mittees of Congress do. If we try to isolate all of those problems in a single committee, we are going to be embarking on an impossible task. I don't know of any way to define narrowly small business so that all legislative matters affecting small business are in one committee. I have several other observations I would like to share.

It seems to me that you have two broad questions. One question is whether the problems of small business are sufficiently unique when the Nation's problems are viewed in perspective, to warrant separate consideration of those problems by a special or select or independent committee. On that a lot of views have been expressed to each of us individually. I personally have reached the tentative conclusion with our recommendations, that the problems of small business, when viewed in perspective, do not warrant a separate committee consideration of those problems.

If you cross that hurdle, then you are not home free. You have to decide what to do about it within the proposed committee structure. The recommendation is to give legislative jurisdiction and oversight jurisdiction to the Banking and Currency Committee. It is already there in many ways. But I am not sure that recommendation makes much sense to me.

You have a Small Business Subcommittee within Banking and Currency. But why in the world are the problems of small business considered by a committee whose major legislative thrust is in banking, currency and housing? Why do we say small business should be an appendage to that committee? If you view it as an original proposition, and that is really what we are doing, sort of taking a fresh look, would it not make more commonsense to say if it is going to be an appendage to anything, if it is going to be anywhere, it ought perhaps to be in the Commerce Committee.

The arguments to the contrary are that it would get submerged with the problems of giant corporations. The response ought to be that that is what is wrong with the Commerce Committee and we ought to try to correct it. They should have an appreciation of the Nation's problems including small business and not only the problems of giant corporations.

I don't know that we have given serious consideration to possibly transferring the small business jurisdiction to Commerce, but there are perhaps other reasons to do so when you look at what has happened in Commerce. Few committees have taken the beatings that Commerce has taken. Supplementing their jurisdiction would tend to ease the pain somewhat.

Mr. STEPHENS. The historical background for the fact that Banking and Currency Committee has a subcommittee on small business is because Chairman Patman, before he became the chairman, took a very active interest in creating the Select Committee on Small Business. Then when he became the chairman of the committee we had a complete reorganization of all subcommittees and he recommended that we have a subcommittee on small business.

Prior to that time, the Banking and Currency Committee had handled whatever legislation dealt with small business without having any special subcommittee.

Of course, you are familiar with the fact that the SBA has about $4 billion in guarantees chiefly. The complaint that we have had with the SBA is that they have not had any Federal direct loans. All they

are doing is dealing with banks and asking banks to participate on the 90 to 10 basis of responsibility. If a loan goes bad the Federal Government guarantees the bank the money. It is basically now a guarantee program, even though I have complained that in capital shortage areas we need to have loans. The direct grant shows up in the budget and the guaranteed contingent liabilities don't. We have done that with Farmers Home and with Small Business.

The Small Business Administration has 67 percent of its loans now outstanding as bank guranteed loans. Of course, that ties in with it. being in the Banking and Currency Committee.

Mr. WIGGINS. In summary, I have gathered from what you have told me that you have a small business subcommittee because the chairman decided he wanted one and, in addition, you have the SBA loan jurisdiction which is uniquely of concern to Banking and Currency. Of course, that is only the type of the small business iceberg. It goes into regulations and the tax policies, as Bill said.

Mr. STEPHENS. I think this illustrates what you are talking about: When the Banking and Currency Committee was having the legislation dealing with the guarantee of loans to Lockheed, a lot of people thought that that was a loan by the Federal Government to Lockheed, which it was not. But the real issue involved was that Lockheed had a contract with Rolls Royce and Rolls Royce went into bankruptcy before Lockheed could do anything about it. If Lockheed went under, there would be 30,000 small businesses over the United States, who were contractors and subcontractors, who would lose a substantial amount of money. That is what you are talking about, the iceberg. When you talk about these large businesses you don't realize that they also support and are the generating factor nor many small businesses. Mr. WIGGINS. My purpose, Mr. Chairman, was only to lay on the table the notion that small business might logically be grouped with Commerce as well as with Banking and Currency. I would suspect even more logically. I think the debate here today is going to be on the first question, and that is whether it ought to have separate committee existence, not where it may go after we cross that hurdle.

