In the first place, Western medicine and hygiene eliminated the plague and many endemic diseases prevalent in the region. The result was a sharp reduction in the death rate while the birth rate remained at its previous high level which lead to a rapid increase in the population.

This vast growth took place unaccompanied by either massive industrialization or a commensurate extension of the cultivated areas. This subsequently led to great pressure on the land and, in recent years, to an exodus to the cities. The social consequences were two: the landless peasant and a large underemployed urban working class.

Insurgence of a landless peasantry brought economic consequences which were beneficial in that it promoted a changeover from subsistence to a market-oriented cash-crop agriculture. However, the accompanying social consequence-dissolution of the village community, without which no progress could have taken place-eliminated the security formerly enjoyed by all peasants.

The discovery of the West and the consequent cultural transformation of Arab society had a revitalizing effect. Its overall consequence was to bring into being a new class. Whereas old intellectuals were loyal to basic values and institutions of their society, the new ones did not owe it allegiance. Political strife was added to social discontent and a stirring up of the masses. Increased participation of the masses meant new leaders took command-representing neither the upper- nor middle-class values but radical ideologies.

Until the 1920's or 1930's the dominant ideas were moderate nationalism, constitutionalism, and political and economic liberalism; mainly because these were the dominant ideologies of the leading powers-Britain, France, and the United States. Also, Arab cultural contacts were restricted to these three countries.

During the 1930's and 1940's, however, Arab society passed through their acute crises caused by a drastic fall in agriculture prices during the depression, growth of unemployment, and changing world climates marked by the emergence of the Soviet Union and China as major

powers, and with the rapid growth of the “developing” nations with beliefs in Socialist planning and a one-party dictatorship. The result was the collapse of the fragile Arab parliamentary systems and replacement of landowner and middle-class elite by one of army officers, bureaucrats, and technicians. And now, as in other underdeveloped countries, an attempt is being made to reconstruct

their society on the twin bases of intense nationalism and socialism.

This ideological shift has not been universal. Lebanon is still committed to a parliamentary democracy and an economic liberalism. Morocco, Syria, and Tunisia are struggling to find their way. In all four of these countries, a native middle class had time to develop and they are not inclined to give up their power without a struggle. Several Arab countries have not yet reached the stage where either liberal or Socialist ideolo

gies are meaningful. Egypt and Algeria are engaged in revolutions to implement their version of Arab socialism. Iraq seems to have chosen the Arab Socialist way.

Our present thinking is that Egypt is the fulcrum on which Arab behavior can be bent. In varying degrees, the Arab countries, from Morocco on the Mediterranean to Iraq on the Persian Gulf, look to Cairo for their cue, if not their diplomatic orientation. The Egyptian omnipresence is fortified by the image of Nasser, which radiates a charismatic Nasser, which radiates a charismatic quality among the faceless Arab masses. quality among the faceless Arab masses. An active and effective propaganda apparatus in Cairo has parlayed this image into a potent force which must be reckinto a potent force which must be reckoned with by the regimes in the Arab oned with by the regimes in the Arab world.

Like him or not-and Nasser has not been a popular figure among serious been a popular figure among serious practitoners of Middle East diplomacy he is a key factor in the achievement of U.S. objectives in the region-peace, stability, economic development, and the absence of Communist penetration. And by working with the Egyptian leader we have been able to obtain a modicum of positive results for the United States in the Middle East.

The arguments for continuation of the emphasis on Egypt have become less persuasive. With respect to U.S. objectives in the region, there are few signs of real progress. Peace is precarious; instability remains a condition of political life; economic development has not kept pace with economic need; and the danger of Communist penetration is no less acute. The major obstacle to progress has been, and remains a fixed focus on the United Arab Republic, rather than on the entire region.

In earlier statements I have discussed several major problems which complicate the Near East picture. These include the arms race, water use and diversion, and refugees.

antedates

While Arab nationalism communism in the Middle East, Russia has been having considerable success undermining Arab moderates, inflaming Arab grievances, egging on Arab extremists, and arming Arab revolutionary arming Arab revolutionary regimes.

While Nasser dismisses American aid to his country-about a billion dollars in technical and economic assistance since the end of World War II-as "wheat, meat, and leftovers," U.S. contributions have, in fact, released Egyptian funds for direct military expenditures.

