This compartmentalizing brought with it a myriad of Federal agencies with fractional responsibilities in the broad field of resource use and conservation. As a consequence, the activities of Government in this vital resource area are spread, horizontally and vertically throughout the government structure, including local, State, and Federal Federal sectors.

One result is that today—after a hundred years of concern with conservation-no Member of the Congress and no private citizen can receive authoritative replies to broad questions: "How are we doing? What are our prospects? Will our resources of land, water, air, timber, rangeland, wildlife, recreation, and scenery sustain us in the year 2000?"

We are charged with the task of making wise, long-range resource development policies. But we do not have access to the information we need to make those decisions judiciously. We have a tangle of programs and officials going in a multitude of directions, all interrelated but, at the same time, compartmentalized and confined.

Let me illustrate the scope of our operations federally in the resources field and the magnitude of our task when trying to unravel it by using the current session of Congress as an example. In the U.S. Senate there were 94 measures introduced before July 15 dealing with resources and conservation policy. This figure excludes all bills relating to specific development and conservation projects such as the Garrison irrigation project, Tocks Island Recreation Area, a specific park or a natural monument.

I have broken these 94 proposals down into a number of categories. I have found, for example, that there are 30 proposals dealing with the conservation and use of land. There are 17 bills relating to minerals and mining, and 16 are concerned with the protection of fish and wildlife. Water pollution is the subject of 11 measures, some dealing with water pollution alone and some including air pollution, which is covered in 7 proposals. Recreation is the topic of 10 measures, water supply and use is the subject of 16, and marine and oceanographic resources are intensively considered in 6. Some of these bills, of course, are included in more than one category because they cover more than one topic. While one measure may deal exclusively with water pollution, another may cover marine resources in a very broad sense as well, or may be primarily related to housing or urban development.

The overlapping and interrelation of Federal responsibilities in all of these areas is made clear by the fact that the 94 measures were referred to eight separate committees of the Senate. No one

committee had a monopoly on any single committee had a monopoly on any single conservation or resource subject.

Significantly, the 11 measures on water pollution were referred to five different committees: Public Works, Finance, Commerce, Government Operations, and Agriculture. The 30 measures on land use and conservation went to on land use and conservation went to seven separate committees; the five already listed plus Interior and Insular Affairs and Banking and Currency.

But let me go further. Of the 94 measures, 18 would create new public offices, committees, commissions or agencies, committees, commissions or agencies, ranging from fact finding boards to new ranging from fact finding boards to new executive departments. Using water pollution as an example once again, there are three bills which would create Government bodies to be a part of Federal activities in this field—all at different levels. One would create a technical One would create a technical committee within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; another would create a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in the same Department; and the third would establish coordination of Federal water pollution activities as a function of a new Office of Community Development in the Executive Office of the President.

Moreover, there are cases in which two or more proposals designed to accomplish essentially the same thing in the resources field are referred to difthe resources field are referred to different committees. Two of the water pollution coordination measures went to pollution coordination measures went to the Committee on Public Works, and a the Committee on Public Works, and a third was referred to the Committee on Government Operations. Or, using another example, two bills were introduced to to coordinate and intensify Federal oceanographic and marine study and research. One was referred to the Committee on Government Operations, and the other went to the Commerce Committee. I am not implying that any of these committee references were imthese committee references were improper. They merely serve to illustrate the complexity and confusion of the machinery with which we deal with resource and conservation problems both in executive agencies and in the Congress. We have let the subject be fragmented into dozens of parts.

I could relate more, but I believe this is sufficient to indicate that the intricacies of Federal resource and conservation action are virtually insoluble without some form of coordinated evaluation-some effective means of learning where we stand, how the bits and pieces are fitting together, and how well all of the things we are doing will serve to meet our needs.

We do not now have such a means, so we move forward as best we can with the fragmentary information available to us. As a result, in all too many cases, planAs a result, in all too many cases, planning suffers and our actions are piecemeal reactions to emergencies. We are, for example, all painfully aware of the water needs of the Northeastern United States this summer. The emergency situation there will surely give great impetus to our water supply efforts. Major steps are already being taken in our studies of saline water conversion. But all of these actions and more are too late to be of benefit to the citizens of New York City in the long, dry summer of 1965. Long

range planning and development should have begun on a systematic, coordinated basis long ago.

All of this is clear evidence of the need for the U.S. Congress to have an annual report-not a decennial study-on where we stand in the various aspects of conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources. There can be no justification of waiting for a crisis affecting the national security, or a critical civilian shortage of one or another of the resources on which our general welfare or our national survival depends, before we find out that our planning has been inadequate and our works inappropriate.

