The special committee in its January 1949 report goes on to say:

We took active part in framing the surplus-property legislation assuring priorities which made possible a fair share of surplus commodities for small business (Report, S. Doc. No. 7, January 1949).

The special committee did take an active art in the formulation of Public Law 457, Seventy-eighth Congress. That act is known as the Surplus Property Act of 1944. However, the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments had to consider the legislation. It held 187 pages of hearings on August 7, 8, and 9, 1944.

On page 1001 of the Congressional Record of February 8, 1949, a list of laws sponsored by the special committee contains those four bills already discussed as originating from the special committee and three others as follows:

Public Law 47 (78th Cong.): An act to provide for the suspension of annual assessment work on mining claims held by location in the United States (including the Territory of Alaska).

Public Law 349 (78th Cong): An act providing for the suspension of certain requirements relating to work on tunnel-site mining claims.

Public Law 157 (79th Cong.): An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to modify provisions of a contract for purchase of power plant for use in connection with San Carlos irrigation project.

Furthermore, the committee is credited with having exerted a substantial influence on three other bills.

At page 999 in the Congressional Record of February 8, 1949, there appeared a list of the committee prints, subcommittee prints, reports, and hearings published by the Special Committee on Small Business. This particular list presumably covers the reports from the Seventyseventh through the Seventy-ninth Congresses. In Committee Print No. 5 of the Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, dated July 14, 1944 is found a list of eighteen publications identified by the Committee as "monographs." These include the publications listed on page 999 of the Congressional Record for February 8, 1949 as Committee Prints Nos. 1 to 18, inclusive, in the Seventy-seventh and Seventy-eight Congresses. However, by the special committee's own admission, that entire list of publications is not to be construed as expressing an opinion by the special committee or any member thereof; i. e., the preface to Committee Print No. 14 of the Seventyeighth Congress, first session, stated:

As with other committee monographs, the status of the material in this volume is precisely the same as testimony presented at the committee hearings. None of the views expressed is to be construed as indicating an expression of opinion by the committee or of any member thereof.

In a similar vein, Committee Print No. 15 of the Seventy-eighth Congress, first session states:

The status of materials herein is precisely the same as that of other carefully · prepared testimony when given by individual witnesses. It is information submitted to the committee for its study. Its publication in no wise implies assent to, or approval of, any of the views, opinions, or recommendations expressed by the authors nor acceptance thereof in full or in part by the members of the Senate Special Committee To Study the Problems of American Small Business, individually or collectively.

In that same print the committee chairman states:

While the committee is in no way committed to an endorsement of any of the ideas presented by these gentlemen, or by Mr. Eccles or Mr. Nelson, it is interesting to note the various approaches that they have made toward solving the financial problems of small business.

The gentlemen referred to were the authors of th papers which comprised that committee print.

Committee Print No. 16, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, states as follows:

No one of the views expressed is to be construed as indicating an expression of opinion by the committee or by any member thereof.

Committee Print No. 17 of the Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, stated:

None of the views expressed is to be construed as indicating an expression of opinion by the committee or of any member thereof.

This particular committee print goes beyond that point by stating: The monograph is not necessarily a statement of the views of the Social Security Board.

The committee acknowledged that the monograph was written by Mr. Fred Safier, senior economist, Bureau of Old Age and Survivors Insurance, in consultation with Mr. Bertram M. Gross, chief, research and hearings, Senate Committee on Small Business. Apparently it may be assumed that the committee print represents the views of Mr. Safier and maybe Mr. Gross. At least, the committee print does not deny that it represents their views on the subject.

Committee Print No. 18 of the Seventy-eighth Congress, first session states: "Sole and undivided responsibility rests with the author," who is acknowledged to be Miss Margaret Hall of the Office of Price Administration.