Since 1956 Russia has been providing Egypt with about $65 million a year in modern arms. has provided hard training for Egyptian The Yemen campaign troops if and when Nasser decides to deploy them elsewhere.

We have, repeatedly, since the Tripartite Declaration of 1950, pledged to see to it that the borders of all states in the Near East are preserved intact. The cost and danger of such an operation by the United States is directly proportional to the size and sophistication of Egypt's arsenal. Cost and danger to us will rise as Egypt grows militarily stronger, and more adventurous.

The Arab refugee problem is infinitely complex and that complexity has been compounded by the bitterness it generates. Dr. Chaim Weizmann, a scientific and political genius, won from Britain a crucial promise which eventually created Israel: the 1917 Balfour Declaration pledging Britain to support a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. Britain did this to secure their strategic toehold in the Middle East and in gratitude to Dr. Weizmann's scientific contribution to its munitions industry, his discovery of synthetic acetone. Until that time, Palestine had been part of the Ottoman Empire.

In order to win Arab support against the Turks, Britain promised the Arabs independence. The effect of these conflicting pledges was to antagonize Jews and Arabs alike. From 1920 to 1948 the Palestine Arabs rose in bloody revolts against Zionist settlers and the British mandate. Finally, Britain in 1947 tossed the problem to the United Nations which voted to partition Palestine between Arabs and Jews. The Arabs rejected partition. During the fighting which followed, Arabs who had lived in this territory or in other parts of what is now Israel fled into Arab countries. The Israelis beat off the Arabs and even extended their borders thereby gaining control of 80 percent of Palestine. Most of the refugees still live in camps outside Israel's borders.

Nasser says, "Innocent Palestinians have been made to pay for Britain's devious policies and Hitler's crimes."

The Arab League demands repatriation.

Israel decries their return because of the security problem, steadfastly refusing their return because they do not want to become another Cyprus with two hostile people under one roof.

In addition, to accept back large numbers of Palestinian Arabs who would return believing that their old way of life was given back to them-would cause insoluble problems because they

would find themselves in a modern state

with a highly competitive economy.

Mr. Speaker, I propose that the refu

gee issue be negotiated as a humanitarian matter, separated from other outstanding Arab-Israeli differences. A real effort to help the refugees would improve Israel's image. Both sides must cease being totally negative. Israel herself has collected substantial reparation for German injuries to Jewish people and should take a stronger initiative to receive and settle just claims of Arab refugees.

In order to provide the refugees with work projects designed to promote their food and welfare assistance and with integration into the economic life of the Near East, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency was created in 1949. The Arab governments have rejected the projects for "political reasons."

We must now aim at "phasing out this program" by resettlement of the refugees and by providing work opportunities for them through the establishment of an international committee, with the United Nations supervising the gradual transfer of the United Nations Relief and

Then there is the water controversy. Water sparks the latest venomous dispute between Arabs and Israelis. For the first time since the Suez crisis 9 years ago, Israel and Arab States are on a direct collision course. This time the immediate issue is not land but water: the lifeblood of the Middle East.

Israel is already tapping its supply to the limit and new sources of water are essential for its prosperity and future growth. The Arab plan is to shut off the taps on Israel, cutting off much Jordan River water by diverting three tributaries which now flow into Jordan from neighboring Arab countries. This This scheme will cost Israel an estimated 61 million gallons of water yearly. The Arabs know that Israel is willing to fight rather than lose the source of its lifeblood. At the moment both Syria and Lebanon have suspended work on the diversion project, but that could resume at any time. If they do, it is estimated within 2 years, most of the Jordan's water could be shut off from Israel.

Both sides affect the use of the River Jordan which alternately flows through both Israel and Jordan. The Jordan River begins in northern Israel and runs south through the Sea of Galilee where

Christ performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes, and continues south in

Jordan to the salt-killed Dead Sea. Is

rael is pumping fresh water from the Sea of Galilee and sending it miles south in a huge ditch to irrigate the Negev Desert. Jordan claiming this deprives its fields to the south retaliates with a canal which this year will divert the Yarmuk River which rises in Jordan. As of now

the Yarmuk feeds the Jordan below Galilee and is an important irrigation source for Israel. Moreover, Syria and

Lebanon threaten to divert streams ris

ing there which feed the head of the Jor

dan. This would slash the flow to Is

rael's fields. Both Israel and the Arabs are ready to fight over the issue.