Emergency programs are not only worrisome and often inadequate, they also tend to be costly and inefficient. In 1935 we could have purchased 400 miles of seashore recreation area on the Atlantic and gulf coasts for $14 or $15 million. At that time there were no requirements projections looking ahead to 1965-or even to 1950. As a consequence, on this one type of resource requirement alone, the Nation will have to pay out a billion dollars more than would have been required 25 years ago.

There might have been enormous savings had we had projections over even the past 10 years; lacking them, we are now having to pay the price of insufficient information in staggering appropriations to meet the requirements for outdoor recreation resources demanded by an effluent, burgeoning population. In connection with recreation sources, I want to pay tribute to Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, to the late Senator James E. Murray to Vice President HUBERT HUMPHREY and all the others who worked with them for early recognition of the rising recreation resource emergency in the fifties.

It was my privilege to sponsor the original wilderness bill in the House of of Representatives. The Vice President was its first author in the Senate. Thanks to farsightedness in this field, we have preserved the Nation's opportunity to reserve a considerable amount of wilderness and scenic beauty without billions of dollars acquisition expense-and to preserve bona fide wilderness, undisturbed by man.

Thanks to Senator ANDERSON'S initiative, not only was the wilderness bill finally enacted-he finished that job with the brilliant help of Senator FRANK CHURCH-but a nationwide review of the whole recreation resources emergency was conducted in 1959 and 1960.

Again thanks to Senator MIKE MANSFIELD who first suggested it, and the late Senator Murray of Montana and the senior Senator from New Mexico, who followed through, we have had a recent decennial study of water problems which, unfortunately, is not being kept up-todate so we can see how we are doing in meeting those problems from year to year.

In almost every other field-I mention economics and demography as illustrations-there are infinite current statistics to guide our actions in both public and private enterprises. But on the natural resources and conservation front,

nobody now reports to the Congress, or the President, or the people, whether overall we are gaining or losing in relation to our requirements or whether in 10 or 20 years the foreseeable requirements of our people can be supplied and sustained. We should not allow this State of affairs to continue.

A permanent mechanism should be set up to study and develop and report on whole programs and policies that will protect and prudently use all of our natural resources of soil, water, forests, air, minerals, grazing lands, fish, and wildlife, and related recreational, scenic, economic, and scientific qualities in our life and heritage.

Two late, great Members of this bodySenator James Murray of Montana and Senator Clair Engle of Californiasought some 5 years ago, in 1960 and 1961, to set up such machinery for the Congress and the President to use. Today I urge the consideration of that proposal somewhat modified, which would be authorized by S. 938, "To declare a national policy on conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources." My proposal calls for an annual report to Congress from the President, assisted by a Council of Resource and Conservation Advisers, on the condition of the Nation's natural resources, particularly in terms of their multiplepurpose use; trends in their management and use; an evaluation of their adequacy and availability; a review of all conservation programs and activities and their expected effects; and a suggested program for carrying out the national policy, including proposals for legislation. At any time, this annual report could be supplemented by the President with additional reports or suggestions for legislation having to do with natural resources conservation and development. To assist the President in preparing the annual report, the bill provides for a three-member Council of Resources and Conservation Advisers, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. These advisers would be qualified by training, experience, and accomplishment to analyze and interpret natural resources policy and to formulate recommendations. The council could utilize whatever sources of information, services, and facilities-public or private which would be available either through cooperation, or by employment of its own staff.

The annual report of the President to the Congress would be referred to select committees on the Resources and Conservation Report in the Senate and in the House. The select committee in the Senate would be made up of the chairman and ranking majority and minority members from the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs, Public Works, Agriculture, and Commerce. The President pro tempore of the Senate would appoint the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate select committee, and the Speaker of the House would make similar designations for the House select committee.

Each of these select committees would make a continuing study of the Presi

dent's report and/or assign such studies dent's report and/or assign such studies to the appropriate standing committee of the House and Senate; the select committee of each body would make reports on resources and conservation matters on resources and conservation matters and on studies undertaken as it deems advisable.

These select committees would bring together the leaders of the major committees in Congress dealing with resources at least once a year to consider together, in connection with the annual Resources and Conservation Report, the overall situation and the broad resources picture.

