qualities of service he receives. Usually in the fields of medicine and dentistry he can at least judge whether there is less or more pain or discomfort |