Whichever side attacks first, first, war means a major world crisis endangering

the Suez Canal and the West's vital

supply of Arab oil.

Massive nuclear-powered plants could possibly desalinate sea water cheaply enough to meet Israel's needs. President Johnson has proposed a United StatesIsrael partnership "in using nuclear energy to turn salt water into fresh water," because Israel is presently utilizing more than 80 percent of her total water supply, and in 5 years no additional sources will be available.

The President has invited other nations to join the partnership. Most of Most of these countries have a common problem-a lack of sufficient funds to carry out these projects. Saudi Arabia because of her vast oil reserves is a notable exception.

The Office of Saline Water of the U.S. Department of Interior has been working closely with the Atomic Energy Commission in developing a joint program. In an effort to assist other nations in applying nuclear energy to desalting, we have been cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency. The First

salinization will be held in Washington from October 3 to 9, 1965.

Mr. Speaker, I propose that we proceed in our investigation and implementation of the use of large nuclear reactors for producing energy for sea water distillation, using Israel as a model project.

The United Nations has an opportunity here to work for a regional water planning system for this area for which the United Nations should assume definite responsibility.

Indeed, this pilot project may have a twofold purpose. Aside from exploring Aside from exploring the possibilities of a technical breakthrough with respect to the nuclear pothrough with respect to the nuclear potential for desalinization of water, might it not also provide the basis for exploring the potential for a regional approach to the other basic issues dividing Israel and the Arab countries?

It is clear that an easy prognosis for the ills of the Near East is among the most illusive of diplomatic goals. most illusive of diplomatic goals. But that region, as much as any in the world, demands therapy of an imaginative brand. A U.S. diplomacy directed more at a regional solution to these problems, conceived with imagination, and prosecuted without rigidity, may be equal to the challenge.

Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Speaker, in this, fourth of these weekly meetings, it is most appropriate that we discuss the future of economic cooperation and development in the Middle East. If this region is to ever have the kind of prosperity and standard of living that I am sure all of its residents would like to see, some effort must be made to plan for the future.

I think that we can all agree that before any extensive regional development program can be discussed or even proposed, however, there must be peace. I also firmly believe that the United States can do more to help bring about this precondition than any other country. But, in order to do so, we must be more willing to use the influence which we have than has been the case in the past.

For some years now, we have been supplying surplus food to many of the Arab States, as well as Israel. For some years now, we have been supplying economic and technical aid to some of the Arab States, as well as Israel. And, for some years now, we have provided military aid to some of the Arab States, as well as Israel. What has the result been? We have not helped to bring about any new attempt at establishing a more permanent peace between the Arabs and Israelis. Rather, we have Rather, we have helped to perpetuate the division between them, for by feeding, aiding, and arming both sides, we have never forced either one to undertake a serious reassessment of its policies and position. This is extremely unfortunate, for this is precisely what is needed.

For example, if we were to make it clear to the Arab States that we will no longer provide any economic, technical, or military aid until such campaigns as are at present going on in Yemen and Iraq cease, until they are willing to recognize the existence of the State of Israel, and until they are willing to contribute

their part toward a peaceful solution of such outstanding problems as the Palestine refugees and the allocation of the waters of the Jordan River, I am certain that there would be a very serious reappraisal of their policies.

As a result of such a policy, we would be making it clear-absolutely and unmistakably clear-that the Arab policy of intransigence toward Israel is and will continue to be immensely costly to them-in political, economic, and even military terms. I would hope, of course, that we would at the same time offer a rational and far-sighted alternative. For example, a commitment to use our vast technological resources and skills in programs of economic development which would help to bring about the kind of material progress the Middle Eastern peoples want.

It is not hard to imagine the improvements such a program could accomplish. One need only look at the example of Israel in order to witness what a wholehearted commitment to progress can achieve. It is, consequently, not difficult to understand the immense benefits which could accrue to a Middle East at peace. The industries and businesses of the whole region would be able to take advantage of the economies of scale, there would be a more intelligent and rational allocation of resources, and the natural complementaries which exist would be allowed to develop.