The

Two decades ago, in 1946, the Congress declared that it was the continuing responsibility of the "Federal Government to foster and promote free and competitive enterprise and the general welfare, conditions under which there will be afforded useful employment opportunities, including self-employment, for those able, willing, and seeking to work, and to promote maximum employment, production, and purchasing power." The Employment Act of 1946 has been hailed in many quarters as the major achievein many quarters as the major achievement of the Congress in the 20th century. ment of the Congress in the 20th century. Authored by Senator Murray, it established a Council of Economic Advisors in the Office of the President and a Joint in the Office of the President and a Joint Economic Committee in the Congress. The approach taken in S. 938, the "Resources and Conservation Act of 1965," is a similar approach in the area of resources and conservation.

In the Employment Act of 1946, the Congress asserted that it is the national policy of the U.S. Government to create a climate in which human resources will be utilized. It seems to me, and to the 15 other Senators who have joined with me in sponsoring S. 938 that the Congress has an equal responsibility to take the necessary steps which will preserve and utilize in their most productive state our natural resources. If the Congress and the Federal Government are on record as being responsible for are on record as being responsible for doing all they can to insure a sound and progressive national economy, then it appears to follow that there is likewise a governmental responsibility to assure the proper and best use and conservation of our natural resources. Our economy cannot long remain dynamic if our resources are wasted or developed in an uncoordinated, piecemeal manner.

I do not criticize the Federal agencies because they have not engaged in the kind of overall resource planning that we are here concerned with. Each of these agencies has been assigned a specialized and limited mission. All of these programs at whatever level have merit and many are excellent and essential in themselves. However, this restricted However, this restricted approach by each agency or department results in a sort of jigsaw puzzle of conservation, where no one ever puts all the pieces together to see what the total picture is or where we are going to come out ture is or where we are going to come out at the end. We clearly need to develop a better program of coordination among the many agencies of the Federal Government, along with the various levels of State and local governments, as well as with industry, agriculture, labor, con

servationists, and private property owners. All of these groups are interested in developing the best possible long range programs for the conservation and utilization of our land, water, minerals, forests, and wildlife. forests, and wildlife. The essential mechanism for the coordination of these programs and policies in the best interests of the Nation is the missing feature.

The Resources and Conservation Act of 1965 would place this review and coordination job in the Office of the President, where with the assistance and counsel of his advisers, he might make unified evaluations and recommendations to the Congress regarding the attainment of the maximum potential of America's natural resources for our generation and those to come after us.

The late President Kennedy, when he was campaigning across the country in the 1960 presidential campaign, stated again and again that all our resources programs involving numerous Federal agencies require coordination by the executive. He supported the Resources and Conservation Act, with its concept of high-level professional advisers in the Office of the President. He so stated in Durango, Colo.; Helena, Mont.; Redding, Calif.; Billings, Mont.; and Phoenix, Ariz. In his great natural resources message to the Congress on February 23, 1961, President Kennedy presented a stirring challenge once again:

This statement is designed to bring together in one message the widely scattered resource policies of the Federal Government. In the past these policies have overlapped and often conflicted. Funds were wasted on competing efforts. Widely differing standards were applied to measure the Federal contribution to similar projects. Funds and attention devoted to annual appropriations or immediate pressures diverted energies away from long-range planning for national economic growth.

President Johnson, in his conservation message on February 8, 1965, has again stated the challenge in eloquent terms:

The same society which receives the rewards of technology must, as a cooperating whole, take responsibility for control ** to deal with these problems will require a new conservation * Our conservation must not be just the classic conservation of protection and development, but a creative conservation of restoration and innovation.

Its concern is not with nature alone, but the total relation between man and the world around him.

Congressman Marsh would have agreed with President Johnson, because that was exactly what he was telling his fellow Americans a hundred years agolong before it was called ecology. The wheel has made its turn, from the prophet of 1864 to the leader of 1965 in conservation of all resources, both human and of nature.

During the second session of the 88th Congress and in the first session of the 89th Congress, we have been implementing President Johnson's concept. We have been giving the President, the Government at all levels, and the American people, one conservation tool after another: The Classification and Multiple

Use Act; the Water Resources Research Act; the Land and Water Conservation Fund; the National Wilderness Preservation System; the wetlands acquisition program; the Public Land Law Review Commission; the Economic Opportunity Act which establishes a Youth Conservation Corps for work on public lands; the Appalachia Act; the water pollution control bill now in conference; the wild rivers preservation bill now before both Houses; the Water Resources Planning Act; the expansion of the saline conversion program; the Federal Water Project Recreation Act; the Federal installations, facilities, and equipment Pollution Control Act already passed by this body; a program for the expansion of oceanographic research and the establishment of a Commission on Marine Sciences, Engineering and Resources; and the air pollution control bill.

