2. The plan injects an unfortunate partisanship into the agency by failing to require bipartisanship on the board of trustees of the Corporation. Unlike the bank Board and most Government boards, all three trustees could be from one political party. 3. The plan fails to provide for any term of office for the trustees. 4. The congressional philosophy of reorganization plans is that they are to result in savings and greater efficiency in government. Whatever the possible merits of the plan are, it is impossible for it to claim "economy," since it would establish 2 agencies in the place of the present 1. 5. Although the letter accompanying the plan states that it follows a recommendation of the Hoover Commission, the Hoover report merely recommended that no one man serve on both boards and there was no supporting data in the Hoover Commission report. We do not believe that the President of the United States has been correctly informed of all the facets of this reorganization plan. We know that the members of the Home Loan Bank Board were not consulted as to this plan. No hearings have been held on it at which the people affected could have voiced their views. The present single agency to handle savings and loan affairs was developed over the past quarter of a century and has resulted in a strong and progressive nationwide system of savings institutions. The existence of two boards with overlapping responsibilities would result in conflicts of policy and would provoke great confusion in the business as well as to the President and Congress of the United States. We sincerely hope that you will investigate this situation very thoroughly for we are fully convinced that if you do so you will reach the same conclusion as we have, namely that it is not a satisfactory development to anyone. MY DEAR MR. DAWSON: Being opposed to dividing the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board into 2 separate agencies as proposed in Reorganization Plan No. 2, I urge you actively oppose this measure. The present setup has been a model of Government efficiency. Why change it for a system which would simply create another agency at increased cost to do the same thing now being done most satisfactorily? This institution, through its United States Savings and Loan League, supports constructive supervision of the savings and loan business and the league is currently engaged in a very thorough study of this matter. Your cooperation with the United States League in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Respectfully, Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, ERNEST L. MOCK, Executive Vice President... PARK RIDGE SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Chairman, House Committee on Government Operations, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. SIR: We are much concerned with the proposal to reorganize the Federal supervision and control of savings and loan associations by separating the FHLB and FS&LIC. In the main, we dislike making reports and consulting some agency before we make a move. The less, the better, but, of course, we abide by the law. The issue now is whether the proposed legislation will reduce overlapping efforts, make it easier or cheaper for associations to operate, will increase savers' security and help us to render quicker, better service. We do not think so. We believe the matter should be dropped. Respectfully yours, FRED. C. DICK, Secretary-Manager. FERNANDINA FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Congressman WILLIAM L. DAWSON III, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN DAWSON: It is my understanding that the United States Congress is considering Reorganization Plan No. 2 which deals with Federal savings and loan associations. Basically if this plan was carried into effect, it would divide the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board into two separate agencies. Although our association is a small one, we feel that we would be unduly handicapped if this plan is enacted into law and we wish to go on record as opposing Reorganization Plan No. 2. This plan, if enacted, could set up two agencies which conceivably would be controversial in many respects, and in addition thereto, would entail twice the amount of work that our organization now requires; we probably would have to file separate reports and perhaps in certain instances, require approval of the two separate agencies which may not at all times concur in their respective thinking. In our judgment, this plan is not feasible and certainly would not result in economy of operation. This association sincerely trusts that you will use your every efforts to oppose this enactment into law of Reorganization Plan No. 2. Respectfully yours, W. S. WHITNEY. THE MUTUAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Congressman WILLIAM L. DAWSON, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DAWSON: You will find enclosed a copy of a letter I have written Congressman Wayne Aspinall of Colorado regarding our objections to Reorganization Plan No. 2 submitted by the President to Congress. We are sending you a copy as chairman of the Committee on Government Operations to which the reorganization plan has been referred. We thank you very much for your consideration of these objections. Very truly yours, H. H. MCMULLIN, Secretary-Treasurer. JUNE 18, 1956. Congressman WAYNE ASPINALL, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR WAYNE: I am writing this letter to urge that you vote against the Reorganization Plan No. 2 submitted by President Eisenhower to separate the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation from the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Our objections are as follows: 1. The necessity of filing separate reports to each Government organization. 2. Possible added examination costs. 3. Matters requiring approval might require submission to both the Board and the Corporation where one approval now suffices. We doubt the wisdom of tampering with this present successful, single agency now handling savings and loan affairs. This agency has been developing over the past 25 years under Federal legislation and has resulted in a strong progressive system of savings and loan associations which now transact over 37 percent of the home-mortgage business. We are naturally interested in, and will support, any constructive movement in the supervision of the savings and loan business. The United States Savings and Loan League is making a careful study of the Federal Home Loan Bank System with the idea of recommending to Congress any change that may result in more effective supervision. We don't think that any reorganization should be considered until this survey, now underway and financed by the United States Savings and Loan League is completed and its conclusions are available. Very truly yours, H. H. MCMULLIN, Secretary-Treasurer. PALO ALTO MUTUAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: We urge you to oppose Reorganization Plan No. 2 which would split off the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation from the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and make a separate agency of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. We are opposed to this plan for the following reasons: 1. The present single agency in over 25 years of operation has been proven sound and has developed a strong progressive savings and loan industry. 2. Creating another separate agency would increase cost of operation and would not promote economy. 3. Creating a separate agency would create the danger of overlapping responsibilities and conflicts of policy, causing great confusion in the operation of savings and loan business. 