20 years or more this question has been pressed by residents, businessmen, and motorists who have been plagued by the ever-increasing floods at the intersection of United States Routes 1 and 50, in Bladensburg. Therefore, upon coming to Congress in January 1953, as Representative of the Fifth Congressional District of Maryland, one of the first things I did was to inquire into the legislative steps necessary to get flood relief at Peace Cross. It was a pleasure for me to spearhead the drive in Congress for the Anacostia River flood-control project.

One of the problems not generally known to the public was the fact that the Anacostia River is considered a navigable river and therefore comes under the jurisdiction of the United States Army engineers. Even though the Maryland State Legislature, on April 11, 1953, made available $4,250,000 for the Peace Cross flood-control project, this money could not be used until a Federal appropriation, also, was available, which would enable the Army engineers to go in and supervise the work. It was necessary, therefore, that the Army engineers make a comprehensive survey of the project and submit their report and recommendations.

Early in the 1st session of the 83d Congress I started my campaign for "project Peace Cross." On March 6, 1953, I called in person on Director Joseph M. Dodge, of the Bureau of the Budget. At that time I urged Director Dodge to include funds for Peace Cross in the budget that he was then preparing for submission to the Congress. Repeatedly thereafter I made strong representations to Director Dodge; the Honorable JOHN TABER, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee; and the Honorable GLENN R. DAVIS, chairman of the Subcommittee on Army Civil Functions and Military Construction. I presented in evidence photographs, cartoons, editorials, articles, and letters received from individuals and citizens' groups, all of which pointed up the seriousness of the situation. Not once were these gentlemen permitted to forget the urgent need for an appropriation to clean up the mess at Peace Cross. On March 18, 1953, I asked Chairman TABER for an opportunity to present testimony and witnesses before the House Appropriations Subcommittee then about to consider the Army civil functions appropriation bill. During April and May I contacted the leaders of the House, outlining to them the deplorable conditions that existed in the Bladensburg area and urging their support of the project. On May 13 I testified before the Army Civil Functions Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.

Back in April 1953, while contacting the Army engineers, I was reminded that the overall policy announced by the President for the entire country was "No new starts on construction in 1953." This meant that any project on which work had not already been started was a hopeless cause for that year. Nevertheless, I continued to present the Peace Cross project at every opportunity, and on May 22, 1953, I testified before the Senate

Committee on Appropriations. When the Army civil-functions appropriation bill left the House, it did not include funds for the Anacostia River Basin floodcontrol project, but through the efforts of Senator JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER and Senator J. GLENN BEALL, an item of $500,000 was inserted on the Senate side and received Senate approval. To our great disappointment the item was knocked out by the conferees, and the bill that went to the President for signature contained no funds for Peace Cross.

Another attempt was made on July 30, 1953, to obtain construction funds for Peace Cross when the supplemental appropriations bill was amended by the Senate to provide $200,000 for this purpose, but again the item was struck out when the bill went to conference. On August 1, 1953, I went on the floor of the House with the purpose in mind of offering a motion to have the House put this item back in the supplemental appropriations bill. However, after discussing the matter with the conferees I realized that they were working under extreme pressure and that there were a number of other items that would have to be considered if the debate were opened for consideration of the Peace Cross item. To force the issue at that time was not practicable. In spite of all our efforts, another appropriation bill had been passed without any provision for flood relief at Peace Cross.

So, we had to start all over again in the 2d session of the 83d Congress. More representations were made to the Bureau of the Budget, to the congressional leadership, and to the committees. Finally I appealed directly to the President, and this time I got results. My first information that Peace Cross was included in the proposed budget came from the White House. This was clear evidence that the President had acted in our behalf.

Inclusion of the item in the budget was the first and most important step. The next step was to again appear before the House and Senate committees. This I did, presenting additional arguments and material. I displayed a map showing that civil-defense highways led, of all places, directly to Peace Cross. I showed the committee blowups of photographs depicting actual flood conditions, with buses and ambulances bogged down in the middle of the Peace Cross puddle. I quoted reports telling of the man-hours lost by Federal and District of Columbia Government employees when Peace Cross was flooded, because they were daily commuters between Prince George's County and the Nation's Capital and must go through Bladensburg.

Now we were getting somewhere. The House approved an item of $1 million for Peace Cross; the Senate lowered the amount to $900,000 but approved the item; and the conferees approved this latter amount. At long last an appropriation bill containing funds for Peace Cross was on its way to the White House. The President signed the bill on June 30, 1954.

AID TO EDUCATION

Although, as a businessman, I am generally opposed to Federal grants and subsidies and the intervention of the Federal Government which usually goes with such aid, there is an instance in which I make exception—that is, Federal aid to our schools in Government-impacted areas. In this situation, where the Federal Government causes an impacted condition in certain areas by the installation of its agencies, resulting in an additional financial burden on local governments, I feel it is only fair that the Federal Government contribute toward that financial responsibility.