Of course, this bright picture is predicated upon the creation of a permanent and just peace. It is my firm conviction that the United States, by the judicious use of its influence among the Arab States, could do much more to help bring it about. Clearly our past policies have accomplished little, if anything. Now that the Middle East appears to be embarked upon a new escalation of arms, now that the problem of the diversion by the Arabs of the Jordan River waters approaches the crisis point, and now that Colonel Nasser of Egypt has learned something of the tremendous cost to his domestic program of development that a foreign misadventure brings, the present appears to be not only a propitious but also a necessary time for the United States to undertake a new effort at peace in the Middle East.

If we once again hesitate, and permit events in this volatile region to proceed without any attempt to persuade the Arab leaders to follow both a policy which is both economically and politically more constructive and farsighted, we may find ourselves forced to intervene more conclusively and expensively at a later date. This would be both tragic and unnecessary; if we devote our energies to the problem now, I feel certain that such an unpopular and even potentially dangerous path will never become necessary.

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my honored and distinguished colleague on his excellent presentation today and commend him for this series of special orders which he has sponsored. He has provided a valuable public service in making available to the members of the House helpful information and constructive ideas on the

problems of the Near East. I have been honored to join with the gentleman in each of these discussions.

In my remarks during the past 4 weeks, I have stressed the need for a peaceful solution to the pressing water problems of the Near East, along the lines of a coordinated water policy. Just as I have advocated Federal water planning for the United States in my bill, H.R. 10244, to establish a Federal Water Commission, so have I pointed out the advantages of coordinated regional water planning in the Near East. Such planning would be a help to all the nations of that area, and would help make water a unifying force, rather than a divisive

one.

I have also commented upon methods of solution of the Arab refugee problem, stressing that these refugees can be a vital force toward economic development. I have deplored the Arab arms race, and urged our representatives in the United Nations to aid in putting a stop to this tragic waste of the national resources of the Near Eastern nations. I know that the gentleman from California [Mr. ROOSEVELT], who will soon be serving at the United Nations, will exert every effort in this direction.

Mr. Speaker, the problems of the Near East are not local or regional, but affect the future peace and development of all the world. We must aid in their solution, not merely in the spirit of a great humanitarian Nation, but also because an Arab-Israeli conflict will ultimately affect us as well. Our goal must always be the peaceful economic development of the area-and our means of attaining that goal must always be those of peace.

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from California [Mr. ROOSEVELT] for his excellent speeches over the past several weeks on the problems of the Middle East. By analyzing the problems in such depth, he has done a great service to all of us who are concerned about the situation there and want to see stability brought to that section of the world.

The race between the Arab States, on the one hand, and Israel, on the other, to equip themselves with superior military capability has had the two-pronged disadvantage of increasing instability and depriving the countries of needed investments to develop natural resources and industry. Unless there is a reversal in this practice, the eventual result could be a full-scale war. The likely addition of nuclear armaments to this equation would magnify many times over the consequences of such a confrontation.

Therefore, in view of its responsibilities to itself and to the rest of the world, the United States has no alternative but to do all it can to persuade the Arab States and Israel to check the arms race and work together for a better future.

As an indication of the size of the military burden carried by the Middle Eastern States, it is useful to compare their expenditures for defense as a percentage of their gross national product to that of the United States. The United States, with all of its global commitments, over the past decade has spent beCXI-1414

tween 9 and 10 percent of its GNP on national defense. In a recent year Egypt tional defense. In a recent year Egypt spent 8.6 percent, Syria 12.7 percent, Iraq 8.6 percent, Jordan 22.8 percent, and Israel 8.2 percent of GNP on defensewholly unreasonable rates of expenditure.

If Middle Eastern countries reduced defense commitments, much of the wealth of the area could be put to improving the lives of the people. For instance, natural resources could be developed so as to supply industry and furnish items for export. Until now, the Middle East has concentrated largely on developing only one mineral resource to its fullest extent-oil. But the area contains deposits of phosphate, manganese, iron, gypsum, and coal which could be developed to a much greater extent than they have been. Through irrigation and long-range planning, the agricultural output of the area-particularly grains, vegetables and fruits-could be greatly expanded. expanded. Full development of water resources would be a boon to both industry and agriculture.

