Reorganization Plans Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of 1946

with no greater limitations than apply with respect to the exercise of these functions by the United States Employees' Compensation Commission. Section 3 of the plan fully complies with the provisions of Section 5 (a) (6) of the Reorganization Act of 1945. The new Appeal Board to be created under section 3 will have in our view complete independence of decision. You will note that section 3 states that the Board shall have authority to hear, and subject to applicable law, make final decision on appeals.

The CHAIRMAN. What would you do, would you appeal from yourself to yourself? If you rendered the dicision, who would you appeal to?

Mr. WASHINGTON. I am advised that that is in effect the situation today in the Compensation Commission. The Commission itself renders an initial judgment which is also a final judgment, subject always to appeals to the courts. Here, by the provision, "subject to applicable law," we have indicated that there is the same right of judicial review as was found previously.

Mr. JUDD. If you belonged to a minority party and you came up for a decision by one of these agencies, would you not rather have one member of your party sitting on that board? You do not belong to a minority party, but if you did belong to a minority party would that not be the case? If there are irregularities, and should a member of the minority party there, he can expose them. If there are no such members, and it is under the party plan, if you did not belong to the party in power, you might not get compensation, and would there not be an indication that you should join the party in order to get compensation? I would not say there wouldn't be, but there could be. Mr. WASHINGTON. We have considered that the Appeal Board under section 3 would act with integrity.

Mr. JUDD. You cannot assume that anywhere in the Government, but it is possible that that could happen, is it not? I mean it is conceivable that somebody might sometime be appointed-say if we came in power-that would use his power to try and influence people to join the Republicans, or contribute to your campaign?

Mr. WASHINGTON. I should not like to

Mr. JUDD (interposing). But it is possible, is it not, that pressure could be used upon people to support a political program in order to get a just claim, or what they regard as a just claim?

Mr. BENDER. It has been done.

Mr. JUDD. I just wonder if it can be possible hereafter.

I want to ask you another question. If you will look on page 10, section 504, paragraph a3 of the Reorganization Plan No. 1, you will find the following language:

The Federal Public Housing Authority, which shall be succeed to the corporate status of the United States Housing Authority.

Does that make the Federal Public Housing Authority a corporation if it succeeds to the corporate status?

Mr.. WASHINGTON. The term "authority" has no fixed meaning in our law. Many "authorities" are considered for most purposes as being corporate in their status. We simply intended here to transfer the existing corporate status.

Mr. JUDD. What I am asking is a flat question, Does that make the Federal Public Housing Authority a corporation? It says it shall

succeed to the corporate status. I do not know what this language means. Does it make it a corporation?

Mr. WASHINGTON. I should say it simply preserved the status quo. It did not change it.

Under the court decisions, many agencies in the executive branch of the Government are considered corporations for certain purposes. In the State of California, for example, I understand that the Veterans' Administration is considered a corporation for purposes of the California law relating to gifts and descent. Many Government agencies, for various purposes, have corporate status.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean that the trend of thought now is that any Government agency can be treated as a corporation?

Mr. WASHINGTON. It may for certain purposes. I have mentioned an example under California law.

The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about the United States as a whole, and not any particular State.

Mr. WASHINGTON. In Federal law the term "Government corporation" has a meaning which is now largely fixed by the Government Corporation Act. I do not believe there is any doubt as to the coverage of that act. But that provision in section 504, as I see it, would not have the effect of changing any phase of the United States Housing Authority's status, nor that of the Federal Housing Authority, with respect to the Government Corporation Act recently passed.

The CHAIRMAN. Could the Administrator go ahead and borrow money under the charter of the Corporation?

Mr. WASHINGTON. If I may, I would like to examine that further and file a memorandum with you.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would submit a brief on that.

Mr. JUDD. I think that is very important, because again, it is neither fish nor fowl, it has the powers of a corporation without being a corporation. If it is a corporation it cannot be done under the section which I read, as it said no agency can acquire a corporation without the act of Congress. Here under this section 504 (a) (3) it appears that the Federal Housing Authority becomes a corporation, to all intents and purposes, without act of Congress. I think that that should be clarified.

Mr. WASHINGTON. I think Mr. Kemp may have some comments there.

Mr. KEMP. I recall the idea was to change the name, at one stage, anyhow, in the preparation of the plan, to change the name of the United States Housing Authority to the Federal Public Housing Authority. The manner of expression was just altered in the course of the preparation of the plans to read, "shall succeed to the corporate status." The Reorganization Act provides for the change of the name of any agency in section 4, paragraph 1, which says that any reorganization plan shall change the name of any agency, the title of its head, and so forth, if that is deemed necessary. That was the real object there.

Mr. JUDD. However, what it does, actually, it makes the Federal Public Housing Authority a corporation without giving it the name of a corporation.

Mr. KEMP. You can put it that way. What it does is give the United States Housing Authority, a corporation, a different name, the name of the Federal Public Housing Authority.

Mr. JUDD. However, it still stays a corporation?

Mr. KEMP. Yes, sir; I believe it does. It is already a corporation, Mr. Congressman, and it is continued a corporation, only it is under a different name, in accordance with section 4, paragraph 1.

Mr. JUDD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. RESA. I must confess that these explanations create in my mind the need for more explanation.

What was meant by the language, "the Federal Housing Authority which shall succeed to the corporate status of the United States Housing Authority" by the people who used it? What was that language intended to mean?

Mr. KEMP. What I have just stated.

Mr. RESA. As I understood your statement, it was to the effect that the name of the corporation, the United States Housing Authority, shall be changed to the Federal Public Housing Authority; is that right?

Mr. KEMP. That is about right.

Mr. RESA. Would it not be better to say so? If you are changing a name, those two words "changing" and "name" are well established in the English language, everybody knows what they mean, they do not require judicial interpretation. That section could have said that the name of the United States Housing Authority shall be changed to the Federal Public Housing Authority, and so forth. Mr. KEMP. For some reason, the people in the Housing Agency preferred this form of expression for their purposes.

Mr. CHURCH. To which Housing Agency do you refer?

Mr. KEMP. I am referring to the National Housing Agency.
Mr. BENDER. Why is that?

Mr. CHURCH. It might be well to ask who it was that appeared for them at these conferences. I have been trying to find out all morning. Mr. WHITTINGTON. I do not want to delay you, but I think you have clarified the meaning of this act by your statement that much of the language means just contrary to what it says. I think now, with all deference, and I mean that, that a reorganization of the Government housing agencies is long overdue, and when we have subsequent witnesses, for my part, I am interested in the subject, in view of your explanation, and the transfer and so on; for instance, the meaning of the word transfer, and some of the language you have used here means transfer, but for my part I cannot get away from the idea that even this bill with the National Housing Administration away from where it would revert to the Federal Housing Agency, and with the Home Owners' Loan not reverting to the Federal agency and with a man like Wilson Wyatt as Administrator of all these agencies, there is much in the reconciliation that we want to think and I think the language is most unfortunate.

Mr. RESA. Mr. Chairman, I should like to call your attention to the fact that those drafting plan No. 1 were not unfamiliar with the word "transfer," because they have used it several times on pages 12 and 13.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, are there not some private property interests we can have some hope of hearing today, somebody that represents the people's interests back home?