no one man serve on both Boards and there was no supporting data in the Hoover Commission report. 6. The Hoover Task Force on Lending Agencies which recommended independent status for the Bank Board last year specifically commented on the advantages of the present grouping of the Board and Insurance Corporation. 7. Just last year the administration opposed the plan. Administrator Cole's official comment on the Hoover Commission recommendation said "I do not agree *** that the Board and Insurance Corporation should be separate." I realize the difficulty in defeating such a proposal, but I do hope that after a consideration of the foregoing you will do what you can should it come before you in committee or on the floor. I believe you will find that the industry will be practically unanimous in opposing the proposal. With warm personal regards, T. RUSSELL MCGRATH, President. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., June 13, 1956. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, DEAR COLLEAGUE: Mr. C. O. Tracy, president of the Tracy-Wells Co., which is in my congressional district, has written to me to express his interest in, and approval of, H. R. 9402. I am enclosing a copy of his letter herewith. You will note that he has requested that I express his views to the Committee on Government Operations. I will appreciate it if you will call Mr. Tracy's letter to the attention of the members of the committee so that his views can be given consideration. Sincerely, JOHN M. VORYS. THE TRACY-WELLS Co., Columbus, Ohio, June 11, 1956. Representative JOHN M. VORYS, House Office Building, Washington, D., C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN VORYS: As one of our many millions of taxpayers, I am strongly opposed to all needless waste of my money in conducting the business of government. There are bills before Congress (S. 3199 and H. R. 9402) designed to improve governmental budgeting and accounting methods and procedures, as recommended by the bipartisan Hoover Commission of experts. Ultimate savings from such legislation are estimated at $4 billion a year. I am strongly in favor of passage of these bills and urge you to support them. Please express my views to the Committee on Government Operations, and advise me what your personal views are in the matter. Respectfully, C. O. TRACY., HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I have received a letter from my constituent, Mr. H. M. Watkins, president of the Calcasieu Savings & Loan Association of Lake Charles, La., expressing his objections to Reorganization Plan No. 2. I understand this plan is pending with your committee at this time and I would appre ciate your having Mr. Watkins' letter brought to the attention of the members. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, T. A. THOMPSON, P. S. I shall appreciate an indication from you as to the probable action on the plan and its status at this time. Hon. T. A. THOMPSON, T. A. T. CALCASIEU SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN THOMPSON: At the regular meeting of the board of directors of the Calcasieu Savings & Loan Association held on June 8, 1956, after a full discussion, the board instructed me to respectifully request that you do everything possible to see that President Eisenhower's Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1956 is defeated. This plan No. 2 of 1956 was sent to Congress on May 17 without previous notice to the members of the savings and loan business. Neither was it referred to the congressional committees which deals with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and the insurance corporations. This plan would increase operating expenses to the savings and loan business and would result in duplication, confusion, and delay in decisions on important matters. Although the letter accompanying the plan stated that it follows a recommendation of the Hoover Commission, the Hoover report merely recommended that no one man serve on both boards and in fact the Hoover task force on lending agencies which recommended independent status for the Bank Board stated; "Also, it supervises the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. This appears to be a natural grouping of function which requires no change." Further, the Housing and Home Financing Agency commenting on the Hoover Commission report in the spring of 1955 before the House Committee on Government Operation, hearing on lending agencies, report on page 393, made the following statement: "I do not agree that the Home Loan Bank Board should be separate and distinct from a board or other managerial body administering the affairs of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. Both the Home Loan Bank Board and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation are concerned with the operations of savings and loan associations, and the existence of two boards could result in conflicts of policy and confusion in the industry. Furthermore, such organization would be much less economical than the present one wherein the HLBB and FSLIC have common administrative services, utilize the services of one examining division, and accumulate jointly knowledge and information about the industry as a whole and about the operation of specific savings and loan associations." We could give you additional information but feel sure that this and other information that you have at hand will be sufficient for you to reach a decision in regard to this matter. Again, we respectfully request that you give this your attention and vote to defeat the Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1956. Yours very truly, II. M. WATKINS, President. 93d semiannual financial statement of the Calcasieu Savings & Loan Association,1 Lake Charles, La. [Organized July 1, 1909. Located at Lake Charles, in the parish of Calcasieu, furnished to the State bank commissioner and supervisor of Homestead and Building and Loan Associations as of the close of business on Dec. 31, 1955] 1 Member of Federal Home Loan Bank, Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, Louisiana Homestead & Building & Loan League, United States Savings & Loan League. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. DAWSON: We are opposed to the proposal of splitting up the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, as provided in Reorganization Plan No. 2. The present single agency to handle savings and loan affairs was developed over the past quarter of the century by numerous congressional enactments and has resulted in a strong and progressive nationwide system of savings and loan institutions which now finance 37 percent of all home loans. The wisdom of tampering with this present, successful, single agency is highly questionable and dangerous and it would create still another separate agency. Unlike most reorganization plans proposed, this would not result in economy of operations but, rather, would increase the expense of the Government agencies to the individual savings institutions. We wish to emphasize that our association is interested in and will support any constructive improvement in the supervision of the savings and loan business, and that the United States Savings and Loan League currently is making a careful, painstaking study of the Federal Home Loan Bank System with that end in view. With best wishes and soliciting your support in voting against Reorganization Plan No. 2, I am, Sincerely yours, ARNOLD W. J. ROSTRON, President. BANKERS FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Re Reorganization Plan No. 2. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, House Committee on Government Operations, DEAR MR. DAWSON: Our institution has always supported any constructive improvement in the supervision of the business in which we have been engaged since 1890. The proposal to separate the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation from the Federal Home Loan Bank Board merely creates another separate agency and will not result in any economy of operation but, rather, would increase the costs to our institutions. Also we can see no constructive improvement in supervision in the interest of the public by such a plan. For these and other substantial reasons we are opposed to Reorganization Plan No. 2 and sincerely hope you will support any action to defeat it. The present Federal Home Loan Bank Board is, as you know, an independent agency and we question the wisdom of tampering with it in view of its successful operation as a single agency. Two boards, with overlapping responsibilities over our operation, would result in confusion and conflict of policy. Thank you for your kind consideration of our views on this important matter. Sincerely yours, C. HARRY MINNERS, President. BEN FRANKLIN FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. DAWSON: We very much hope you will oppose Reorganization Plan No. 2 which would divide the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board into two separate agencies. We will not burden you with the many most important reasons why the pian should be opposed, which reasons have been pointed out to you through other channels. We hope you will find time to give the matter study. Should the plan be permitted to become law, it will undoubtedly set a precedent for creating more agencies; it would seriously disrupt operations of savings and loan associations and add materially to the expenses both of the associations affected and of the government. With good wishes, Sincerely yours, N. M. COURSOLLE, President. MUTUAL FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF BLOOMINGTON, Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, The House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. DAWSON: I should like to register the opposition of the officers and members of the board of directors of Mutual Federal Savings & Loan Association of Bloomington, Ind., to the Reorganization Plan No. 2, which proposes the division of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board into two separate groups. 79534-569 Our opposition to the plan is based on several points. First, at the present time, approximately 57 percent of America's families own their own homes and almost 40 percent of all the homes purchased are financed by savings and loan associations. The progress of these institutions has been due, in a large part, to the efficient handling of affairs by the present, single agency, which was developed over the period of the past 25 years. We believe it unwise to divide an agency which has served so successfully in the development of this strong, nationwide system of savings and loan institutions. Secondly, we feel the division of the agency into two boards would create a situation whereby the overlapping of responsibilities could result in conflicts of policy and in much confusion in the business. We do not believe that such supervision would better serve in the public interest. Thirdly, we believe the creation of a separate agency would greatly increase the expense of operation to the individual institutions. Most of the costs of the Board and the Insurance Corporations are paid for by the savings and loan institutions. In view of the above, we urge you to support action to defeat the Reorganization Plan No. 2. Please be assured that we are vitally interested in strict supervision of the savings and loan business. We will actively support any plan which will afford constructive improvement in the supervision of the associations. Very truly yours, ROBERT W. FEE, Secretary. OAK CLIFF SAVINGS & LOANS, Dallas, Tex., June 18, 1956. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, House Committee on Government Operations, MY DEAR MR. DAWSON: We urge you to support the action to defeat the Reorganization Plan No. 2 which is a proposal that would divide the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board into two separate agencies. The present, single agency to handle savings and loan affairs was developed over the past quarter of a century by numerous congressional enactments and has resulted in a strong and progressive nationwide system of savings institutions which now finance 37 percent of all home loans. The wisdom of tampering with this present, successful, single agency is highly questionable and dangerous. It would create still another separate agency. Unlike most reorganization plans proposed, this would not result in economy of operation but, rather, would increase the expenses of the Government agencies to individual savings institutions (which pay most of the costs of the Board and the Insurance Corporation). The existence of two boards, with overlapping responsibilities for the savings and loan operation, would result in conflicts of policy and great confusion in the business as well as to Congress and the President. Our institution is interested in and will support any constructive improvement in the supervision of the savings and loan business, and we understand that the United States League currently is making a careful and painstaking study of the Federal Home Loan Bank System with that end in view. Sincerely yours, FRANK A. HOKE. UNITED FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, House Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DAWSON: May we remind you that we are strenouously opposed to Reorganization Plan No. 2 recently presented to you by the executive department for the following reasons: 1. The congressional committees which deal with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and the Insurance Corporation and the savings and loan business were not consulted on the plan and have never recommended a separation of the Corporation from the Board. |