The United States through its foreign aid program has a powerful device which could be used to persuade the countries of the Middle East to yield in the arms race and devote their considerable efforts to more constructive ends.

Between 1945 and 1964 the United States provided Egypt with $888.9 million in economic assistance, Syria with $81.4 million, Iraq with $42.5 million, $81.4 million, Iraq with $42.5 million, Jordan with $429.6 million, and Israel with $771 million. Without playing Without playing favorites, the United States in the future could make assistance contingent upon the countries' willingness to slacken arms development and step up economic development in cooperation with the other countries in the area.

We should also consider joining with other nations to help the Middle East in a coordinated large-scale economic dea coordinated large-scale economic development program, similar to the one which President Johnson has proposed for southeast Asia.

Mr. HORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California league, the gentleman from California [Mr. ROOSEVELT] in this fourth and final discussion of the problems confronting the Middle East.

The discussions of the past 4 weeks on various aspects of the Middle East have made it abundantly clear that the Arabs have really gained nothing as a result of their 18 years of enmity directed at the Israelis.

During the first weeks of our discussions, we treated the tremendous expenditures for arms and military equipment. During the second week, we talked about the problem of the Jordan River, and the waste of water and money which the inability of the Arabs to come to a regional agreement has caused. And, in our third week, we discussed the waste of talent and energies which the Arab refusal to help solve the problem of the Palestine refugees has brought about.

These 3 weeks have amply demonstrated that if we are to see any change for the better in the Middle East, there will have to be a concerted effort to bring about a just and equitable peace in that

area. For, without such a peace, we will continue to see millions of dollars, the talents and energies of millions of people, and the prospect of a more prosperous future for these same millions, completely wasted.

We have seen, in other areas of the world, and particularly in our own United States, that the logic of economics is often sufficient to overcome more parochial and shortsighted political interests. I do not think that it is unusually utopian to imagine that the same may be true of the Middle East. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that peace is the essential prerequisite for the future development of the Middle East. Yet, at the same time, I think it essential to stress the tremendous economic gains which the Arab countries as well as Israel have made in the past two decades. A review of this progress demonstrates more than anything else how much could be accomplished if the tremendous diversion of funds and energies into the various aspects of the Arab-Israeli dispute were channeled into more constructive undertakings.

It is precisely here that the United States can be of greater assistance in establishing the bases of a permanent peace. We can, for example, make it absolutely clear that we will not tolerate any attempt to change the borders of any state in the Middle East by force; we should do this strongly enough to convince any doubters among the Arab leadership that a war against Israel is futile. If we make our position forcefully enough, and clearly demonstrate our commitment to Israel, there is an excellent chance that the arms race may cease, for no matter how much is devoted to military equipment, none of these countries can ever hope to match the United States.

The next step is also clear. We can offer our assistance and support in intelligently conceived efforts to develop the economy of the Middle East at an ever faster rate. There are many areas in which the technology and skills of the United States could be fruitfully used in order to create the economic conditions which would make any peace in this area more permanent and effective. Once the futility of any attempt to settle the problems of the Middle East by force is seen, it will be possible to allocate more time and increased funds toward finding a solution to the many other economic and social problems which still remain. With the assistance of the United States, and a conscientious desire to tackle their own domestic issues, the countries of the Middle East would be able to take their rightful place as peaceful, prosperous, and constructive members of the world community.

Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Speaker, again I wish to commend my friend, the able and distinguished gentleman from California for presenting to this House his forthright and thought-provoking observations on the problems which beset the Middle East. I have joined the gentleman in his previous special orders on this subject to express my own views on this timely and important matter. But I cannot agree with some of the comments

he has expressed about Israel today, and which I feel are worthy of further reflection. I refer to the gentleman's remarks linking German reparations to Jews with his call for greater response by Israel to Arab refugee claims. I realize that by no stretch of the imagination did the gentleman infer there could possibly be a connection. But I do fear a misinterpretation of his remarks in suggesting such analogy. Any such interpretation equating gas ovens of Auschwitz and the brutal genocide of the Nazis against 6 million Jews, with Israeli response to the Arab refugee aggression, would be a disservice to history.

