DOCSLIB.ORG

Committee on the Judiciary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

OVE RSIGHT ON FED ERAL INCORPORATIONS =—= - --------------------------------------------------- ----- N GOVERN MEN! —-------------- Storage ' ^ U * ' T N T S FEB 4 iy/6 ^ nsa s ^ u « ^ , H E A R I N G BEFORE TH E SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS OF TH E cO COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY : un J-D i z r HOUSE OE REPRESENTATIVES J J NIN ETY-F OU RTH CONGRESS ! o □ FIR ST SESSION : -U ON ■ rA :<-a ■ < t OVERSIGHT ON FED ERA L INCORPORATIONS JUNE 11, 1975 Serial No. 20 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNM ENT PRINT ING OFFICE 62-172 O WASHINGTON : 1975 COMMITTEE ON TH E JUDICIARY PET ER W. RO DINO , J r., New Jersey, Chairman JA CK BR OOKS, Texas EDWA RD HU TC HI NS ON , Michigan RO BER T W. KA ST EN MEIER , Wisconsin ROBER T McC LOR Y, Illinois DON EDWA RDS, California TOM RAILS BA CK, Illinois WILL IAM L. HUNGATE , Missouri CH ARL ES E. WIG GIN S, California JO HN CO NYE RS , J r., Michigan HA MILTON FIS H, J r., New York JOSH UA EIL BERQ, Pennsylvania M. CA LDWE LL BU TLER , Virginia WA LT ER FLO WE RS, A labam a WILL IAM 8. CO HE N, Maine JAMES R. MANN, South Carolina CARLOS J. MO ORHEAD, California PA UL S. SAR BA NES, Maryland JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio JO HN F. SE IB ERLIN G, Ohio HENRY J. HY DE , Illinois GEO RG E E. DA NI EL SO N, California THOMAS N. KIND NE SS, Ohio RO BER T F. DRI NAN, Massachusetts BA RB AR A JO RD AN, Texas RAY THORN TO N, Arkansas EL IZAB ET H HOLTZMAN, New York EDWARD ME ZVINS KY, Iowa HE RM AN BA DILL O, New York ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, K entu cky EDWA RD W. PAT TISO N, New York CHRIS TOPH ER J. D OD D, Connecticut WILLIAM J. HU GHES , New Jersey MA RTIN A. RUS SO, Illinois Earl C. D udley, Jr., General Counsel Garner J. C lin e , Sta ff Director H erbert F uchs, Counsel William P. S hattuck, Counsel Alan A. P arker , Counsel J ames F. F alco, Counsel Maurice A. B arboza, Counsel T homas W. H utchison, Counsel Arthur P. E ndres , Jr., Counsel D aniel L. C ohen , Counsel F ranklin G. P olk, Counsel T homas E. M ooney , Counsel Alexander B. C ook, Counsel Constantine J. Gekas, Counsel Alan F. C offey , Jr., Counsel K enneth N. K le e , Counsel R aymond V. S mietanka , Counsel Subcomm ittee on A dm inist ra tiv e L aw and G overnmental R elation s WA LTER FLO WE RS, Alabam a, Chairman GEO RG E E. DA NI EL SO N, California CARLOS J. MO ORHEAD, California BA RB AR A JO RD AN. Texas THOMAS N. KIND NE SS , Ohio ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky EDWA RD W. PA TT ISON , New York William P. S hattuck, Counsel J ay T. T urnipseed , Assistant Counsel Alan F. C offey , Jr., Associate Counsel (H ) CONTENTS Witnesses— pag e Lawton, Mary C., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice________ 2 Scantlebury, D. L., Director, Division and General Management Studies, General Accounting Office_________________________ 17 Schoenfeld, Howard M., technical adviser to the Assistant Com­ missioner for Employee Plans and Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue Service__________________________________ 22 Prepared statement_________________________________________23 Tedesco, Joseph A., director, Exempt Organizations Division, Internal Revenue Service_____________________________ 22 Prepared s tatement__________________________ 23 Additional material— “How To Apply for Recognition for an Organization,” publication 557, Internal Revenue Service___________________________ _____ 27 Memorandum on Standards for Federal Chartering of Private Non­ profit Organizations______________________________ ’ 3 (in) OVERSIGHT ON FEDERAL INCORPORATIONS WED NE SD AY , JU N E 11, 1975 H ouse of Representatives, Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations of th e 1 Committee on th e J udiciary, Washingt<m, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m., in room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Representative Walter Flowers [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Pre sen t: Representatives Flowers, Jordan, Moorhead, and Kindness. Also present: William P. Shattuck, counsel; and Alan F. Coffey, Jr. , associate counsel. Mr. F lowers. We will call this meeting to order. We are conducting today a session by this subcommittee, prompted by an interest in the matter of Federal charters, as included in the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. My experience as the chairman of this subcommittee indicates to me tha t the subcommittee could be inundated by bills in behalf of various organizations seeking Federal charter status. This situation raises a number of questions. We have been asked whether the bills are the result of attempts to avoid more strict laws of State which, at this time, have jurisdiction over certain of these organizations. On the other hand, we may ask does the effort to secure such a charter stem from a sincere desire on the part of organizations to obtain some broader status such as the Federal charter might suggest? Still, the various areas that we are interested in, cannot be particularly circum­ scribed because we want to receive everything tha t the witnesses might have to tell us on this subject. It is my judgment th at Federal charters ought to be given only with a good showing that it would be help ful; that it would be beneficial to the organization; tha t it would certainly not harm the public interest; tha t it would not circumvent the application of more stringent or strict State laws that might otherwise be applicable to the particular organization. These are the kinds of things tha t I am interested in as we conduct this somewhat informal discussion, asking you people from the Depart­ ment of Justice, the General Accounting Office, and the Treasury Department on this subject. It is a search—a sincere search by the members of this subcommit­ tee—to establish a foundation on which to judge whether we ought to report out bills granting Federal charters to any organizations who (1) 2 hav e petition ed us in this Con gress, or if we ought to condu ct a review of tho se who might have been gran ted Fe de ral c ha rte rs in the past. I wou ld now like to yie ld to my dis tin guish ed colleague from Ca li­ fornia, Mr. M oorhead, fo r any comments he w ould like to make before we beg in the hea rin g. Mr. M oorhead. From wha t I have rea d on the sub ject of Fe deral ch arters, the y rea lly have very lit tle meani ng othe r th an the pre stige value to these indiv idual g roup s th at receive them. For th at reason, pro bably , they should be lim ited to trul y national org aniza tio ns, th at are well know n th roug ho ut the country. Th e advanta ges the y get from the variou s State s, of course, usua lly depen d on the St ate laws in which the y are op erating, even tho ugh they h ave the Fe de ral ch arter. It is, to a great exten t, dep endent upo n wh eth er they are actu ally inc orpo rat ed or not. Some of them are inc orpo rat ed in the Distri ct of Columbia and some of them in one or an othe r of the various St ates in the country, bu t it is the pre stige value, as I see it, th at is the real advanta ge of the Fe deral ch arter, to begin with. I would like to be adv ised, if in your view there are o ther organiza­ tio ns of natio nal importance which sho uld be gran ted a Fe deral ch arter. We will be very intere ste d in the comments th at are made here tod ay. I will not be able to be with you all morning because we are in a marku p at I nter stat e and Fo reign Commerce on the ene rgy bill, and th at has a hi gh prior ity righ t now. Bu t, this is an are a th at this committee has been assigne d and it is one th at we are all intere ste d in. We wa nt to be sure th at we have the fac ts before we m ake any fut ur e determina tions. Mr. F lowers. Th an k you, very much, M r. Moorhead. To begin, the n, I would like to inv ite Mary C. Lawton, De pu ty As sis tan t At torney G enera l, o f the Office of L egal Counsel, to come up an d tal k w ith us about th e D ep artm en t’s view of this m atter. We would like to welcome you, Ms. L aw ton , an d we will be d elighted to h ea r w hat you might hav e to offer to us. TESTIMONY OF MARY C. LAWTON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Ms. L awton. Th an k you, M r. C hairm an. I a pprecia te the op po rtu nity to p artic ipate in this b ackgrou nd h ea r­ ing.
Recommended publications
  • GAO-10-97 Federally Created Entities: an Overview of Key Attributes

