despite high population growth rates that range from about 3 to 4 percent, the Central American Common Market countries were able to attain the per capita growth standard of 2.5 percent set by the Alliance for Progress in the Charter of Punta del Este.

What do these cold statistics mean in human terms? Stretching from downtown San Salvador to the airport runs what is called the miracle mile, actually 5 miles. I am told that 2 years ago there was nothing bordering this road but weed patches and slum towns. Today, on both sides of the avenue, there are dozens and dozens of new buildings housing small industries and businesses. Many bear familiar U.S. names, attesting to the ability of the Common Market to attract investments vital to growth. These new factories are producing dacron and rayon fabrics for men's trousers, phonograph records, paper bags, batteries, copper wire, and electric light bulbs. Similarly, in Guatemala, cotton textiles, paint, kitchen stoves, automobile tires, spark plugs, and glass containers are now manufactured and sold throughout Central America. Nicaragua has underway a plant to produce refrigerators, as well as factories to assemble radios, phonographs, and TV sets for the Central American market. Costa Rica is now assembling automobiles. In Honduras, a new textile mill began to operate late in 1965, and cigars, fibre glass chairs and desks, and boots and shoes are being manufactured for sale throughout the region.

All this new activity spells employment for the Central American people. With steady employment come salaries, creating purchasing power which in turn sparks the establishment of new industries. As the economies expand and more people find remunerative work, there is social mobility. No longer are men and women destined by birth to eke out pitiful livings. Children can attend school with reasonable expectations of finding employment commensurate with their educational level and acquired skills.

Indeed, in areas of Central America previously characterized by a huge chasm between the few fortunate families and masses of peasants, a middle class is rapidly developing. The rise of this middle class is the best guarantee against Communist agitators and other demagogs. Most observers of the Central American Common Market become eloquent when discussing its achievements. An "economic miracle" and an "economic wonder" are among the most frequently heard paeans. Certainly, in its first 5 years, the Central American Common Market has been a phenomenal success.

Yet able Central Americans who run the Common Market institutions insist that the five countries must vest an increasing amount of authority in regional organizations if the market's economic gains are to be solidified. I met with Pedro Abelardo Delgado, the dynamic Salvadoran who heads the Common Market's Permanent Secretariat (SIECA) at SIECA's headquarters in Guatemala City. Dr. Delgado emphasized a theme that I was to hear repeatedly: that the Central American countries must strive constantly to expand the scope of their integrated activities.

In fact, the economic integration movement is much more comprehensive than the creation of a common internal market. For example, the Common Market countries have established a regional development bank to assist in financing projects which will spur economic integration. The Central American Bank for Integration (CABEI)

was formed with each Central American government subscribing $4 million in capital. Each of the governments paid in $2 million initially, and CABEI opened its doors for business September 1, 1961, on one floor of the Central Bank Building in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. CABEI has become a major source of loan funds for industrial expansion within the common market. As of June 30, 1966, utilizing funds obtained from Agency for International Development (AID) and the Inter-American Development Bank as well as its own capital, CABEI had made 98 loans totaling $32.6 million to the private sector throughout the region. These loans have made possible expansion of existing factories and introduction of new factories, producing a variety of products ranging from plywood, metal pipe, turpentine and cement, to ball point pens, rubber shoes and nylon stockings. The United States, through AID, has provided CABEI some $5 million in grants for organizational costs and technical assistance, and $62.5 million in loans. Of the U.S. loans extended to CABEI, $15 million were destined for industrial purposes; $2.5 million for feasibility studies; and $10 million for mortgages on housing in the five countries. More than half of the total U.S. credits-a $35 million loan agreement signed in July 1964-is part of a $47 million Fund for Economic Integration to finance regional infrastructure projects such as roads, telecommunications facilities, and power installations. The remaining $7 millon has been contributed in $1.4 million shares by each of the Central American countries. Incidentally, the Fund for Economic Integration was originally proposed by President Kennedy during his meeting with Central American Presidents in Costa Rica in March 1963.

There are other examples of progress toward Central American economic integration. A task force has been set up to study the possibility of a common currency. The five nations maintain different currencies, ranging in value from the Guatemala quetzal which is on par with the dollar, to the Costa Rican peso at 6.62 to the dollar. Meanwhile, to facilitate the use of Central American currencies in making payments among member countries, a clearinghouse established in Tegucigalpa in 1961 by the central banks of the five republics is already settling local accounts in the area's new currency, the Central American peso, which is at par with the U.S. dollar. Last year the clearinghouse handled over $112 million in transactions.

Central American integration leaders see the establishment of a union to harmonize monetary, credit, and foreign exchange policies as the next step. In 1964, the five nations' central banks did adopt an agreement for the creation of a Central American Monetary Union, but national economic policies still rest with the individual governments. Meanwhile, plans are going forward to promote a common regional marketing system for corn, beans, and rice, the staple foods of much of the population; to establish a set of uniform fiscal incentives to be offered to attract foreign investment; to establish a customs union by 1970 by combining present arbitrary and conflicting customs systems into one unified service, after which equalized tariff revenues would be distributed among the member countries regardless of port of entry, and service would allow through shipment of imports without inspection at borders.

Over and above efforts to obtain free trade, a common tariff, and a common industrial policy (components of the present Central

American Common Market), Central American integration leaders are striving to forge regional links in other fields. Joint commissions are now working on coordinated labor laws, health missions, and other activities related to social change.

