we made constructive suggestions so as to correct what we found wrong; isn't that so?

Mr. HILL. That is true, and I should go one step further, and say to this committee that Mr. Multer has always taken the attitude that what he didn't know about small business he was willing to learn, and to learn with the information from the grassroots, shall we say, or shall we say, from the counters, and the operation of the local small-business firms themselves. And that is a real compliment, as far as I am concerned, to say to the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Multer.

Mr. MULTER. Thank you, Mr. Hill, I appreciate that.

There is just one thing I want to touch briefly upon.

You serve on the House Agriculture Committee. Has that committee considered the question raised here this morning by Mr. Patman about loans for irrigation purposes to farmers?

Mr. HILL. Yes, sir, I am glad you asked that question, too, because there again, I am on familiar ground.

Mr. Chairman, and members of this committee, you could not make a more terrible mistake for small business than to put the farm loaning business in this bill, because of the fact that we have a Farmers' Home Administration, and if that isn't working right, it is all, in my opinion, due to the administration of the program.

Now we have a farm home organization in Colorado, and we have had a tough era there, in fact, we were the center of the dry section of the United States. But we have done some wonderful work. This would only gum up the matter and I am sure the committee will think seriously before incorporating a farm loan in this small-business activity.

Mr. MULTER. I think our subcommittee would be in agreement with you, Mr. Hill, on that subject. As a matter of fact, no one came before the subcommittee during the hearings, at any time, with such a proposal. Therfore, we did not consider it.

Mr. HILL. They are separate and distinct and should be kept that way, in my personal opinion.

Mr. MULTER. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further questions?

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Henderson.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Hill, it has been suggested that the permanency of this agency should not be considered because we don't want to even admit that small business problems are going to be with us for all time. But if this agency were made permanent, would it not be possible to eliminate it at a future time if all reason for its existence disappears.

Mr. HILL. Well, of course, Congress has the right at any time to amend any laws it passes, and so we could do just what we did the other day on the soil bank-knock it completely out, any year Congress desires to pass such legislation.

But let me say this: I tried, in the best way I could, to place in the record the arguments as to why the Small Business Administration should be permanent. One of them is very important, and you must not miss it: You just cannot get the right type and kind of personnel in a temporary agency. Every good civil-service employee, knowing that he is in a temporary agency tries to find a job com

parable to the one he has in a permanent department or agency. What does he do when he finds a new job? He asks for a transfer, and so would any other high class member of the personnel who work under civil-service regulations.

Mr. HENDERSON. Well, now you alluded to something that I believe does not appear in the record—that there are other temporary agencies in Government.

Mr. HILL. The Farmer's Home Loan Administration is one of them. There are several. I can't name all of them. But there are several agencies we have set up and they have to be renewed or extended by the Congress.

Mr. HENDERSON. Do you find this temporary nature is crippling them?

Mr. HILL. It has been crippling to the Farmer's Home Administration, particularly in finances. You cannot keep top loan men who must evaluate property, as well as the person requesting the loan. Just as soon as the Farmer's Home Administration gets a man up to where he becomes worthwhile to the taxpayers of the country, some bank comes along and says, "Here is $8,000 a year." And he is still under a 5 or 7 in civil service. What is he going to do? He is going to go into private industry. And out goes your efficient, worthwhile employee. That is a good argument for a permanent agency.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you. Your statement has been a very fine one.

Mr. MCVEY. I think you have taken a very broadminded position on this situation, in your stating that you are willing to have the Multer bill substituted for your own bill.

In your opinion, would you advocate a change in the personnel of the old Small Business Administration? I understood you to say you would be willing to compromise to the extent of having a small-business man and a small banker join in the work of this committee, is that true?

Mr. HILL. That is true.

Mr. McVEY. Does either your bill or Mr. Multer's bill contemplate that?

Mr. HILL. Mine just continues it as is. Mr. Multer's changes it to the two.

Mr. McVEY. He doesn't include the two categories?

Mr. HILL. No. But in my personal opinion I wouldn't include them either unless I put another one on. I have always felt that 5 is much better than 4. So I would say, let's accept Mr. Multer's proposition, but let's add these other two men who are already on. Mr. Barnes will tell you that they have worked very, very closely with him. I also understand from 1 of the members of 1 of the departments who does the work with Mr. Barnes, that he has never had any other duty insofar as SBA was concerned, than determining loan policy. I know from that, Mr. Barnes has worked very closely and very excellently with these 2 secretaries, which would mean, if you left them on, and added the 2 small business representatives, plus the Administrator, you would have a board of five. I agree with Congressman Multer, I don't think we should put the small-business man and small banker on a full-time basis.

Mr. BREEDING. Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Breeding.

Mr. BREEDING. Mr. Hill, I want to compliment you and congratutate you on your statement. You and I both come from the same part of the United States, divided by a State boundary, and therefore our problems are similar. I noticed in the newspaper this morning that the Small Business Administration is seeking Cabinet status. Just what does that mean?

Mr. HILL. Mr. Breeding, I appreciate the fact that you alluded to the matter that you and I were both raised in the same State, Kansas. I have not seen anything nor have I heard anything about cabinet status for the Small Business Administrator.

Mr. BREEDING. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, Mr. Hill, we are very glad to have your views and we will give them intensive study when the committee meets in executive session.

Mr. HILL. Thank you so much for your indulgence.

The CHAIRMAN. Our colleague, Mr. Seely-Brown of Connecticut, is the next witness. Will you take the witness chair, sir? We will be glad to have your views on the bills under consideration. Mr. SEELY-BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF HON. HORACE SEELY-BROWN, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Mr. SEELY-BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I am also a member of Subcommittee No. 2 of the House Small Business Committee. This subcommittee, as has been stated, has held long, detailed hearings on the operations and activities of the Small Business Administration. I want to compliment my colleagues on the subcommittee for having done such a very thorough job in examining the Small Business Administration and for the time they have taken out of their busy schedules to go so carefully over the original Small Business Act, as amended, and the various bills which have been introduced.

In effect, the identical bills introduced by the members of the Small Business Committee contain relatively few changes from those recommended by the administration which were included in the bill (H. R. 6645), introduced by the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Hill. Some of these changes are important and will work to the benefit of small business and for better administration of the Small Business Act. Both bills which are under consideration by the Committee on Banking and Currency follow very closely the provisions of the Small Business Act of 1953, as amended. The most important feature of the bills is that both are designed to give the Small Business Agency a permanent status. I am sure that we will have no difficulty in reporting a bill to the House which not only will improve the administration of the Small Business Act but also will provide stronger legislation to assist small business in securing financial aid and Government procurement contracts.

I am also in complete agreement with the increase in disaster loan authority and with the measures included in the bills before us which will permit the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to legally accept voluntary services of personnel from banks, Government agencies, and other institutions which will enable those in disaster areas to more rapidly avail themselves of the assistance supplied under the Small Business Act.

I am extremely gratified to be a member of Subcommittee No. 2 and to have engaged in work which resulted in the unanimous approval of the subcommittee.

The CHAIRMAN. I know we all rejoice that our colleague, General Anderson is back from the hospital. I know we all hope that, in the language of Rip Van Winkle, he may live long and prosper.

The committee will now adjourn to meet tomorrow at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon the committee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a. m., May 21, 1957.)