This is a brilliant array of tools. Now the next concern must be: How do we put them together? Do we have the organizational setup to make all of these programs work? Does the President have the kind of assistance he needs to reconcile all the conflicts over resource

use which our growing, urbanized, industrialized population engenders? To return to my opening question-How can modern man make the best possible use of his natural environment? Can our political leaders and conservationists and agency planners be wise enough to fit together their short-term programs for a long-term yield? A major answer to these questions would be the enactment of the Resources and Conservation

Act.

From the broad and fundamental consideration of Congressman George Perkins Marsh to the experiences and pragmatic liberalism of the late Senator James Murray of Montana, Senator CLINTON ANDERSON, of New Mexico and the bright and promising enunciations of President John F. Kennedy, President Lyndon Johnson, and Vice President HUMPHREY, a century of thought and action in the field of conservation has brought us to the threshold of this great consolidation of our resources policies and concerns. Action is needed now to bring all the pieces together into a uni

fied whole.

When I introduced the Resources and Conservation Act on February 1, this year, I quoted to the Senate a paragraph from a report to the President by the National Academy of Sciences on renewable resources, which said:

It is evident that optimization of natural resources for human use and welfare cannot be achieved by fragmentary and sporad

ic attention given to isolated parts of the problem, but that the issues involved must be made the subject of a permanent, systematic process of investigation, recording and evaluation, carried on continuously in reference to the total perspective. It would appear mandatory, therefore, to entrust an independent organization with the task.

This does not mean a new administrative agency is necessary. It means that we should do in the field of resources

what we have done in the economic field-create a council of advisers who can stand a little apart and take a careful overall look at resource and conser

vation programs and needs to assure abundant resources in 1980, 2000, and for all the years to come.

We have done an outstanding job of coordinating economic policy, and bringing the many Federal activities which effect economic growth into harmony through the Council of Economic Advisors, the annual economic report and the Joint Economic Committee. We have been able since 1961 to stimulate economic growth rate and sustain a high level economy for the longest period in our national history.

We can end the conflicts and bring harmony again in resource and conservation matters through the same sort of instrumentality we use in the economic field-not a new administrative agency, or a new competitor for prerogatives, but an agency which will help existing agencies weave their programs into a pattern which restores harmony between man and nature, ends the erosion of our resource base, and assures supplies to meet the needs both of our generation and of generations to come.

I urge the serious consideration of all those concerned with resource problems-and the many bills before this Congress testify that such concern is widespread-of S. 938.

[From the Manchester Guardian,
Aug. 26, 1965]

THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY Detector capsules which may be swallowed unknowingly can transmit to a distant listener everything a person says. This item from the world of telecommunications made the starting point on Sunday night for a British Broadcasting Corp. broadcast discussion on the right to privacy. It wound up with the reminder that among the human rights acknowledged by the United Nations is freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy-family, home, or correspondence.

With the means of observation and recording developing at an explosive rate, what rights does the individual have to be protected from what he would, in simple terms, call snooping, eavesdropping, and intrusion?

In the English law the position is far from clear. In 1961 Lord Mancroft introduced a right of privacy bill into the House of Lords. It made no progress, not because it was held that the existing law was adequate to protect a person's legitimate privacy, but because it was thought impracticable to distinguish between improper invasion of privacy and the due reporting of matters of public interest. And there the matter still

stands. But the cause of public concern

(such as it is) has changed and is changing. Then the main complaint was the conduct of journalists chasing the trivialities of the

gossip column. Now there is rather more particular anxiety about the use of new devices, and not chiefly by journalists.

against thieves on car parks and in shops? Or to record conversations unbeknown to the participants? In the BBC discussion an important distinction was made between observing wrong conduct, which was held to be a legitimate use of television for criminal investigation, and the recording of speech which, when unguarded, is liable to be seriously misleading. The law already implicitly recognizes the point in requiring a suspect

Is it proper to use television to keep watch

to be formally warned, when he is questioned by the police, that what he says may be used in court against him.

The developing of communications of all sorts has made the world much less private for public figures. But this is a price to be paid for going into public life, whether in tics or entertainment, or in positions of authe accepted public occupations such as polithority in the professions and in business. Here the public (mainly through the agency of the press) has "a right to know." But again a distinction has to be drawn which is not at present defined by the law. The public has the right to know what is a matter

of public concern, but not what is merely a matter of popular curiosity. Public figures are entitled to privacy in their family lives and in their leisure, and to be protected, among other things, from the attentions of photographers with long-range cameras.

