-13 In Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), the Supreme Court considered the proper role of the executive branch over congressionally established independent governmental entities. That case held that a commissioner of an independent agency cannot be removed because of his policy viewpoints. Commissioner Humphrey of the Federal Trade Commission was asked to resign by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Supreme Court, in ruling the removal of the commissioner unconstitutional, stated that: the language of the act, the legislative reports, 295 U.S. at 625-626. See also Wiener v. United States, 357 U.S. 349 (1958). Conclusion There is no sound legal basis to apply the Antideficiency Act apportionment provisions to the FDIC and inject the executive branch into the budget decisions of the FDIC. APPENDIX Partial Chronology of Prior Consideration of 1945 1947 1949 1950 1958 1960 In enacting the comprehensive Government Corporation Budget Control Act The Senate rejected provision to subject the FDIC to the appropriations process by vote of 83 to 1. H.R. 3756, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947). See Bank Supervision, Bank Directors and Conflicts of Interest: Hearings on S.71 Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 30 (1978) (statement of George LeMaistre, FDIC Director). The House of Representatives rejected a proposal to A House of Representatives Report expressly excluded the Hearings were held on proposal to subject the FDIC to the Hearings were held on proposal to subject the FDIC to the Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, 1960 1961 1965 1967 1977 1983 A proposal to subject the FDIC to the appropriations process was never reported out of committee. H.R. 12092, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960). See Bank Supervision, Bank Directors and Conflicts of Interest: Hearings on S.71 Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 32 (1978) (statement of George LeMaistre, FDIC Director). A proposal to subject the FDIC to the appropriations process was never reported out of committee. H.R. 6810, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961). See Bank Supervision, Bank Directors and Conflicts of Interest: Hearings on S.71 Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 32 (1978) (statement of George LeMaistre, FDIC Director). A proposal to subject the FDIC to the appropriations process was never reported out of committee. H.R. 10507, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1965). See Bank Supervision, Bank Directors and Conflicts of Interest: Hearings on S.71 Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 32 (1978) (statement of George LeMaistre, FDIC Director). Report of the President's Commission on Budget Concepts advocated reforms including subjecting the FDIC to appropriations process. See, The Report of the President's Commission on Budget Concepts, 30 (1967). A proposal to subject the FDIC to the appropriations process was the subject of hearings but no action was taken. Bank Supervision, Bank Directors and Conflicts of Interest: Hearings on S.71 Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978). Study suggests comprehensive reform of laws governing FOR RELEASE UPON DELIVERY June 4, 1986 10:00 A.M. STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. CLARKE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY Before the FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS SUPERVISION, REGULATION, AND INSURANCE SUBCOMMITTEE of the COMMITTEE ON BANKING, FINANCE, AND URBAN AFFAIRS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 4, 1986 Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I welcome this opportunity to appear before you to discuss first, proposed legislation concerning bank advertising and disclosure practices intended to improve consumer information; and second, constraints facing the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. resource BANK ADVERTISING AND DISCLOSURE H.R. 2282, the "Truth in Savings" bill, attempts to achieve uniform disclosure of the interest rates and fees associated with interest-bearing deposit accounts offered by depository institutions so that consumers can make more meaningful comparisons among such accounts. The OCC fully supports this goal. We believe, however, that current federal banking agency regulatory initiatives in this area may make "Truth in Savings" legislation unnecessary. -2 Background The removal of interest rate ceilings on time and savings accounts, which was completed earlier this year, has resulted in an abundance of creative and innovative new deposit accounts. Consumers have clearly benefited from the greater choice of accounts available to them and the opportunity to earn market rates of interest on their savings deposits. variety of accounts with varying terms and conditions has understandably caused some customer confusion. However, the Most depository institutions have clearly and accurately explained the various features of their financial products. Nonetheless, it may be difficult for consumers to compare the individual features of similar accounts offered by different depository institutions. For instance, two accounts paying the same simple interest rate may have different yields depending on the frequency of compounding. To the extent that consumers are confused, savings dollars may not flow to the depository institutions offering the best rates and terms. For these reasons, we share your view about the importance of uniform and accurate disclosure in advertising. Existing Rules on Bank Advertising The OCC currently has no express rulemaking authority regarding advertising of deposit accounts by national banks. |