Your committee fails to see the benefit of such publications as a possible basis for legislation when they do not represent the considered views of a majority, or even necessarily of a single member, of the special committee. It would seem to your committee that no special committee-not even one member of the committee-was essential to the preparation of these prints or even participated in their preparation, as the committee prints show. The function could as well have been performed by one research director and a librarian. Your committee finds that there is no need to create a special committee of Congress in order to obtain this type of information.

It is interesting for your committee to note from an inspection of these reports that few of them were even prepared by the staff of the Special Committee on Small Business. Committee Print No. 1 of the Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, appears to have been prepared by Mr. Richard P. White, executive secretary, American Association of Nurserymen, Inc. Committee Print No. 4 of the Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, was prepared by the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress, as were also Committee Print No. 5 of the Seventy-seventh Congress first session, and Committee Print No. 9, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session. Committee Print No. 10, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, was prepared by the Bureau of the Census. Committee Print No. 13 of the Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, was prepared by Mr. Charles C. Fichtner of the Department of Commerce and his Department of Commerce aides in consultation with Mr. Bertram Gross of the committee staff. Committee Print No. 14 of the Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, according to the print itself, is the joint work of Drs. A. R. L. Gurland, Otto Kirchheimer, and Franz Neumann of the Institute of Social Research at Columbia

S. Repts., 81-1, vol. 1-93

University. Committee Print No. 15 of the Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, acknowledges that the papers comprising that volume were written by Mr. Lincoln Filene, chairman and executive director of William Filene's Sons Co., of Boston, Mass.; Mr. Roy A. Foulke, manager, specialized report department, Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.; and Dr. Theodore N. Beckman, professor of business organization, Ohio State University, in consultation with the chief of research and hearings and the financial consultant to the research staff of the Senate Small Business Committee. Committee Print No. 16 of the Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, acknowledges that it was written by Julius W. Allen, research analyst of the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress, under the direction of Mr. Gross, chief of research and hearings of the Senate Committee on Small Business. Committee Print No. 17 acknowledges that it was written, as previously noted, by Mr. Fred Safier of the Bureau of Old Age and Survivors Insurance, in consultation with Mr. Gross of the committee staff. As also previously noted, Committee Print No. 18 of the Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, was prepared by Margaret Hall of OPA. However, Committee Print No. 2, Seventyseventh Congress, first session, was prepared by a member of the staff of the Committee on Small Business.

Going beyond the first 18 prints, there is found Committee Print No. 19 of the Seventy-eighth Congress, second session. It states:

The accompanying report represents the information on this subject furnished by the disposal agencies themselves and collected for the special committee by the Bureau of the Budget, with the approval of the Surplus War Property Administrator.

Committee Print No. 2 of the Seventy-ninth Congress, first session, was a monograph prepared by Messrs. Welch and Sevin of the Department of Commerce. Your committee notes again that according to the statement of the chairman of the committee, "sole and undivided responsibility is on the authors." Committee Prints Nos. 5, 10, and 11, Seventy-ninth Congress, first session, were prepared by the Bureau of the Budget. Committee Print No. 6, Seventy-ninth Congress, second session, was prepared by the Smaller War Plants Corporation. Committee Prints Nos. 7 and 9 of the Seventy-ninth Congress, second session, were prepared by the United States Forestry Service of the Department of Agriculture. Committee Print No. 12, Seventy-ninth Congress, second session, was prepared by the Department of Justice. Committee Print No. 13, Seventy-ninth Congress, second session, which is not contained in the list appearing in the Congressional Record of February 8, 1949, at page 999, was prepared by Dr. Goldschmidt, assistant professor of anthropology and sociology of the University of California at Los Angeles. Subcommittee Print No. 12 of the Seventyninth Congress, second session, consisted of excerpts taken from the testimony of General Campbell, United States Army Air Force, before the Special Committee on Small Business. Subcommittee Print No. 14 of the Seventy-ninth Congress, second session, was prepared by a former member of the staff of the Special Committee on Small Busi

ness.

These extensive references to the committee and subcommittee prints have been made in order to demonstrate that their preparation did not require the existence of a Special Committee on Small Busi

Dess.

