as in most of its particular aspects, is the problem of intergroup tensions. For the proportion of nonwhites to whites in our big cities has been rising steeply, and so have overt and potential conflict.

While the American Jewish Committee considers its main concern in submitting this statement in support of H.R. 6433 to be the intergroup component of the ills and challenges that confront the metropolis today, we would like to emphasize one thing. We believe that the nonwhites in our big cities-Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans (i.e. Mexican Indians, for the most part)—are the victims and not the cause of the woes of the metropolis. Sixty and seventy years ago our large cities were almost entirely white, but at that time "the shame of the cities" was a national catchword and those who could afford it began to move out to the suburbs-often to avoid immigrant minorities. With increasing momentum from the 1890's to the present day, the big cities and the metropolitan areas of which they are the nuclei have seen their difficulties mount because officials and citizens alike have neither planned for the future imaginatively enough nor reacted to present needs vigorously enough. And the trouble has been compounded by three facts: (1) Simultaneously America has been experiencing a population explosion of its own-in 1930 our population was 123 million, in 1950 it was 150 million, and in 1975 it is expected to reach 218 million; (2) geographical mobility is fantastically high: New York is typical in this respect, and between 1950 and 1957 those who moved out of the city equaled the population of Washington, D.C., while those who moved in equaled the population of Pittsburgh; in 1955, throughout the country, 20 percent of all Americans moved, whether changing their residences from one side of the street or from one side of the continent to the other; and (3) the city continues to grow at the expense of the country: in 1920 half of the American population lived in cities, in 1960 that ratio was three-quarters; and in the recent past more than a million acres of farmland have been lost to the cities every year.

These changes necessarily have their physical and psychological effects. There is not a city merchant or a driver looking for parking space or a worker caught in a transportation breakdown during the rush hours who lacks intimate knowledge of the physical aspects of "the downtown problem." The mass uprooting, the frequent transformations of a family's life and the need to live or work in a world of bigness, confusion, and impersonality are bound to have their psychological impact on people and create social problems.

As the cities grow and their problems and needs multiply, their capacity for dealing with these diminish. New slums develop more rapidly than old ones are eliminated by urban renewal. Large numbers of middle-class people, who can be taxed but who do not impose much strain on social and protective services, have been moving to the suburbs, being replaced by lower-class people who are less taxable but who require more services. And all this would be true even if the American people were absolutely homogenous in race, religion, and national origin.

But of course we are not homogenous at all-even the so-called ghetto is not homogenous with respect to class-and there is hardly a phase of the entire complex with which we are dealing that is unaffected by group differences. We all know that urban redevelopment, slum clearance and finding new homes for the people living in areas marked for redevelopment have caused much tension and antagonism, and that these tends to have a strongly racial character because so many slum dwellers are nonwhites who resent what they regard as the callousness and indifference of the upper-class, white authorities. There is the same ingredient in the conflict between city and suburb over bailing out the commuter railroads. The cities are not greatly moved by the plight of commuters, whom they regard as too rich for philanthropy and too aloof for sympathy.

THE GREAT MIGRATION

The tremendous internal migration within the United States that began during World War II consists in part of the flow of millions of Negroes away from the South, mainly to the industrial cities of the North and West, where four-fifths of them now live-half of the Negro population is today in the North. Migration from Puerto Rico has paralleled, in smaller numbers, the movement of Negroes within the continental United States. The nonwhites have been moving into "the central city" and, simultaneously, middle-class whites have been moving in great numbers out to the suburbs.

Nonwhites are now 35 percent of Newark's population, while in 1940 they were 11 percent; between 1950 and 1958 the nonwhite population of Newark rose 110 percent and the white population fell 25 percent. Nonwhites are 13 percent in New York today against 6 percent in 1940; 20 percent in Chicago today against 8 percent in 1940, with a rise of 40 percent between 1950 and 1956; 14 percent in Los Angeles today against 6.5 percent in 1940, with a rise of 45 percent between 1950 and 1956. In San Francisco the nonwhite population increased 33 percent between 1950 and 1954, and in Cleveland 40 percent between 1950 and 1957. Chicago is expected to be one-third Negro in 1970, and Manhattan Island 45 percent Negro and Puerto Rican. Washington already has a Negro majority. By 1990 it is expected that in 10 of the 14 largest American cities nonwhites will be from a quarter to a half of the population. All of which means that what we know as the race problem will have moved from the rural South to the urban North.