Chairman BOLLING. Is there any further discussion on this? This is the last item for the day, unless we want to move onto the next committee. We are obviously not going to reach a final conclusion on this one this afternoon. At least that would be my guess.

Mr. STEIGER. A permanent or standing committee with major legislative authority is the option that some of our letterwriters have said we ought to take.

Bob Stephens, I understood what you said, that you would recommend taking SBA and its lending authority out of Banking and Currency and putting it in a small business committee.

Mr. STEPHENS. Taking the legislative function that the Banking and Currency Committee now has and put it in a committee on small business.

Chairman BOLLING. Without anything else?

Mr. STEIGER. Including SBA?

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, SBA.

Chairman BOLLING. That would be, then, a left side committee or a right side committee?

Mr. STEPHENS. If you take it on the basis of what I said, it would be where you could decide whether you want to make it dual or not.

28-947-74-pt. 1- -5

I would think that the jurisdiction of it would be small enough where it could be a second committee.

Chairman BOLLING. In other words, it would be a committee with a quite narrow legislative jurisdiction over the SBA and what else? Mr. STEPHENS. That would be just about all, I suppose.

Chairman BOLLING. If that were done, it seems to me it would be clear that it would be impossible to tell Members that that would be their exclusive committee assignment.

Mr. MARTIN. Bob, if such a proposal was adopted, then would you envision that this Small Business Committee would go out and hold hearings, say, on OSHA or taxation, commerce, and so on? What would you say? They would go out and try to interpret some of these acts that we have as to how they affect small business. Then, as I understand it, like on the OSHA bill, they will come back when they finish up and send over a report to the Education and Labor Committee as to what they found out, because they don't have any legis lative jurisdiction. But if they were a legislative committee, then they would be prohibited from doing this sort of thing.

Mr. STEPHENS. It might restrict the oversight function.

Mr. STEIGER. If you give them legislative authority, then every committee, if they started to get into that ball game

Mr. SARBANES. If they get legislative authority, then they can't have an oversight that exceeds in any significant degree their legislative authority. Otherwise every committee can play that game.

Mr. MARTIN. Actually, if you are going to do that, it seems to me they would really have less to do than what they have at the present time, at least as far as hearings.

Mr. STEPHENS. If we lessened their jurisdiction, that would be true. Mr. STEIGER. They don't have any jurisdiction now.

Chairman BOLLING. What they have is a hunting license everywhere but no ability to legislate.

Mr. MEEDS. They have a license but no gun.

Chairman BOLLING. I would rather put it in terms of voices versus something else.

Mr. STEIGER. In terms of what?

Chairman BOLLING. I think they have a voice to express ideas and little ability to influence legislation. I don't know whether that is accurate or not. You would shift them to a committee that had a voice in a relatively narrow area and the ability to legislate in that very relatively narrow area. Do I understand that correctly?

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes.

Chairman BOLLING. What do we want to do? Do we want to think about this some more? Do we want to think about it some more? Do we want to dispose of the budget? I gather a good many members want to finish by 4:30.

Mr. SARBANES. I think we ought to think about it some more and at least try to do the budget committee.

Chairman BOLLING. I think we can just turn the page because it still doesn't exist.

That gets us to Commerce and Health.

Mr. MARTIN. I suggest we quit for the day.

Chairman BOLLING. I thought if we could go for another 20 minutes we could get enough start on this. Does that displease anybody?

We are really getting in trouble in terms of timetables. We are going to miss all of next week. I take it there is going to be no possibility of a quorum next week. I don't want to mention who who is not going to be here and who is going to be here, but I don't see a quorum.

That means clearly that we are going to have to have evening meetings in the rest of February when we come back in order ot come anywhere near our deadline.

Unless we come to our deadline, we are about to be in the position where those who have much want this matter never to come to the floor. and they will have a reasonable opportunity to prevent it ever coming to the floor.

We will get into the primary season, the political season, and there will be a great deal of difficulty. So I think we ought to start on Com

merce.