4. It is unwise to tamper with a successful agency and establish two agencies with conflicting responsibilities. We realize that one of the arguments advanced by the proponents of the plan is that it would make the Savings and Loan Agency setup similar to the banks' FDIC and the Federal Reserve. The banks' situation is different as there are over 15,000 banks insured by FDIC and only 7,000 belong to the Federal Reserve. One important reason that the agencies dealing with the banking industry have not been consolidated is the opposition of State-chartered banks to being forced into the Federal Reserve System. While we strongly urge you to oppose this reorganization plan, we want you to know that we would be glad to support any constructive improvement in the supervision of the savings and loan business. We want you to know that the United States Savings and Loan League is currently studying the Federal Home Loan Bank System with this end in mind. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: We have been watching with apprehension the proposal of splitting up the Federal Home Loan Bank Board as provided in Reorganization Plan No. 2. Our institution, like most of the savings and loan industry, is opposed to Reorganization Plan No. 2 and urge your opposition to it. In our opinion there are several good reasons for our position. 1. The present single agency supervising the savings and loan industry has been developed over the last 25 to 30 years and has helped produce a strong and growing system of savings institutions which now finance 37 percent of all home loans. The present efficient agency is a credit to Congress and all who have had a part in developing it. 2. The creation of a second agency certainly would not result in economy but would increase the expense of the Government agencies to our institution. We now pay most of the costs of the Home Loan Bank and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. 3. Perhaps the most dangerous thing in the reorganization plan is that with two boards, with overlapping responsibilities in regulating the savings and loan industry, there would certainly be conflicts in policies and regulations which would result in much confusion in the industry as well as to Congress and the administration. Therefore we hope you will see fit to oppose Reorganization Plan No. 2. Yours very truly, HARRY M. STALL, Secretary. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF KALAMAZOO, Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, DEAR SIR: I am writing to you regarding Reorganization Plan No. 2, which as you know, proposes to divide the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board into two separate agencies. We express our opposition to this plan. It seems to us that the effect of any reorganization should be that of simplification; on the other hand, Reorganization Plan No. 2 does exactly the opposite by creating one more agency with an additional set of rules and regulations. Unlike most reorganization plans proposed this plan would not result in any economy of operation, but rather, would increase the expense of the Government agencies to the individual savings institutions (which pay most of the costs of the Board and the Insurance Corporation). We ask your recognition of these factors in your consideration of the proposal. Yours very truly, WILLIAM M. PONTZ, President. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF LOWELL, Re Reorganization Plan No. 2. Washington, D. C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE DAWSON: This association respectfully requests your support in opposition to the above reorganization plan. It is natural that the existence of two boards, with overlapping responsibilities for a savings and loan operation, will result in a conflict of policy and general misunderstanding within the business as well as to both supervisory authorities, Congress and the President. The creation of another agency will, of necessity, increase the cost of operations for savings and loan associations throughout the country as well as for the Government itself. The creating of another board with overlapping responsibilities for savings and loan operations will create controversies throughout all phases of the business to all who are involved. Many other vital points in opposition can be pointed out, but I am sure that in your studies of this particular reorganization plan, you will understand why we solicit your support in opposition to the same. Very truly yours, STANLEY A. GIFFIN, President. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, BROWNSVILLE SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DAWSON: I wish to express my opposition to the proposal of splitting up the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, as provided in Reorganization Plan No. 2. The present single agency has been handling the affairs of the savings and loan business for the past 25 years. Through numerous congressional enactments there has been built up a strong and progressive savings and loan system throughout the Nation, which do nearly 40 percent of all the home financing in the United States. I question the wisdom of changing the present successful single agency. The creation of another separate agency would not result in economy, rather it would increase the expense of both Government and individual savings institutions. Also, the creation of two separate agencies no doubt would result in overlapping responsibilities, which would create conflicts of policy and confusion in our business, as well as to Congress and the administration. We in the savings and loan business are always interested in, and will give our support to any constructive improvement in the supervision of our business. The United States League is currently making a careful survey of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, seeking ways of improvement. I hope that when you have obtained all the facts about the above you will be opposed to Reorganization Plan No. 2, and that you will support action to defeat it. Sincerely, Re Reorganization Plan No. 2. Congressman WILLIAM L. DAWSON HERSCHEL J. ROGERS, Executive Vice President. FALLS SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DAWSON: This plan, as you know, would divide the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board into two separate agencies. We want to register our opposition to this plan for the following reasons: 1. 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. 2. The wisdom of tampering with this present, successful, single agency is highly questionable and dangerous. 3. It would create still another separate agency. 4. Unlike most reorganization plans proposed, this would not result in economy of operation but, rather, would increase the expense of the Government agencies to individual savings institution (which pay most of the costs of the Board and the Insurance Corporation). 5. 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 association is interested in and will support any constructive improvement in the supervision of the savings and loan business, but we feel that Reorganization Plan No. 2 is definitely harmful in comparison to our present arrangement. Respectfully yours, Re Reorganization Plan No. 2. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, L. W. SCHLIEDER, Secretary. HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Chairman, House Committee on Government Operations, United States House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We are in full sympathy with the statements concerning this plan as made by the United States Savings and Loan League, the North Carolina Savings and Loan League, and the resolutions as made by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. We strongly urge you to consider the comments of the above-mentioned, and further urge you to wholeheartedly endorse the defeat of said plan. Very truly yours, A. H. PATTERSON, Secretary-Treasurer. Re Reorganization Plan No. 2. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, JAYHAWK SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, Overland Park, Kans., June 19, 1956. Chairman, House Committee on Government Operations, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. HONORABLE SIR: We respectfully request your assistance in the rejection of this plan, which proposes to separate the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation from the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Reorganization Plan No. 2 provides for a drastic change in the organization and operation of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. In more |