Evening star., 1939-07-11

for that, but your responsibility is to
consider at least laws for the Dis
trict Of Columbia-a voteless District
of Columbia, I might add The only
way under the shining sun that they
can get law Is for you to give it to
them. Now, if you are going to re-
fuse to consider legislation for the
District, then, in the name of COM
mon sense, let us not continue to
embarrass a standing committee of
this House; let us do it some other
way; let us abolish the District of
Columbia Committee. do not enjoy
the long hours of work put in on
that committee; 1t is not very popu-
lar back home even; but somebody
has got to assume the responsibility,
q portion of which Is yours, to do
something for this District of Co.
lumbia down here with 100000 peo-
pie In it without vote, and I think
it is rather sad commentary that
this House of Representatives would
refuse even to consider two pieces of
legislation, whether they are impor-
tant or not I venture the assertion
that there is but a very, very, very
small percentage of the membership
Of the House that has even seen the
outside cover Of either one of the
bills they refused to consider, or
know the contents of either.
Mr.. RObsion of Kentucky. Mr..
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr.. Nichols. I yield.
Mr.. Robson of Kentucky. do
not wish the gentleman to make the
statement of me that I am mad at
the people of the District of Colum-
bia for any purpose; in fact, like
them. I voted mo" on both these
propositions because did not believe
in either bill. (Applause)
Mr.. Nichols. That is fine.
Mr.. johnson of Oklahoma. Mr..
Speaker will the gentleman yield?
Mr.. Nichols. yield.
MIR. johnson of Oklahoma. Does
not the gentleman recall that not
only once. but on several occasions
this House heretofore has by an
overwhelming vote refused to pass at
least one Of the very two bills that
it refused to consider this afternoon?
Mr.. Nichols. My friend from
Oklahoma is entirely wrong. In the
last session Of Congress bill came
before the House to limit the number
Of taxicabs in the District of Colum-
bia, and led the fight against the
bill, but 1t has not been here this
session. and this is an entirely differ
ent bill from the bill that was here
last year. The bill to regulate the
practice of optometry in the District
Of Columbia was before the House
for the first time this afternoon, the
first time at this session since I have
been here and been a member of
the District of Columbia Committee
I have no feeling in this matter,
but I just think that we are not
playing the game, fellows. These
folks are dependent upon us. They
cannot get anything that We do not
give them, and think that we ought
in the future, surely, to at least con-
slider the legislation that standing
committee of this House has worked
hard enough on to get to the floor
in the shape of bill. (Applause)
(Here the gavel fell)
Mr.. Dirksen. Mp. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to address the
House for minutes.
The Speaker Pro Tenn. Is there OBJ
objection to the request of the gen.
tleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
NJ
only bill that was presented by the
Committee on the District of Co.
lumbia this afternoon for what pur-
ported to be your consideration but
which turned out to be not for your
consideration, presents a rather Curl
Gus legislative enigma to me in my
service on the District of Columbia
Committee. 1t was bill to regulate
the practice of optometry in the Dis
trict of Columbia. l am quite SEN
sitive of the fact that most every
member of the House has received
a letter from the county and State
optometric associations of their re-
spective States protesting against
and urging opposition to the bill.
| curious Problem.
That presents a rather curious
problem to us. Being quite mindful
of human frailties and of the politi-
cal implications of bills presented
here in the interest of the District
OF Columbia but which have certain
repercussions back home, I can
understand the general attitude of
the House, because my own attitude
has been precisely that on some oc-
casions. So suggest this query to
you this afternoon: If, for instance,
we are seeking to pass a bill to bet
ter regulate optometry in the Dis
trict of Columbia, set up certain
standards to regulate the practice
of OptOmetry, license those who are
to practice here, and effectuate GER
tain reciprocity with other States,
then every optometric association in
the 48 States of the Union objects.
What ought to be our attitude? We
are not legislating for Illinois or
Wisconsin,; we are not legislating
for Massachusetts, or Vermont: we
are not legislating for New York,
California or Kentucky. The bill
that must govern that practice at
home is going to be determined by
our respective Legislatures.
We bring in bill fashioned after
considerable hearings and deliber-
alton which is acceptable to the ex-
ecutive authority of the District of
Columbia, namely, the District of
Columbia Commissioners; it is &C
ceptable to the optometrists in the
District of Columbia; it is acceptable
to most of those who came and tes-
titled before the subcommittee
There are some weaknesses in the
bill. I had fashioned three amend
emnts which I was going to offer
before the bill came on for final pas
sage. Put yourselves in our posi-
ton. What are we going to do
about it?
Personally, I believe there ought
to be certain improved regulations,