    GAO-10-97 Federally Created Entities: an Overview of Key Attributes

    United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Ranking Member, GAO Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate October 2009 FEDERALLY CREATED ENTITIES An Overview of Key Attributes GAO-10-97 October 2009 FEDERALLY CREATED ENTITIES Accountability Integrity Reliability Highlights An Overview of Key Attributes Highlights of GAO-10-97, a report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found Over the years, Congress has GAO identified 219 federally created entities with varied control, missions, and created or authorized the creation operations. These entities, which GAO categorized into 7 types, are not of numerous entities to carry out universally subject to the 12 key broad-based governance, accountability, and federal programs and further public transparency requirements reviewed for this report. These requirements are: purposes. These federally created budget preparation, review, and approval; strategic and performance planning; entities can be categorized into several types and serve a variety of budget execution and funds control; control of improper payments; internal missions. They are subject to control and accounting systems; preparing and reporting of audited financial varying governance, accountability, statements; standards of conduct; whistleblower protection; access to public and transparency requirements records; availability of federal contract and grant information; and access to through which Congress sought to public meetings. For fiscal years 2005 through 2008, Congress appropriated, on strengthen entity operations, average, about $4 trillion a year in federal funds to 129 of the federally created compliance, performance and entities in 4 of the 7 entity types. The table summarizes GAO’s results. resource accountability, and public access to information.
  • Federally Chartered Corporations and Federal Jurisdiction

