Page images
PDF
EPUB

The book you have in front of you there is written for retailers, for wholesalers, and for manufacturers. The book that we prepared in 1953 and which was revised in 1958 I think it was, was written just for manufacturers.

Mr. BROOKS. As distinguished from retailers?

Mr. WHITE. Retailers and wholesalers.

Mr. BROOKS. But in fact the subject matter is essentially on the same-it is the same-it is just a slant-your approach is one from a manufacturer's viewpoint, one is from a retailer's viewpoint? Is that what you would say?

Mr. WHITE. The scope of the subjects are substantially the same, you are quite right, sir. But from the point of view of the reader we were addressing ourselves exclusively to manufacturers and as a matter of fact we discussed this with Harry Katchum who at that time was head of the Office of Distribution of the Department of Commerce. He and I agreed that, in our opinion, these two books did not duplicate each other.

Mr. BROOKS. There is one for each category. You can go right down the list.

Mr. HORNE. I might say there, Dr. White, the first two titles to which the chairman referred, they have not been updated or reprinted-the first two titles to which the Congressman referred have not been updated or reprinted by the Small Business Administration; am I right about that?

Mr. WHITE. The first two titles he referred to, of course, are issued by the Department of Commerce. To my best knowledge they have not been revised.

Mr. HORNE. We have nothing to do with reprinting them or bringing them up to date.

Mr. BROOKS. That is right, but I am pointing out there is a duplication problem still with us or essentially one where the subject matter covered in these is about the same from a little different perspective and I just wonder about the desirability and need for that.

The foregoing leads to this next example. I noted in another SBA series the booklet entitled "You and Manufacturing" and "You and Selling"-this is another one of these where they write a separate book for each segment. Now, "You and Manufacturing" is apparently going to be "You and Manufacturing" and "You and Selling" is going to be "You and the Sales Business."

They have redone it very carefully. They have taken a different artist. You can just take a look and see what I am talking about.

This is a little square building in "Selling." "Selling" has a square building and "Manufacturing" has a manufacturing establishment with smoke coming out.

Now let's turn to the next page here. The foreword is about the

same.

In the contents, you have the same basic problem. "Selling" you are apparently beckoning them onward here with strings on your money and their purchases.

Let me check these contents.

In these contents, we start off with, "Why do you want to go into your own business."

This is "Manufacturing.”

Now under "Selling," the first content is "Why do you want to go into your own business?"

Now you could go right on through them. They are exactly identical, with a couple of little changes in section 8, and on page 25 they have "What about you," and on page 25 in "Manufacturing" they also have a little dissertation on "What about you," and it goes on and on

like that.

The next page indicates a straight duplication.

You can see the illustrations are a little different. The manufacturers have the V-shaped top for their building, their big manufacturing buildings and the sellers just have square buildings. But it just goes right through like that.

Look at page 3.

Mr. HORNE. You are talking about now "You and Manufacturing" and "You and Selling," the similarity between the two?

Mr. BROOKS. Exactly. This is just enough change I want to be candid about it, because it is more damaging in this instance-when you look at them carefully they are not exactly alike. There is a little bit of change and this little bit of change, of course, would increase the cost. This means you have to proof it again and do it over. This increases the difficulty of putting it together. If it is an exact duplicate where you just change the title you could make people think they are getting a special product. But they have changed it just a little bit on page 3 and on "You and Selling" we have-well, I am just trying to think of how to "What do you have to gain in a small business?" And in the "Selling" one they have "What do you have to lose in small business?"

Under "What do you have to lose," the answer to this also is "Plenty. Including, in fact your shirt."

Under "Manufacturing" the answer is "Plenty. For example, there is a feeling of freedom being operator of your own establishment." Those paragraphs are switched around just a little bit. There is just a little bit different focus and you wonder whether anybody who is going to understand either one couldn't understand a combination. If you had the capability to understand this one, you could interpret that same information to where if you were a manufacturer-manufacturers have shirts too, you know, and they could lose them. It would mean "You could lose. This is not going to be good. This is bad."