TENSIONS

Tensions arise out of housing, education, crime, and economic opportunity. 1. Housing

The shortage of housing, the slum character of most housing available to nonwhites, and the creation of ghetto neighborhoods because of discrimination are explosive situations in many northern cities. Most attempts made heretofore to eliminate these conditions-programs for slum clearance, public housing, urban redevelopment-have frequently intensified the very conditions they have attempted to remedy. Slum clearance has increased housing shortages and overcrowding; low-cost public housing has created new ghettos and intensified patterns of segregation. Enforced concentration of the poor and those who are discriminated against compounds social problems.

At the same time, middle-class nonwhites who seek to escape the swollen slums of the central cities frequently encounter discrimination and prejudice in the suburban rings around the central cities. Their efforts to find better housing are often met either by flight of the white residents or by hostility and violence. Where Negroes have been able to find decent housing outside the central cities, it has usually been in a segregated community. These patterns of segregation are evident in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Detroit, and Newark, to name only a few places.

2. Education

Segregated slums in rundown parts of central cities, with concentrated population of the same class, race, or ethnic origin, naturally have segregated schools. Bad neighborhoods have bad schools-antiquated, hazardous, and inadequate for the swelling school population. Since the central cities are becoming a depressed enclave, tax funds have lagged far behind the needs for more schools and more teachers. As a result, children in segregated slum schools are deprived of the educational opportunities that are their due.

Negro demands for better education have been for more facilities and teachers, and for integration. Both have created tensions and difficulties. In New York City, the board of education's attempt to improve school conditions through integration brought public protests in the affected white areas. In Chicago the board of education has undertaken to rezone school districts. Demands for racial integration have been made on the public school authorities of New Rochelle, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. In many other cities, tensions over segregated schools are smoldering beneath the surface.

3. Crime

The intergroup aspects of public reaction to crime and violence have created tensions apart from the commission of the crimes themselves. In New York City, a recent wave of juvenile crimes set off heated public argument. Bitterness was expressed in some quarters against Negroes and Puerto Ricans as groups because of acts of violence committed by individuals. In Philadelphia crimes committed by Negroes have intensified white hate, fear, and prejudice. Publication of crime statistics by race or ethnic origin has also been taken as an attribution of group responsibility for individual acts.

4. Economic opportunity

Most Negroes in the central cities are still at the bottom of the economic ladder. Their opportunities to enter certain occupations or to advance beyond a certain level are limited. In seeking to remedy their situation, some have

resorted to boycotts and "buy black" movements, sometimes demanding entrance into some areas of business because of the profit which is derived from Negro neighborhoods. This was recently the case in New York City, where pressure was put on liquor distributors to employ Negro salesmen in Negro districts.

RACIAL AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

In our great cities, immigrants from many lands learned American ways and the occupational and social skills they needed for entry into the American middle class. The new nonwhite migrant of today also comes to our cities to enjoy a higher standard of living, to learn urban skills, and to achieve middleclass status. But he bears the racial handicap. The earlier newcomers also had to contend with prejudices but these tended to disappear as the earlier immigrants, or their children, became Americanized. The racial difference, unlike the cultural difference, does not disappear. Thus, the economically handicapped migrant who is also a Negro bears a double burden.

Even when the Negro scores a personal success and makes a good living, prejudice often confines him to a slum ghetto. The best way to remove such barriers is by means of organized group effort. In fact the scope of individual opportunity for nonwhite Americans depends very largely on the success of social-action programs. This being so, more and more Negroes are gravitating toward political parties, trade unions, churches, and other voluntary organizations. The National Negro Council, organized for the sole purpose of advancing Negro interests in the labor movement, claims 1.5 million members. Negro councils are being organized in many cities. Recently, the Dallas Negro Council for United Action declared, and it was not an academic declaration, that its members command a buying power of $110 million and a voting power of 63,000.