I am confident, of course, that Mr. ROOSEVELT, whose distinguished record as a humanitarian in this House is unequaled, never intended any such meaning and will recognize the justice of the point of my remarks.

Also, I cannot agree with all the gentleman's observations on the water problem. As I see it, the water problem will not be solved by introduction of new U.N. complications allowing the Arabs a voice in Israel's domestic water needs, and looking for an escape from current Jordan River diversion threats by referring Israel to eventual hopes for nuclear desalination. It would be better to urge the U.S. delegation to the U.N. to issue a clear statement denouncing the Arab diversion tactics as aggression which threatens the peace.

CIVIL COMMITMENT AND TREATMENT IN CASES OF DRUG ADDICTION

The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from New York [Mr. ADDABBO] is recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. ADDABBO. Mr. Speaker, I have today introduced legislation which, if enacted, I believe will aid in the treatment and reduction of drug addiction and its continued increase.

The legislation I have introduced provides for a change in theory from one of severe punishment to that of civil commitment, providing for treatment, supervision, and aftercare. I believe that the present provisions of law as to severe punishment of professional sellers should remain the same and possibly made more severe, but the addict who sells to other addicts or commits certain lesser crimes to provide for his own drug addiction should be given other consideration.

The bill I have introduced is similar to New York State law which went into effect in 1963. The results have, in several respects been, encouraging and point up the need for adequate financing and aftercare. Therefore, I have also provided for, in this legislation, a program of Federal aid to the States and local communities to aid them in their programs of treatment and rehabilitation.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation would permit a drug addict, upon arrest, the opportunity to voluntarily submit to examination to determine whether or not he is addicted and, if addicted, to be given civil commitment which provides for treatment in an institution, supervised

release, and aftercare. If the addict If the addict complies with treatment, supervision, complies with treatment, supervision, and aftercare, the crime for which the addict was arrested exclusive, of course, of crimes of violence and other major felonies, would be dismissed.

Mr Speaker, I urge my colleagues to introduce and support similar legislation introduce and support similar legislation for, although New York has the infamous reputation of having the most reported narcotics addicts with Illinois and California not far behind, we know that this menace knows no territorial borders--it is East, West, Central, and continually is East, West, Central, and continually spreading. The menace of drug addiction knows no race, color, creed, or sex or economic strata. In recent years there has been a continual increase amongst those in the middle and upper amongst those in the middle and upper socioeconomic class. We must remember that every drug addict is a potential that every drug addict is a potential seller, seeking new markets.

Present Federal facilities such as at Lexington, Ky., have proven inadequate and inefficient because the addict has voluntary admission and discharge and there is no aftercare and supervision.

We have had previous studies, previous hearings by previous Congresses, surveys and Presidential commissions, all of which have pointed up the actualities of the problem, but there has been no action. We must now have actionthe need is now-the menace is growing. I again urge my colleagues to join in this needed legislation to protect their communities and our Nation.

TAIWAN AFTER 15 YEARS

The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. WAGGONNER] is recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Speaker, recently I had the distinction and honor of being invited to address the Captive Nations Week rally on the island of Formosa. During my visit I was able to confirm impressions which I have had concerning that beleaguered country and I would like to report back to the Congress briefly on these now confirmed impressions.

On June 30 the US. Agency for International Development terminated its program in Taiwan after 15 years of operation. This step was taken after several years of planning and after a gradual hardening of the terms of the aid. Some aid still continues; long-term projects financed in previous years have not yet been completed, an agreement for Public Law 480 aid in surplus agricultural commodities will run through 1966, and the military assistance program will continue as well. A small residual AID staff remains in Taipei to monitor the programs still in progress.

When U.S. aid to Taiwan began in 1950, the island was still suffering from the devastation of the Second World War; there was serious inflation, and several hundred thousand refugees from the China mainland were still not settled. Although the Government of the Republic of China began the reconstruction in 1949 with the implementation of a land reform program, it was not until large arrivals of U.S. aid began in 1951

that rapid progress was made. By the end of 1952, prewar production levels were regained although living standards did not reach prewar levels until 1956.