If the pressure for a defined right of privacy grows there will be the inclination to misuse it to buttress the habit of secrecy in matters of public interest. That will have to be watched and resisted. While the right to know does not extend to trivial gossip, the right to privacy should be no bar to in

quiry in public affairs. This again is a principle that deserves to be written into the English law. Lord Shawcross would allow the

defense of qualified privilege for the publication in the press of matters of public concern and interest. Once this were conceded

it would be easier to secure the right of privacy on defined grounds.

SENATOR HART'S STATEMENT ON DOCTOR-DISPENSING OF EYE

GLASSES

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, we in Congress who care about-and fight forconsumer causes do not hesitate to acknowledge the magnitude of the load carried in this area by the junior Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART).

Frankly, when he talks of consumer problems, we listen. And we learn. Therefore, it was with great interest that I followed hearings held by Senator HART'S Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee on the question of doctors profiting from the sale of products they prescribe. Last year, the hearings centered on doctor-ownership of pharmacies and drug packaging companies. This year, they dealt with doctors selling eyeglasses.

Based on the information developed in these hearings, Senator HART has announced he plans to introduce legislation aimed at prohibiting a doctor from profiting from such sales. If Senator HART, in his usual fairminded way, has decided legislation is needed, we must all be aware that there is indeed a problem in this area.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator HART'S statement at the close of the eyeglass hearings be inserted in the RECORD at the conclusion of

my remarks. In this, he outlines exactly what legislation he thinks is needed. Also, I would like inserted a story by Morton Mintz from the August 9, 1965, Washington Post which elaborates on the concern with which doctors themselves view this practice.

I think my colleagues should be aware of the problem which exists and these two pieces do an admirable job of presenting it briefly.

There being no objection, the statement and the article were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: CLOSING STATEMENT BY SENATOR PHILIP A. HART ON DOCTOR-DISPENSING OF EYEGLASSES

This committee seldom is asked to resolve uncomplicated problems. But the case before us is even more difficult than most.

We are asked now to determine if a doctor's profiting from the products he prescribes is harmful to competition and consumers.

Last year we heard that 5,000 physicians were owners of small drug companies. An additional 3,000 or more were designated as owners of pharmacies. Both of these figures are conservative because ownership of these businesses is difficult to ascertain. Now we learn there are approximately 2,500 ophthalmologists who sell eyeglasses, Conservatively, then, we have 10,500 doctors profiting from products they prescribe. There is reason to believe that considerably more of the Nation's 200,000 physicians have earnings from similar commercial endeavors.

All indications are that next year there will be more and the year after that still more.

In this situation we consider not only conflicting economic interests of trade groups; here we have men who are indeed acting as merchants but who are members of a profession which all Americans set apart-and to whom all turn with confidence and trust for treatment of their most valued possession, their health.

This trust is essential in the doctorpatient relationship. And it is an integral part of the problem before us. For in most other purchasing decisions the consumer operates to some degree against the background of "let the buyer beware." In these

cases, the total-and essential-trust which

a patient has in his doctor proscribes this. This trust, then, must be considered in our

deliberations.

Before going any further, let me make clear that I do not for a minute think that all doctors who own pharmacies or sell eyeglasses are operating in an unethical manner. Many, I am sure, sell drugs or glasses because in their opinion this is the way best to serve their patients.

But this record indicates that a substantial number do not operate with this motivation only. As a result consumers suffer. Competition suffers. Perhaps most dangerous and regrettable, the degree of patient trust in the doctor is weakened.

Cases have been presented which substantiate the accusation that some doctors always charge more for glasses than would the optician and in some cases the quality and fit was poorer.

Worse, we have been told of cases where doctors have increased their daily workload so that it is difficult for them to give the necessary medical attention each patient needs.

Clearly, these cases are in the minority. But they demonstrate how far down the road this practice can lead physicians. And they are to be compared to examples detailed in last year's hearings where purchase of a pharmacy seemed to lead to overprescribing by the doctor-owner. We heard of one doctor who wrote $10,000 worth of drug prescriptions the year before and $50,000 the year after he bought a pharmacy.

CXI- -1480

By interfering with-and sometimes even denying-a patient's right to take his prescription and shop for the best style, quality, and price, a doctor dispensing his own wares also interferes seriously with the competinot only takes advantage of that patient but tive opportunity of other sellers of optical goods. The result is to restrain trade. Competition is lessened and competitors are injured. We have learned of opticians forced into bankruptcy-of one who lost 40 percent of his business in the year after doctor-dispensing began in his city-and of many others similarly damaged.