I witnessed in action a moving and encouraging example of a multinational social program in action. The educational systems of the region represent a severe obstacle to development. Except in Costa Rica, where the literacy rate is 88 percent, literacy rates in the Common Market countries are distressingly low: El Salvador, 48 percent; Guatemala, 30 percent; Honduras, 47 percent; Nicaragua, 40 percent. While shortages of teachers, classrooms, and materials are factors, the problem goes deeper. The school systems have failed to provide curricula that parents can relate directly to the future welfare of their children. As a result, dropouts are high, occurring mainly in the second and third grades.

The United States, through AID's ROCAP, has joined with the Ministers of Education of Central America and Panama in a project to prepare and provide textbooks and teachers' guides in reading, writing, arithmetic, social studies, and sciences for use by elementary schoolchildren. The new books and teaching methods are designed to make education in Central America more practical and meaningful. At ROCAP's office in Guatemala City I saw a lovely white-haired lady from Arizona, Mrs. Victoria de Sanchez, presiding over conferences in at least a dozen rooms in which representatives from each of the CACM countries were composing the new texts together. Mrs. de Sanchez has been a spark plug of the program from its outset, helping to conceive the idea and to bring it to fruition.

As of June 1966, 5%1⁄2 million copies of 12 different textbooks had been published for the use of 1.3 million students and 58,400 teachers in the first 4 grades of the public schools in the CACM countries and Panama. At the conclusion of the project in 1970, it is expected that 11.5 million books will have been made available for 6 grades of elementary schooling.

The ultimate benefits of the program to the peace and security of the hemisphere as well as to the common good of Central America are incalculable. Obviously, children who are given an education which enables them to become gainfully employed are assets to modernizing societies. At the same time, people who are provided an opportunity to make something of themselves in their own environment are unlikely to succumb to Communist blandishments.

The textbook program is but a small part of the efforts of AID's Regional Office for Central America and Panama in support of the Central American integration movement. A summary of ROCAP's role and responsibilities can be found in the appendix, pages 24, 25.

As for the future direction of the Central American integration movement, a number of North and Central Americans with whom I spoke foresee some difficulties for the CACM countries in the common market's heavy emphasis upon industrialization. They point out that agriculture is and will remain for some time the principal occupation of the bulk of the populace and the chief means by which the countries earn foreign exchange with which to purchase capital equipment for industrial expansion. Consequently, they feel that agricultural activities should become an equal concern of the CACM.

It seems to me that U.S. assistance should be directed toward encouraging a greater regional commitment toward reform of the agricultural sector. This should include regional efforts to diversify agricultural production from the traditional coffee, cotton, and banana crops. The endeavor may have to include everything from research and experimental stations, to extension services, to credit for small farmers participating in the undertaking. In some instances it may include land redistribution matters.

If the road to regional cooperation on agricultural questions looks steep, it is nevertheless vital to get on with the venture before the industrial expansion sparked by the Common Market tilts the regional economy askew.

I am confident that the Central Americans can approach their agricultural problems with the same vigor, persistence, and spirit of cooperation that they have demonstrated in constructing their remarkable Common Market experiment.

The experiences of my trip reaffirmed my basic support for the U.S. role in support of Central American economic integration. I think ROCAP has proved to be an extremely effective instrument for furthering Alliance for Progress goals in Central America. Above all, it is heartening to note that Central American initiative and self-help, bolstered by timely U.S. assistance, are producing tangible results of fortunate consequence for the peace and security of the entire hemisphere.

II. BINATIONAL CENTERS

While in Guatemala I had an opportunity to become acquainted with the operations of the Instituto Guatemalteco Americano, a binational center.

Binational centers are nonpolitical, nonprofit cultural institutions, founded largely on local initiative, incorporated under the laws of the host government, and governed by boards of directors chosen from U.S. citizens resident in the host country and citizens of that country. The purpose of the binational centers is to provide a meeting ground for people interested in learning more about the United States. There are presently 132 such centers in 29 countries, 112 of these in the Latin American Republics.

Binational centers sponsor various cultural activities, such as programs by visiting U.S. symphonies, choral and theater groups, and ballets. Probably their most popular function is the teaching of English.

Some of the binational centers receive some form of U.S. assistance, such as books for their libraries, English teaching specialists, teaching materials, and occasionally cash grants.

I have asked the Department of State to furnish additional background information on the operations of the binational centers. This is included in the appendix, page 31.

My contact with the binational center in Guatemala City convinced me that it is an effective means for developing and perpetuating better relations between our countries through cultural activities. The Instituto's administration is truly binational, with the board of directors composed equally of Guatemalans and resident Americans. Their goal better relations between our two countries is accomplished through maintenance of a good library, art exhibits and concerts, and especially, classes in English and commercial subjects.

The intense desire among Guatemalans to learn English is astonishing. Their interest is so ardent and persistent that the Instituto is hard pressed to provide the number of teachers required for the 3,000 registered students. The Instituto's roster of teachers includes only 8 full-time American teachers and 17 part-timers. There are also 18 non-Americans, fluent in English, who help out on a part-time basis.

Surely, there is no better way to build bridges of understanding between two nations than by broadening their means of communication. Yet the shortage of teachers is limiting the Instituto's ability to meet the enthusiastic demands of the Guatemalan people.

I was deeply troubled by the limitations imposed on the program by the shortage of qualified teachers. The United States could remedy the situation simply by funding for and recruiting the necessary teachers. But that type of U.S. Government sponsorship would extinguish the distinctive feature of binational centers-their local initiative.