In 1952 the Government of the Republic of China began the first of a series of 4-year plans, worked out in coordination with U.S. aid officials, which set forth the broad goals of the economy. Chinese imputs and the U.S. aid contribution were coordinated to produce maximum development, but the plans were designed to widen the field of activity for private enterprise and detailed planning of production was avoided. The plans dealt with the most urgent problems of the economy in turn: monetary stabilization, agricultural production, infrastructure, and industry. The current 4-year plan is part of a 10-year long-term development plan designed to complete Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to an industrial economy without foreign grant aid.

The phaseout of U.S. aid to Taiwan began in 1956 with the gradual substitution of loans repayable in local currency for grant aid; loans on relatively soft terms repayable in dollars were instituted in 1960. Planning for the eventual closing out of aid began in 1959, and in 1960 a 19-point accelerated development program was agreed on by the United States and the Republic of China. The principal points of this program were the encouragement of foreign private investment, the development of private enterprise in Taiwan, and the promotion of Taiwan's exports. The success with which these objectives were achieved was beyond the original expectations of AID, and led to the announcement in May 1954, that aid would be terminated at the end of fiscal year 1965.

The U.S. aid program, and its efficient utilization in Taiwan can be credited with very substantial accomplishments: The inflation which plagued Taiwan for many years has been halted, and prices actually declined over the first half of 1965; real national income has more than doubled since 1953; per capita real income has risen to over $150, which, though still low, is high by Asian standards; industrial production has more than tripled since 1953, and agricultural production has increased 73 percent over the same period; foreign trade increased from $320 million in 1953 to $874 million in 1964, and the large annual trade deficits which existed before 1962 were changed into a surplus by 1964. The rapid growth of the economy and the favorable prognosis for the future have given Taiwan a high credit rating in international, public, and private money markets.

This remarkable growth was achieved with $1,425,000,000 of U.S. aid added to the efforts of the Chinese themselves. When the termination of aid was announced in 1964, many officials and businessmen in Taiwan doubted that economic growth could continue without American aid, but in the year which has passed since the announcement of the phasing-out of aid the economy has grown even faster than before, despite a substantial reduction of aid deliveries in 1964. With this accelerated growth, the

confidence of businessmen and government officials in Taiwan has grown to a cautious optimism over the economic future of the island. The foreign exchange formerly furnished by aid is being replaced by increased export earnings and by foreign loans-from Japan and from the World Bank-and investments. Domestic investment, much of which came out of AID counterpart funds, is now being supplanted by increasing domestic savings. The Government of the Republic of China and the people of Taiwan have efficiently used American aid to reach the point where they can resolve their own economic problems and continue to develop Taiwan without further economic assistance.

This situation is, indeed, a refreshing one in view of the miserable failures this aid program has produced in far too many instances. I am pleased to report to the Congress on this signal success.

GEMINI V-A BRILLIANT SUCCESS Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CONTE] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?

There was no objection.

Mr. CONTE. Mr. Speaker, I pleased and proud to join with my colleagues in this body and with my countrymen all over the world in extending warmest congratulations to astronauts Gordon Cooper and Charles Conrad for the successful completion of their recordbreaking 8-day space flight aboard Gemini V.

This is a proud and historic moment for this Nation. Astronauts Cooper and Conrad, and every member of the Gemini team, have demonstrated for all the world to see not only the technical superiority of U.S. science and industry, but the high order of our manpower as well. This flight stands as a monument to the determination, imagination, and boundless vision of a free society.

Generous credit must go to a great many individuals who, in spite of automation and all the other technological apparatus of the space program, are the only single indispensable element.

There is a particularly sweet satisfaction in the fact that the mission fulfilled all of its expectations in spite of a nagging technical problem which threatened to shortcut the duration and over which

our Soviet competitors spent much time and effort in gloating. In every sense, this mission has been a brilliant success and has yielded untold profits.

I want to extend congratulations also to the members of the astronauts' families; to Mrs. Cooper who has now watched her husband soar among the stars on two occasions, and to Mrs. Conrad. Their understanding, encouragement, and support have undoubtedly had much to do with the success of the Gemini V mission and are as fine an example of courage and devotion as are the astronauts themselves.

I happily join with my fellow countrymen now in anxious anticipation of the

conclusion of the prolonged debriefing period when I might be privileged to congratulate these two young men in person and hear firsthand about this thrilling experience and historic achievement.