The economic effect the practice can have and has had on the consumer is documented also. Included is one survey that showed consumers paid $7.50 to $15.10 more for glasses from a doctor than they would have from an optician. Further, we learned of many cases where consumers couldn't wear the doctor-dispensed glasses without adjustments by an optician. In one case, a lady was charged $65 by a doctor for glasses she couldn't use and ended up paying an optician $33 more for a pair she could.

If the disadvantages of "doctor merchants" were limited to the field of eyeglasses the problem would be serious enough. Unfortunately, last year in our hearings we learned that the same problems exist in the area of doctor-ownership of pharmacies and drug companies.

Three ways to eliminate these practices once were seen as possible-action by the American Medical Association, action under present law, or writing new law.

The AMA, unfortunately, seems incapable. The association nationally says it is a matter for the local societies. Local societies, we have found repeatedly, do not cope with these situations. Usually they say it is a problem for the national association.

before us and said that dispensing ophFurther, reputable doctors have appeared thalmologists would rather give up AMA membership and hospital privileges than deprive themselves of the financial rewards of dispensing.

The testimony of nondispensing ophthalmologists-in person, by telegram, and tion. For while it might be possible to exby letter-I think deserves special consideraplain away the case presented by the opticians, it is impressive that members of the profession themselves vehemently condemn the practice.

On the question of how effective any medical association ruling against the practice might be, two things should be noted.

First, two surgeons who dispense glasses appeared at these hearings. Neither belongs to the American College of Surgeons, which does have a rule against doctors selling glasses. One of the doctors said he did not belong because he does not agree with this ban.

Second, the AMA had an ethical rule flatly prohibiting doctors from profiting from sale of prescribed products in 1951 when the Department of Justice obtained consent judgments to stop 4,000 ophthalmologists from accepting rebates from opticians. The AMA ethic today proscribes a doctor selling products unless it is "in the best interest of his patient."

As for present law eliminating the practices, we have had reports from the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission that present law cannot do the job.

All that is left open is writing new legislation. This I do not like; it is not an area in which I would enjoy seeing legislation written.

But, as I said at the close of our hearings last year on doctor-ownership, the consumer and the independent businessmen deserve protection from doctors who abuse their prescription power for private monetary gain.

Until 1955, the American Medical Association prohibited this with a simple ethic: An ethical physician does not engage in barter or trade in the appliances, devices or remedies prescribed for patients, but limits the sources of his professional income to professional services rendered the patient.

That ethic made good sense then; it makes good sense now.

As soon as practical I will introduce legislation to give that ethic the force of law. In drafting such a bill we will have to iron out the problems caused by exceptional situations. For example, we must consider the remote areas where technicians such as opticians and pharmacists may not be available. Also, we must weigh the effect of the fact that in some cases-such as opticiary-not all States license the technicians who fill prescriptions.

But the problems of drafting the bill seem to me worth the effort, for legislation appears the only way to protect the interest of the consumers, nondoctor competitors and the doctor himself.

[From the Washington Post, Aug. 9, 1965] DOCTORS ASSAIL GREED OF SOME EYE SPECIALISTS

(By Morton Mintz)

Probably never before have physicians at a congressional hearing looked through a glass so darkly at other physicians.

"It is not easy for me," said Dr. Christopher Wood, "to testify that the unethical practices of a majority of my fellow ophthalmologists are a disservice to the heritage of medicine and, more important, to their patients."

A second eye specialist, Dr. Alfons F. Tipshus, asked if ophthalmology is so deeply infected "with the germ of greed that it may

contaminate the rest of medicine?"

A third, Dr. Clarence B. Foster, said, "For and moral standards in their quest for every too long, I sat in silence while many of my fellow physicians deliberately flouted ethical dollar they can acquire."

ATTACKS NOT NEW

Public denunciations of organized medicine-by persons outside of it-are nothing new. They were heard last year for example,

when Senator PHILIP A. HART'S Senate Antitrust Subcommittee showed that about 8,000

doctors had interests in pharmacies and drug repackaging plants.

The attacks were renewed by opticianswho admittedly have a lens to grind-in the Michigan Democrat's 5-day hearing on doctors who sell the eyeglasses they prescribe.

But not until this hearing, which ended last Friday, did physicians-voluntarily and in number-join in.

Their language was as bitter as some of their medicines, as sharp as 20-20 vision. They saw their profession being eroded by a kind of Gresham's law in which shabby

ethics tend to drive out the good. They depicted organized medicine as unwilling or unable to act and they pleaded for legislationwhich HART seems certain to propose.