VIII. SMALL-BUSINESS PROBLEMS AND THEIR RELATION TO THE
BANKING AND CURRENCY COMMITTEE'S JURISDICTION

In Committee print No. 3 of the Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, there were compiled 137 pages of letters from small tire manufacturers and retailers which had been solicited by the committee. It is obvious that any clerk in a Senator's office could make a similar contribution.

Committee prints Nos. 6 and 7 of the Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, and Committee Report No. 479 of the Seventy-seventh Congress, first session actually included excerpts from letters received from small-business men. Committee print No. 6 consisted entirely of a collection of such letters, remarks made by Members of Congress, and excerpts from newspaper articles. However, the most important fact to bear in mind is that indisputably a large majority of the subjects dealt with by the special committee fall within the jurisdiction of the standing Committee on Banking and Currency. A thorough examination of the committee prints and reports listed on page 999 of the Congressional Record for February 8, 1949, demonstrates that the following topics discussed in those publications fall within the jurisdiction of this standing committee:

Price ceilings on poultry.

RFC loans for mining ventures.

Encouraging of private financing of small business through SEC rulings.
Disposal of capital and producers' goods by RFC.

Restrictions on branch banking.

Loans by the Export-Import Bank.

The Bretton Woods proposals for international financial aids.

The Defense Plant Corporation's machine-tool program.

Priorities regarding lumber for construction purposes.

RFC loans to lessees of Government plants for the production of light metals.
Price control of meats.

Urban housing.

The Special Committee on Small Business during the Eightieth Congress devoted most of its time to the consideration of matters that were also within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Currency; i. e., hearings were held involving the steel supply and distribution problem, the oil supply and distribution problem, and export-control policies. All this indicates beyond doubt that the

preponderance of matters handled by the Special Committee on Small Business falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Currency.

Under the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, in the event a controversy arises as to the jurisdiction of any standing committee of the Senate with respect to any proposed legislation, the question of jurisdiction is to be decided by the presiding officer in favor of that committee having jurisdiction over the subject matter which_predominates in such proposed legislation. Under this ruling the Committee on Banking and Currency, during the last Congress, considered such matters as extension of the powers of the Office of Defense Transportation relative to the use of transportation equipment and facilities by rail carriers, wage controls, exemption from the antitrust laws of voluntary agreements in the allocation of commodities in short supply, and loans to veterans for housing purposes. It is submitted that the Senate need have no fear that the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Currency will be expanded too broadly beyond that which it already exercises, if an additional appropriation is made available to the standing committee for the purpose of considering aids to small business.

Already the small-business man is bringing his problems to the attention of your committee, and we propose to do all within our power to arrive at a just solution of those problems. Senators are referring regularly to your committee their correspondence pertaining to small business. For the foregoing reasons no benefit is to be gained by creating anew a special committee of the Senate on small business. The Committee on Banking and Currency is already handling the problem. Of course, it must be recognized that unless the standing committee's Subcommittee on Small Business is granted. additional funds for the purpose of carrying on its work, it cannot hope to be as effective in solving the problems of the small-business man. Last year the Special Committee on Small Business spent over $120,000 for that purpose. It is our feeling that with the economies inherent in handling the matter through a standing committee, a more effective job can be done at a much lower cost.

IX. THE AFTERMATH OF THE LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1946

Your committee has considered the record of the Special Committee on Small Business before the Legislative Reorganization Act was passed in 1946. It did cooperate well with standing committees and it did perform much good, as did all special committees under the old system. Nevertheless, in spite of its record. the Senate in 1946 decided to do away with special committees. The Senate realized that special committees created unnecessary duplication of effort, time, and money. The Senate realized that there was nothing a special committee could do that could not be done as well or better by the standing committees.

We know what happened shortly after the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 was passed. When the Eightieth Congress convened in January of 1947, the Republican majority decided to continue the Special Committee on Small Business. Senator Tobey, then chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee, made a very cogent address