All of these developments portend more rather than less intergroup tension in our cities, at least for the immediate future. That is why the American Jewish Committee has urged and assisted local communities to create intergroup relations committees or councils, public and private, to develop the techniques and resources to deal effectively with emerging intergroup tensions and conflicts. A number of States and counties and most of our large cities have created such intergroup councils or human-relations committees to deal with these problems. There are about 20 State agencies or commissions and 70 municipal committees of this kind. Many have had a considerable measure of success in helping to improve intergroup relations. Their effectiveness could be substantially enhanced if H.R. 6433 provided for the creation of a Bureau of Intergroup Relations within the Department of Urban Affairs and Housing to supply services at present unavailable to the local agencies.

FEDERAL ROLE

A national intergroup-relations bureau could provide national leadership in this most vital field. It could act as a national service bureau for local, State, and regional intergroup-relations agencies. It could become a clearinghouse for information for both public and voluntary intergroup-relations agencies and provide consultative services. It could help to bring public and voluntary groups together, convening conferences and meetings to share information and experience. It could engage in fact gathering, initiate and support research and publish the findings thereof. It could help in establishing training programs for professionals and volunteers in the intergroup relations field.

Because of its stategic location within the Department of Urban Affairs and Housing, a national intergroup-relations bureau would function in cooperation with State and municipal agencies which are principally located in urban, suburban, and metropolitan areas. It would help to identify common intergroup relation factors in these areas and provide guidance for national and local action and policy.

The American Jewish Committee therefore supports enactment of H.R. 6433 to create a Department of Urban Affairs and Housing, but urges its amendment to provide expressly for the creation of a Bureau of Intergroup Relations to meet the vital needs of the people who live, work, and play in our urban, suburban, and metropolitan areas.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. MORGAN, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MUTUAL SAVINGS BANKS

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Robert M. Morgan and I am chairman of the Committee on Mortgage Investments, National Association of Mutual Savings Banks. I am also president of the Boston Five Cents Savings Bank in Boston, Mass. In behalf of the national association I appreciate this opportunity to present a brief statement on the proposed legislation to establish a new Cabinet Department of Urban Affairs and Housing.

Some months ago our national association adopted a position supporting Cabinet status for housing if requested by the administration. This position reflected the importance of housing and urban affairs in the social and economic life of the Nation, the basic role of Government in housing and urban affairs, and the direct importance of mortgage finance and urban conditions to mutual savings banking.

The production and transfer of housing facilities and the shaping of an urban environment in which people live and work is clearly among our Nation's most important activities. These activities have significance not only for our economic health but for our social health as well. Recognition of this fact at the Federal level has resulted in the establishment, over 30 years, of multiple agencies concerned with housing, mortgage finance, and urban affairs. Inclusion of these agencies within one Cabinet department would have the dual advantage of coordinating policies and activities, and of raising the stature of housing and urban affairs in the Federal hierarchy consistent with its importance in the economy.

That savings banks have a clear interest in urban and housing matters is evident from the facts. Savings banking is one of our Nation's oldest industries, with most institutions located in the central core of the older urban communities. As a consequence, problems in urban affairs-central city decay, transportation, land use, renewal and rehabilitation-thrust themselves upon mutual savings banks for solution. It is in the direct interests of savings banking that urban development and redevelopment be soundly conceived and executed. In this regard, savings bankers in several cities have taken an active part in working with local Government officials and private citizens on urban revitalization programs, and in providing financing for the building and rebuilding necessary. The activities of mutual savings banks in financing the Nation's housing and related real estate needs have increased spectacularly since World War II. From less than one-fourth of assets in 1946, savings bank mortgage holdings have risen to about two-thirds currently. Out of every dollar savings banks have had available for investment in the past 15 years, about $0.95 has gone into mortgages. The bulk of this investment has gone into residential financing, and in recent years savings banks have channeled a larger net flow of funds into federally underwritten mortgages than has any other type of lender. Our interest in Federal housing programs, therefore, is apparent from these facts.