THE 1951 BAN ON REBATES

The explosive force had been building up since at least 1951, when a constant decree was issued forbidding doctors to receive or opticians to pay rebates on eyeglass prescriptions. At that time, the Justice Department estimated, 3,000 of the Nation's 5,000 ophthalmologists were receiving kickbacks.

Some ophthalmologists hoped that an end to profiting by doctors on eyeglass prescriptions had been assured by the decree and by the American Medical Association's Code of Ethics, which prohibited physicians from selling eyeglasses or drugs unless optical shops or pharmacies were remote.

Such hopes "turned out to be a mirage," HART was told by Dr. Foster, a Southern Pines, N.C., ophthalmologist, who has found it possible to make a reasonable living-not the

two Cadillacs and country club type-by confining his practice to rendering purely professional services.

CALLS IT REPREHENSIBLE

The decree, he said, merely stimulated some of the colleagues to become "eyeglass merchandisers to their captive patients." He termed this new method "as reprehensible as the kickback system."

The new method replaced the old almost without a pause. HART was persuaded by the hearing evidence that it is used today-in ophthalmologists' offices, in adjoining offices, as in doctor-owned optical firms-by at least 2,500 of the 6,200 ophthalmologists, and that it accounts for a substantial share of the $155 million annual business in eyeglasses.

Once the system became widespread, Dr. Foster said, the next step was to induce the AMA to water down its code of ethics so as to bring the system within it. "I have read that no AMA convention has ever attracted so many ophthalmologists as the 1955 session, where this action was taken," Dr. Foster said. Some of the results described by Dr. Foster included eyeglass dispensing by laymen "with little training" by an optician "who takes the job to survive," or by the doctor himself, "though I know that nothing in his medical training gives him this competence."

PRACTICES REVEALED

He said many ophthalmologists refuse to give a prescription to the patient, impose an extra charge for it or reject responsibility "if the work is done elsewhere."

Spokesmen for the country's 18,000 opticians said that since 1957 the failure rate among independent optical stores has been 10 times as high as that of other retailers.

They submitted evidence-names, dates, places, photostatic copies of doctors' billsshowing that in city after city the prices charged by ophthalmologists are highersometimes very much higher-than those charged by opticians. Their estimates of the annual clear profits to ophthalmologists were in the five-figure range.

In Orange County, Calif., testified Dr. Tipshus, who is from Anaheim, 30 out of 40 ophthalmologists dispense glasses. Opticians cited even higher ratios elsewhere-all in Lubbock, Tex., and Bakersfield, Calif., nearly all in Reading, Pa., 15 out of 16 in Charlotte, N.C., 10 out of 11 in a sector of Los Angeles. The ratio in Washington was indicated to be very low.

APPEALS FUTILE

Appeals for help to the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission have been fruitless, one reason being that interstate commerce was said not to be involved.

Appeals to local medical societies have been lost in what Optician A. G. Jefferson of Lynchburg, Va., called the AMA's "revolving-door code of ethics."

Optician J. W. Broom, Jr., of Lubbock told HART he had to write the local medical society in his town, the Texas Medical Association and the American Medical Association, without results.

Some of the bitterest testimony came from Dr. Wood, a former member of the AMA's House of Delegates, who goes beyond HART'S estimate to say that even by 1962 more than half the ophthalmologists were dispensing glasses.

CONDEMNS AVARICE

After settling in Myrtle Beach, S.C., in 1958, he told HART, he was shocked to find colleagues new to ophthalmology committed to this unethical practice. He condemned their avarice, and I repeat the word loudly and clearly, and said:

"It is an absolute certainty that if there were no money involved, if the patient's care were the only factor, there would be no selling of glasses."

In a letter put in the record, Dr. John W. Dickerson of Norfolk, Va., asked "how one

can clearly decide whether a patient needs glasses 'when one can make money by giving the patient glasses.' It makes the profit motive an important part of a medical decision. It is wrong."

Dr. Marvin Joe McKenney of Lansing, Mich., suggested that "more eyeglesses are prescribed in those offices that sell eyeglasses than in those that do not."

The AMA's Dr. William O. La Motte, Jr., a nondispensing Wilmington, Del., ophthalmologist termed "reasonable and responsible" the AMA's code which was revised to say that doctors may dispense drugs, remedies, or appliances "provided it is in the best interest of the patient."

But under questioning by subcommittee counsel S. Jerry Cohen, he acknowledged that in determining the patient's best interest the doctor is, in effect, "lawyer, judge, and jury."