    Federally Chartered Corporations and Federal Jurisdiction

    Florida State University Law Review Volume 36 Issue 3 Article 1 2009 Federally Chartered Corporations and Federal Jurisdiction Paul E. Lund [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Paul E. Lund, Federally Chartered Corporations and Federal Jurisdiction, 36 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. (2009) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol36/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW FEDERALLY CHARTERED CORPORATIONS AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION Paul E. Lund VOLUME 36 SPRING 2009 NUMBER 3 Recommended citation: Paul E. Lund, Federally Chartered Corporations and Federal Jurisdiction, 36 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 317 (2009). FEDERALLY CHARTERED CORPORATIONS AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION PAUL E. LUND I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 317 II. FEDERAL CHARTERING OF CORPORATIONS........................................................ 320 III. FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND STATE-CHARTERED CORPORATIONS .................... 326 IV. THE JURISDICTIONAL TREATMENT OF FEDERALLY CHARTERED CORPORATIONS.................................................................................................. 330 A. Federal Question Jurisdiction and Federally Chartered Corporations..... 330 B.
  • Part 1 of the Faculty Handbook

    Part 1 of the Faculty Handbook

    THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA FACULTY HANDBOOK PART I THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY Approved by the Board of Trustees December 2017 Approved by the Board of Trustees December 2016 Additional History PREAMBLE The Faculty Handbook defines the relationship between The Catholic University of America and those individuals appointed to its faculties. The stated provisions of the Faculty Handbook are also subject to and, therefore, interpreted in the light of the following, where applicable: 1. the provisions of civil law; 2. the provisions of ecclesiastical law; 3. the provisions of the Ecclesiastical Statutes of The Catholic University of America as they relate to ecclesiastical faculties and to those matters governed by these statutes or by the norms of the Apostolic See pertinent to ecclesiastical programs of study; 4. the By-Laws of The Catholic University of America. The stated provisions of the Faculty Handbook are subject to modification as warranted. They are also subject to regular review by the Academic Senate of The Catholic University of America and the Fellows and/or Board of Trustees, as applicable in the Bylaws, every five years, which period commences at the time of the most recent approval and promulgation of the Faculty Handbook by the Board of Trustees. Any alterations, modifications, or changes to the stated provisions of the Faculty Handbook are subject to approval by the Fellows and/or the Board of Trustees, as applicable in the Bylaws, following appropriate consultation of the Academic Senate and the President. It is the responsibility of the Administration of The Catholic University of America to announce such alterations, modifications, or changes to or interpretation of the stated provisions of the Faculty Handbook and their effective date to the administration, staff and faculties of the University.
  • ANNUAL REPORT of ACHIEVEMENTS October 1, 2013-September 30, 2014

    ANNUAL REPORT of ACHIEVEMENTS October 1, 2013-September 30, 2014

    Gallaudet University Annual Report of Achievements Fiscal Year 2014 October 1, 2013 - September 30, 2014 1, 2013 - September 2014 October Year Fiscal of Achievements Annual Report University Gallaudet ANNUAL REPORT OF ACHIEVEMENTS October 1, 2013-September 30, 2014 FISCAL YEAR 2014 800 Florida Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 www.gallaudet.edu KDES student Zhencheng Chen (second left) joined other university officials for the official ribbon cutting ceremony to open the Gallaudet University Museum exhibit, “Gallaudet at 150 and Beyond.” Photo by Susan Flanigan ANNUAL REPORT OF ACHIEVEMENTS October 1, 2013-September 30, 2014 FISCAL YEAR 2014 Photographs and other images in the 2014 Annual Report of Achievements are provided courtesy of Communications and Public Relations unless otherwise noted. Table of Contents Fiscal Year 2015 Highlights . .1 Definitions of Terms Used ..................................................................3 About Gallaudet University . 21 I. Mission Statement......................................................................23 II. Vision Statement ......................................................................23 III. The allaudetG Credo ..................................................................24 IV. History of Gallaudet ...................................................................25 The first 100 years...............................................................25 A time of expansion .............................................................25 V. Pictorial History of Diplomas and
  • Congressionally Chartered Nonprofit Organizations (“Title 36 Corporations”): What They Are and How Congress Treats Them