It is our view that these Federal programs-with respect both to housing and urban affairs generally-will be more effective if administered by a department at Cabinet level with all of the stature such a level commands and the unification of program and policy it permits. At the same time this does not mean that all existing agencies need be abolished. Indeed, H.R. 6433 provides for transfer to the new Department of the Federal National Mortgage Association, "together with its functions, powers, and duties." It is respectfully submitted that the Federal Housing Administration should also be transferred intact, together with all of its functions, powers and duties, rather than abolished as presently called for in H.R. 6433. Moreover, the importance of FHA in the whole complex of housing and urban affairs is so great as to warrant the appointment of an Under Secretary to handle FHA matters.

In its 27 years of operation, FHA has established a unique record of success in Government-industry cooperation. This success was achieved only after long years of building confidence in the soundness of FHA operations. In partnership with private industry, FHA has revolutionized the mortgage contract, placed mortgage financing on a sound basis, and helped to provide housing for millions of our citizens. Indeed, FHA has become somewhat of a trademark in the mortgage financing world. To abolish this agency now would imply a downgrading of housing and private mortgage finance in the structure of a new Cabinet department. This would be most unfortunate.

Two other points should be noted about H.R. 6433. The first is that the declaration of policy makes little or no mention of the role of private enterprise

in carrying out the objectives of the new Department. This is a serious omission. The prime role of private institutions-financial, construction, and other-in implementing the objectives of the bill should be stressed at the outset.

Secondly, there is a danger that too many functions will be included under the purview of the new Department. It is not unlikely that in this event the importance of housing and urban renewal will be diluted by the diversion of attention to other miscellaneous facets of urban affairs.

With these important provisos, therefore, we are glad to endorse the proposal of Cabinet status for housing and urban affairs.

I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to present my views on this important matter.

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. LYNN, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

The American Farm Bureau Federation, with member State farm bureaus in Puerto Rico and all but 1 of the 50 States, is vitally interested in all of the activities of the Federal Government. Farm Bureau is a free, independent, nongovernmental, voluntary organization of farm and ranch families united for the purpose of analyzing their problems and formulating action to achieve educational improvement, economic opportunity, and social advancement, thereby promoting the national welfare. The primary interest of Farm Bureau members is agriculture, with concern for all proposals which in any way affect their welfare.

The proposal of the President to establish a Cabinet rank Department of Urban Affairs and Housing before this committee is in conflict with some of the basic policies of Farm Bureau.

The position of our federation on this question is based on the policy recommendations adopted several years ago and reiterated in December of last year. We have long resisted the trend toward concentration and centralization of power in the Federal Government. Our policy is based on the belief that the solution of any problem should be resolved in favor of solving such problem either by the individual or the unit of Government closest to the individual. We feel that the following tests should be applied when any problem arises and could properly be applied in the consideration of the President's proposal in this instance:

(1) Should the responsibility for the solution rest with the individual? (2) If not, should private organizations or cooperatives be encouraged to assume responsibilities for solving the problem?

(3) If not, should the solution of the problem be the responsibility of local units of government?

We see in this proposal to establish a new Cabinet post the enlargement of Government functions. We do not believe that the Federal Government should expand its activity in these areas.

We oppose the Federal Government's bypassing a State government to participate in economic and social problems directly with citizens of a district, county, or smaller government unit, or with individuals within a State.

We anticipate that the establishment of a Cabinet-rank Department of Urban Affairs and Housing would increase the total cost of the Federal Government at a time when the national debt is excessive and current expenditures exceed income. It could also lead to the reorganization of agencies within the existing executive agencies which would not be in the best interest of the existing programs. We refer specifically to the numerous bills pending before Congress which, if enacted, would authorize the transfer from existing agencies and departments such activities and programs as airport and highway construction, slum clearance, home finance, pollution control, metropolitan planning, civil and defense mobilization, and other functions of the Government which are not identified solely with urban areas.

We believe that such a Cabinet-rank department would tend to weaken existing relationships between the States and their political subdivisions and would undoubtedly increase the dependency of local government upon Washington. This probably would result in considerably greater pressure for new programs for Federal aid.

We favor increased emphasis on the assumption of responsibility by States and local units of government for the exercise of their appropriate functions and therefore oppose the establishment of the Cabinet-rank Department of Urban Affairs and Housing.