The AMA spokesman and physican-witnesses who do dispense glasses emphasized market-age patients want one-stop service. Optometrists examine eyes and also prescribe glasses. Dispensing of glasses is an integral part of professional ophthalmologic service.

INCONVENIENCE IS SEEN

"A universal prescription against physician dispensing would deny some patients glasses, require other patients to seek incompetent dispensers, and cause still other patients personal inconvenience," Dr. LaMotte testified.

Dr. LaMotte agreed emphatically that certain practices, such as a physician refusing to give patients a free choice as to where to have prescriptions filled, violate AMA ethics.

Often, however, he said, what the AMA gets are generalized complaints, not specific facts. Hart then gave him some cases that the physician concerned to be "ironclad."

Drs. Charles W. Tillett and Marvin Lymberris of Charlotte, N.C., contended that complaints of price-gouging by dispensing ophthalmologists are "completely without foundation." Dr. Tillett said that opticians sometimes charge more, and he cited cases of opticians refusing to fill complicated prescriptions.

PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S TEAM AT

THE UNITED NATIONS Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, President Johnson has demonstrated in the only way it counts-by his actions-that he supports the United Nations and its vital role.

The most recent example of his determination to contribute to world peace through the United Nations was the announcement of his team at the U.N. AS the following column in the August 28 Evening Star, Washington, D.C., states: It is a team qualified in many ways and the President thought of them all.

Because this column outlines in some detail the qualifications of each member of President Johnson's U.N. team, I ask consent to insert it in the RECORD at this time.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,

as follows:

JOHNSON'S TEAM GOES TO THE U.N.

(By Doris Fleeson) UNITED NATIONS.-A Johnson team is in charge of American interests at the United Nations. U.N. diplomats, for all the immense regard and affection they had for the Kennedy choices, feel a certain relief.

It could hardly be a secret from the men and women who are at the United Nations because their countries value their political because their countries value their political acumen that the President was more or less

keeping the U.S. mission at arm's length. Aware of the power of the Presidency, they are happy to have with them a group of Johnson's choice.

The Johnson manner is again in question. Ambassadors Francis T. P. Plimpton and Marietta Tree and Franklin Williams deserved much more than the cold abruptness of the change. They have served with distinction and their attention to all the little things that count was above praise.

Personality differences no doubt played a part in the change, but its political complexion is its true significance. Johnson has brains and he looks ahead. He has a plan for the United Nations and he is preparing for its political defense at home.

In the surprise appointment of Justice Arthur Goldberg to succeed Adlai Stevenson as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Johnson made plain that he regards the world organization as a bargaining place. He chose, therefore, the best and most famous negotiator the country has to offer.

Goldberg is an activist; sitting and talking is not his line. The bargaining efforts now indicated may not succeed but that will not be for want of trying.

The ground, therefore, must be prepared for defending what happens not just on the scene but to the folks. A congressional campaign is less than a year away, a presidential election 2 years later. Already Republicans are making some telling criticisms of Vietnam policy.

Goldberg has a powerful political constituency in every State, labor and the intellectuals. Charles W. Yost who moves up next to him is a highly regarded Foreign Service officer with marked skill for translating the State Department to Congress. That skill was not among Plimpton's assets.

James Madison Nabrit, Jr., has been president of Howard University since 1961 and has been an active civil rights lawyer. Enough said. He should encounter no problems as representative to the talkative Security Council or in explaining what goes on in areas vital to Democratic victory. Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt is gone but her oldest and favorite son, Representative JAMES ROOSEVELT, was available for the United Nations, and while he does not look like his father, he sounds like him. Service in the House since 1955 has taught him the congressional byways and like his mother, he never gets tired of working.

Mrs. Eugenie Anderson of Minnesota is a veteran of its activist politics and a former Ambassador. Her like is to be found, though perhaps she is more simply dressed, in the good works sector of every American town and city. She is an articulate and sensible expert in the soft sell.

In short, it is a team qualified in many ways and the President thought of them all.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, in an excellent feature article in the September 5 Denver Post, tribute is paid to Secretary of State Thyra Thomson. Wyoming's intelligent and attractive Mrs. Thomson, the widow of former Wyoming Congressman and U.S. Senator-elect Keith Thomson, holds the highest elected executive post of any woman in the United States. She also holds the position, which she values just as highly, of mother and homemaker for three fine boys, ages 13 to 22.

Thyra Thomson was elected in 1962 by what in Wyoming is a very substantial margin-15,000 votes. As the arti