I would think you could understand either one and I also think you could understand a combination of them that would eliminate the requirement for printing both. These are not put out by-they may not be in print now. They were both printed in 1959 originally.

My question is, Do we still have them, and are we eliminating that kind of duplication as being essentially unnecessary?

I don't believe Congress would want to appropriate money to put out that little bit of a change and have two different books. I just think we could do better than that in writing comments on "You and Manufacturing" or "You and Selling" or "You and Eating," or "You and Wearing Clothes."

Mr. HORNE. Dr. White, do you remember the background of these sufficiently to respond to the Congressman's question?

Mr. WHITE. I believe I do.

These were put out for a purpose quite different from other publications which we issue. These were not put out for distribution or sale by the Government Printing Office. They were prepared at the request of the man who at that time was head of the financial assistance program. They are turned over to the financial man in the field offices so that when somebody comes in to inquire about the possibilities of a loan if they feel, after talking with him, that this information might be useful to this potential borrower they will hand this to him. They will hand the one volume to the man if he is a small manufacturer. They will hand the other volume to him if he is a wholesaler, a retailer, or a service operator. The two publications were written by the same people and there is no question at all that the text is very substantially the same. But it individualizes the publication and the usefulness of the material from the point of view of the reader, if the volume he gets is addressed to a man operating the kind of business he operates.

Mr. HORNE. Well, let me ask you this-I think what the chairman has in mind-this has already been printed; whatever good may come from them or whatever unnecessary duplication may exist; whatever error has been committed has already been committed.

I should think we have no plans for reprinting them. What we have on hand would continue to be used just for counseling purposes and not for general sale, general public sale, or general distribution? Mr. WHITE. They have not been reprinted and there is no plan to reprint them.

Mr. BROOKS. And the hope is when they consider reprinting them that they consider combining them, writing them perhaps at the same level but certainly combine those kind of publications.

You have one "Starting and Managing a Small Business of Your Own" which is essentially the same thing, really. We have that same picture of the strings. One to the money, one to the man and one to the goods. It is all a little combined process.

Mr. HORNE. Mr. Chairman, my reaction is we would not reprint either of the first two you talked about.

Mr. BROOKS. This doesn't look like a bad pamphlet but it looks like it supplants any need for these two that are duplicating it.

One other question on the duplication is this: We asked Mr. Horne that your folks furnish us a copy of all the publications SBA put out. They sent 301 and yet it has been testified by Mr. Maness that 433 publications have been issued. So we found ourselves about 132 items short in evaluating what the publications procedure was.

Mr. Maness was wrong?

Mr. WHITE. The difference in the management, technical and small marketers aids which have been discontinued because they are now available in the annuals. You will find the difference in the two sets of figures being

Mr. BROOKS. So you discontinued the pamphlet?

Mr. WHITE. The individual four-leaf leaflets and they are not available any longer as individual leaflets but they are contained in the annual, so that you have 12 leaflets in one annual, you see.

Mr. BROOKS. Until they have been printed in an annual they are listed as leaflets?

Mr. WHITE. That is correct.

Mr. BROOKS. When they are printed in the annual you don't print them as leaflets?

Mr. WHITE. That is correct.

Mr. HORNE. And we don't reprint them any more.

Mr. BROOKS. It is about 10 minutes after 12 and I am just wondering if the members would be willing to proceed. I believe we could cover the other two subjects.

PROCUREMENT AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

On the procurement and technical assistance program, are you familiar with the GAO recommendation concerning utilization of SBA procurement representatives at the various procurement centers in the United States?

Mr. HORNE. Yes, sir, I am familiar with that. Mr. Chairman, I haven't read the whole thing in detail. I have read parts of it and I have read the summary and recommendation parts of it.