Perhaps I will read the same things that I read before because our guests don't have the comparative print.

Under Committee on Commerce and Health, the current committee. would lose aviation to Public Works and Transportation; energy regulation to Energy and Environment; environment, clean air, solid waste disposal, noise to Energy and Environment; health service training to Education; surface transportation to Public Works and Transportation; weather to Science and Technology; clean drinking water to Energy and Environment.

Its gains would include biomedical research, but Science and Technology retains overview. Commodity exchanges

Mr. MEEDS. We put that back in Agriculture.

Chairman BOLLING. Maternal and child health from Ways and Means; nontax aspects of medicare and medicaid with review in Ways and Means, which requires some clarification; patents, trademarks and copyrights from Judiciary; population and demography from Interior.

Unresolved issues are listed: Should the U.N. Organization-World Health Organization-be placed here? How should health jurisdiction be coordinated with Ways and Means? That is a very important question.

Should health service training be placed in Education or in Commerce and Health? Should the following issues be considered in the Commerce and Health Committee rather than the Energy and Environment Committee: clean air, clean drinking water, radiation, toxic substances.

You can see we have a very large area of discussion because I am sure all of you know that there is a lot of controversy over a great many of these particular specific recommendations and the unresolved issues to at least a considerable degree are in controversy.

Mr. STEIGER. What has the committee said? In all of the letters that I remember reading, I don't remember anything.

Chairman BOLLING. The only thing I can say to that is the chairman of the committee and the committee and a good many of the senior members of the committee have been utterly preoccupied since our report came out with an attempt to pass an energy bill, an attempt then to come up with some kind of a conference report.

So I don't believe the chairman of the committee has really had any particular opportunity to focus on it. On my initiative, I have discussed

some of the problems that I knew were in their minds with some of the Members, and I suspect other members of this Committee have had this experience.

But since there are so many different things involved we have had a good many suggestions from people primarily interested in other committees with regard to jurisdictions that turn up here.

Clearly, we have some dilemma with the Committee on Ways and Means. They have expressed that rather energetically in a letter which supposedly represented the views of all the Members on both sides of the aisle.

We have our own problem in that I don't think we have adequately clarified what we mean by nontax aspects of medicare and medicaid with review in Ways and Means, which ends up with the tax aspect. This is a dual jurisdiction approach, a relatively new thing, relatively infrequently used as a technique in the House, often used in the Senate.

So there are two kinds of controversies there. We have had a good deal of discussion from at least outside the Congress about the location of clean air, clean drinking water and so on.

I guess there are several others that I haven't managed to catch up with in a summary. There is a great deal of controversy over this set of jurisdictions, despite the fact that the members of the committee have not, as far as I know, come up with an organized statement from the committee.

Mr. STEPHENS. I have one other item that is not on this list that has been brought to my attention as a possible unresolved issue.

That would be to take the jurisdiction of patents, if we have the patents, trademarks and patents, from Judiciary and be placed here. I have had it proposed to me that patents be put in the Science Committee because it is more nearly a scientific jurisdiction than it is a legal jurisdiction.

Mr. WIGGINS. I could not disagree more.

Mr. STEPHENS. That is what has been suggested.

Mr. WIGGINS. There isn't anything in an invention that has to do with the patent problem. The patent problem is strictly a legal problem and I guess it could be handled as well as by another committee, but to simply say that because it deals with inventions it belongs in the Science Committee is stretching beyond all reality the nature of the problem.

Mr. STEPHENS. I said that was a proposal made to me.

Mr. MEEDS. Who has jurisdiction over the Bureau of Standards? Mr. SHELDON. Science and Astronautics.

Chairman BOLLING. I have heard informally that certain members of the committee on the present Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee feel very strongly that the loss of health service training should be reversed, that instead of that going to Education it should stay in the committee which has the primary responsibility for health. Mr. MEEDS. That has been an argument for years, that Education should have health education training. It has led to fragmented training programs.

The health educators feel that one of the reasons we don't have stronger health education programs gaining in the elementary and secondary grades, really good health education programs, is that when you get further up it gets fragmented and the health educators, many