CLEVELAND DETAILS FLAWS IN PROPOSALS TO DEICE ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY CHANNELS

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. CLEVELAND] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?

There was no objection.

Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Public Works is now conducting hearings on S. 2300, the omnibus river and harbor flood-control bill. The bill, as passed by the Senate on July 27, contains authorization for an investigation and study to be conducted by the Corps of Engineers, at an estimated cost Corps of Engineers, at an estimated cost of $75,000, of means for extending the navigation season on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, including a complete investigation and study of waterway deicing systems.

This proposal, which I oppose, is before the committee for the second time. In 1963, the Senate passed a bill-S. 530, 88th Congress-which would have authorized such a study. Although favorably reported by the House Committee on Public Works, it was never acted upon by the House.

Now that the matter is before us again, I wish to take this opportunity of stating my objections in detail for the information of the House.

First. There has been no showing of need for shipping on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway during the entire year.

Second. There has been no showing that deicing of the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence Seaway, and their connecting channels is practical.

Third. The preliminary study, to be authorized by this bill, will accomplish nothing more than to whet the appetite for an exhorbitantly expensive and fantastic deicing scheme to plague the Congress in future years.

NO SHOWING OF NEED FOR YEAR-ROUND
SHIPPING

Navigation on the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence Seaway, and their connecting channels is now open about 82 months each year, from early April to midDecember. The principal commodities shipped over this waterway are bulk cargoes, such as ore, coal, and grain. The quantities of ore and coal shipped annuquantities of ore and coal shipped annually are more or less fixed, and if these waters were open for navigation an additional 32 months each year, it merely means that these shipments could be spread over a longer period of time, not that more cargo would be moved. The same applies to shipments of grain, movement of which depend largely upon the foreign market, rather than the reriod of navigability upon the Great Lakes riod of navigability upon the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Furthermore, there has been no indication that shipping interests would navigate these waters during the winter months even if some measure of deicing were possible. In fact, it appears that little if any additional shipping would result, because of the ever-present danger of ice floes in the open waters of the Great Lakes, the real possibility of vessels becoming frozen in for the entire winter, and the substantially increased insurance rates imposed on vessels at the commencement of the winter season.

No evidence was presented before the Committee on Public Works of need for year-round navigation, and no witnesses appeared in behalf of the shipping industry or shippers to support this bill.

NO SHOWING THAT DEICING IS PRACTICAL The Great Lakes and their connecting channels have a total water surface of about 95,000 square miles. The distance from Duluth at the western end of Lake Superior to the mouth of the St. Lawrence River is approximately 1,716 miles. In the restricted channels connecting the Great Lakes there are the St. Marys River, about 65 miles in length; channels between Lakes Huron and Erie, about 90 miles; Welland Canal, 28 miles; the St. Lawrence River from Lake Ontario to Montreal, about 190 miles, and from Montreal to the Isle of Orleans, 190 miles, making a total of about 563 miles of restricted channels in which heavy ice is prevalent from December through March of each year. To this must be added the ice problem in the Great Lakes themselves and the many harbors involved. The magnitude of deicing becomes readily apparent when we consider the mileage involved.

Maj.

Nor does the difficulty end here. Gen. Jackson Graham, Director of Civil Works, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, testified that, in his opinion, the major problem is to prevent the accumulation of ice as a result of wind and storm, even after a channel may have been opened. Ice floes in the Great Lakes pile up 20 to 30 feet above the surface of the water, and to almost an equal depth beneath the water. These floes drift around with the wind, and constitute a serious danger to shipping. No one has suggested a feasible method of preventing wind and storms from forming these obstructive ice floes, or of controlling the floes, even assuming that a channel can be deiced in the first instance.

According to the testimony, the only method of deicing that has met with any degree of success is the air-bubbling system. It has been used for some time to keep a few feet of water ice free at the face of dams, to enable operation of gates during winter. Some limited use has been made of air bubbling by this country, Canada, and the Scandinavian countries to keep small areas of water free of ice, such as small channels, marina boat basins, and a working area around a dredge. However, this or any around a dredge. other known method of deicing appears completely impractical of application to large areas of water, and certainly not to one so vast as the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence Seaway, and their connecting channels.