Mr. BROOKS. Have you had the opportunity to read the July 17, 1962, program analysis report of the Dallas region where it was emphasized that approximately 30 percent of the SBA procurement representatives' time was wasted by reviewing unilateral set-asides? Mr. HORNE. I have read that, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. What action do you feel you would be justified in taking on the two comments?

Mr. HORNE. I think what I would do-as a matter of fact, I have already done it-when the General Accounting Office recommendations come in and when our internal auditing recommendations come in, is to refer both of them to the operating divisions and see wherein they agree or disagree and work out finally a program to correct whatever abuses we can correct. If there is disagreement within the agency, of course, as to whether it is an abuse or not, or a change should be made, it comes to my desk, and I have to make a decision. That is what we are doing now as far as the Dallas report is concerned, and it has been referred to Mr. Maness, who is in the PTA. We are in discussion with them. There are some corrections in there that I know we are going to be able to make.

There are some suggestions made that I know we are going to be able to follow.

As far as the General Accounting Office report is concerned, we feel we have pretty well complied with most of the recommendations already.

Mr. BROOKS. How about your own program analysis that you yourselves worked out?

Mr. HORNE. I say we are working on that now, and I am reasonably sure there will be some things in there that we will agree with across the board and be able to take action on. We feel we fairly well have taken action on the recommendations made by the General Accounting Office in its report already. We are changing personnel. Where our report showed the job was not being done the way it should have been done, we are making personnel changes in those places.

One recommendation I recall they made is that on a request for a certificate of competency, the small businessman be told the end of the line reasons why we turned him down and rejected his request. As

I recall the recommendations, we have pretty well followed through on them.

Mr. BROOKS. Assuming that a widescale review of the procurement analysis is not feasible without a good number of people-it takes a number of people to check on all this-what action can be taken to assure long-term adherence by the procurement agencies to policies established by the President and the SBA essential to the best interests of small business?

Mr. HORNE. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a constant thing that the Small Business Administration somehow must do, if at all possible and as long as we have resources with which to do it. I think we must continue to evaluate and make suggestions regarding the procedures, the ASPR's as they are called. I think we must continue to get class setasides wherever we can. A class set-aside is one of the best ways to reduce the need for personnel, because with a class set-aside you do not have to screen every individual procurement. I think we have increased the class set-aside program with success in some areas, and in some we have not as yet.

I think also it simply will be a question of the SBA people being on their toes to carry out their authority under the act to protect small business in seeing to it that small business procedures which have been agreed to are actually being carried out from the bottom to the top. While it may sound sometimes as though it is duplication with what the procuring authorities are doing, I think certain parts of it we shall not be able to avoid any more than we would be able to avoid, say, in SBA some duplication of my checking on the Audit Division or my checking on Office of Management or my checking on Dan Carr. This suggests some duplication, all of which I think cannot be eliminated.

Mr. BROOKS. In your news release of June 20, 1962, you announced a joint set-aside program of more than $2 billion for the first 11 months of this fiscal year. What portion of that set-aside came about as a result of action taken by the Small Business Administration? Can you get us that information, if it is not readily available?

Mr. HORNE. Let me see if I can point it out to you this way. The set-asides initiated were 46,611.

Mr. BROOKS. That is numbers or cash? Mr. HORNE. That is numbers. The total amount involved in the set-asides initiated was $2,784,865,000. The set-asides agreed to in number were 44,839, and the amounts in dollars were $2,295,075,000. The awards that were actually made from set-asides amount to $1,773,804,000.

I think it not inappropriate, Mr. Chairman, for me to point out that we have a letter which was written from a top official in the Department of Defense who works directly and closely with this program. I am quoting from his letter this one sentence:

I am confident that this outstanding record made by the procurement personnel of the military departments would not have been possible without the full cooperation and dedicated support of the Small Business Administration representatives stationed at our major installations.

Mr. BROOKS. I appreciate that, and feel that it is probably a fair statement of the dedication of you and your staff in that program, but I still was wondering if there was some way we could get a breakdown on the percentage or number or amount of those contracts that were

« PreviousContinue »