    Congressionally Chartered Nonprofit Organizations (“Title 36 Corporations”): What They Are and How Congress Treats Them

    Congressionally Chartered Nonprofit Organizations (“Title 36 Corporations”): What They Are and How Congress Treats Them (name redacted) Analyst in American National Government June 17, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RL30340 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Congressionally Chartered Nonprofit Organizations (“Title 36 Corporations”) Summary The chartering by Congress of organizations with a patriotic, charitable, historical, or educational purpose is essentially a 20th century practice. There are currently some 92 nonprofit corporations listed in Title 36, Subtitle II, of the U.S. Code. These so-called “Title 36 corporations,” such as the Girl Scouts of America and the National Academy of Public Administration, are typically incorporated first under state law, then request that Congress grant them a congressional or federal charter. Chartered corporations listed in Title 36 are not agencies of the United States, and their charters only rarely assign the corporate bodies any governmental attributes. For instance, the corporation’s debt is not guaranteed, explicitly or implicitly, by the full faith and credit of the United States. The attraction of Title 36 status for national organizations is that it tends to provide an “official” imprimatur to their activities, and to that extent it may provide them prestige and indirect financial benefit. In recent years, some in Congress have expressed concern that the public may be misled by its chartering process into believing that somehow the U.S. government approves and supervises the corporations, when in fact this is not the case. As a consequence, the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee of jurisdiction instituted a moratorium on granting new charters in 1989.
  • Georgetown University in the District of Columbia

    Georgetown University in the District of Columbia

    Georgetown University in the District of Columbia 2015 Annual Report Georgetown University Campus Plan 2017-2036 1 Office of Community Engagement 2015 annual report EXHIBIT E: GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Georgetown University in the District of Columbia 2015 Annual Report Report at a Glance 3 Letter from President John J. DeGioia 4 Highlights from 2014-2015 8 Creating Economic Opportunities 11 Responding to Community Needs 19 Supporting Strong and Healthy Neighborhoods 24 About the Office of Community Engagement 1 Office of Community Engagement 2015 annual report georgetown university is deeply committed to advancing the common good in the city of washington, dc and around the world. since our founding in 1789, we have come together as a community to pursue our jesuit tradition of serving the most marginalized members of our city, our nation, and our world. In recent years, the District of Columbia has undergone significant changes. We have witnessed the emergence of new economic sectors, the growth of our population, the rise of incomes, and an increasingly flourishing real estate market. But many challenges remain—especially for the most marginalized members of our city—and much work still needs to be done. As an anchor institution in the District, and a Catholic and Jesuit university committed to justice, we have a responsibility to respond to these challenges— to educate students to be women and men for others and to create new knowledge to better understand our world and improve the human condition. At Georgetown University, we seek to engage in this work through mutually beneficial and sustainable partnerships designed to respond to the needs of our city.
  • The Hilltop 3-3-1995

    The Hilltop 3-3-1995

    Howard University Digital Howard @ Howard University The iH lltop: 1990-2000 The iH lltop Digital Archive 3-3-1995 The iH lltop 3-3-1995 Hilltop Staff Follow this and additional works at: https://dh.howard.edu/hilltop_902000 Recommended Citation Staff, Hilltop, "The iH lltop 3-3-1995" (1995). The Hilltop: 1990-2000. 133. https://dh.howard.edu/hilltop_902000/133 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the The iH lltop Digital Archive at Digital Howard @ Howard University. It has been accepted for inclusion in The iH lltop: 1990-2000 by an authorized administrator of Digital Howard @ Howard University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. • Serving the Howard University community since 1924 March 3, 1995 District makes • Pulitzer prize -winner to speak 01aJor cut backs at 128th Charter Day cereinony to balance budget Hampshire-Cowan maintains the he was a studen1 here. So I've been required 10 smdy her work," Davis ~ By Reglnold Royston services due 10 budget constraints, pres11ge of the ceremony and 1he Hilltop Staff Writer and lh~~c c uts will adversely affcc1 populari1y of 1he speaker should said. our ab,luy 10 serve the public." be enough 10 draw a large crowd of Hampshire-Cowan also said . 1:°hesc attemrls 10 cover a $772 students. Morrison would have been the 1W Di,1rict furlou_gh days and nu I hon ~hortfal in lhe $3.2 billion "Convocation is commemorating opening Convocation speaker in .iJICrc~nt rollback 111 employee budge1 proposal presented 10 and celebrating lhe founding of the Septeml>er, bu1 she had another 3re the latcM measures by <;:ongress by the mayor, may mat1er Universi1y.