The Fifth Congressional District has several areas that are highly impacted as a result of the expansion of Federal projects and installations. We are vitally affected because of the heavy expense incurred, not only in the construction of schools but also in the construction and maintenance of roads; maintenance of police and fire protection, sanitary facilities, and various other facilities which are normal and necessary adjuncts to our schools. The Federal Government has taken thousands of acres of our ground, causing a heavy loss in tax revenue. At the same time we are confronted with a continuing heavy influx of population coincidental with the expansion of Federal projects and installations. This increase in population adds to the overburdening of our already crowded school systems.

While I am basically committed to and support reduction in Government expenditures and balancing the budget, I think it would be wrong to start with our schools and our schoolchildren. I, therefore, voted to restore the item providing aid to schools in the second supplemental appropriations bill and supported the school construction in federally affected areas bill and legislation for emergency school construction.

Other legislative action, not involving appropriations, is sometimes necessary to aid our schools. For instance, early in 1953, the Prince George's County Board of Education sought my assistance in obtaining a much-needed site for a proposed new school in the Oxon HillForest Heights area. The site in question was part of the St. Elizabeths Hospital tract. I ascertained that Congressional action would be necessary to effect a transfer of this land from the Federal Government to the Prince George's County Board of Education. Accordingly, I promptly introduced appropriate legislation. By diligently pursuing, step by step, the legislative procedure essential to passage of a bill in Congress, I succeeded in obtaining approval of this transfer of land. The bill has now been signed by the President and has become law.

partment recommended approval of the request for a transfer, and subsequently the Department of Defense gave approval as disposal project No. 24, subject to approval of the Armed Services Committees of the House and Senate. Approval was given, also, by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Complying with my urgent requests, repeatedly emphasized, that action be taken prior to adjournment of the 83d Congress, the Senate and House committees have now given their approval

of the transfer.

THE HATCH ACT

From the time this legislation was enacted I have felt that the sections prohibiting Federal, State, or local government employees from taking an active part in political management or in political campaigns are unfair. I am sure that I have as many civil-service employees in my district as any Member of Congress, and I feel that they should have the right to go out and get on a stump and express themselves freely as to why they think I should or should not be reelected to Congress. They pay taxes and they have the same obligtions as other citizens. They should not be penalized because they happen to earn their bread and butter by working for a Government agency.

The bill that I introduced to amend the Hatch Act is a simple one. It would merely eliminate the two sections of the act that prohibit Government employees from participating in political campaigns. The other portions of the act that now protect them from pressure, coercion, and compulsion to contribute to political campaigns are still retained. With the adoption of my amendment, the employees would still have the protection of the original act, plus the restoration of their right to express themselves like other citizens.

Two days of hearings were held on my bill in February of this year before the Subcommittee on Elections of the House Administration Committee. The Civil Service Commission expressed itself during the hearings as opposed to my amendment. The Commission argued that the provision of the Hatch Act that states, "No officer or employee in the executive branch of the Federal Government, or any agency or department thereof, shall take any active part in political management or in political campaigns," while set up in restricting language, is actually a "protection" for Federal employees, since it applies to supervisors as well as subordinates and "protects" the individual employee from political coercion. I cannot agree with this theory. You can set up all sorts of "protection" around people. You can put them in jail in order that they will not be hit by an automobile, and keep them there the rest of thier lives-if you consider such action "protection." But I do not think this kind of protection is justifiable. As I have stated, the main portion of the Hatch Act which is purported to be for the protection of Government employees, is retained. I fail to see where my proposed amendment removes this protection from any Government employee; it simply restores the

right to individual citizens of the United States of America to express themselves.

The hearings were adjourned, subject to call of the chairman, and no further action has been taken on my bill. But some good did result from the hearings. During the consideration of this legislation, it was pointed out that unduly severe penalties could be imposed upon a State or local employee for minor infractions of the Hatch Act, such as wearing an oversized political button. The penalty for such violation would be the same as if the employee had hired a sound truck and actively campaigned. Attention having been called to this situation, the question was raised: "What advisability is there of giving more discretion to the Commission on the supension or removal of State and local employees?" This question was referred to the Civil Service Commission for study, and the Chairman requested that the Commission report back to the subcommittee. After receiving the Commission's report, the full Committee on House Administration reported favorably on a bill granting the Commission more discretion in imposing penalties on State and local employees.

This liberalization is indicative of the growing sentiment with respect to the prohibitive and punitive features of the Hatch Act, and I shall continue to press for further liberalization for all Government employees.

Legislative action was completed in the House on August 17, authorizing construction of the Jones Point Bridge across the Potomac from Prince George's County to Alexandria. This bill will now go to the White House for final approval. This new bridge will be an important link in the development of the metropolitan area, and I have supported this legislation actively in committee and on the floor of the House. A central area bridge to serve the downtown area of Washington was included in the authorization.

DELAWARE AND CHESAPEAKE CANAL

I supported in committe and on the floor legislation for widening and deepening the Delaware and Chesapeake Canal. This project, when completed, should be a great benefit to the port of Baltimore and to the whole State of Maryland.

GOOD MANAGEMENT

The 83d Congress set a modern speed record June 30 when it completed action

on every regular appropriation bill a day before the new fiscal year began, and saved money in the process. Disregarding all other achievements, this is a noteworthy accomplishment indicative of good management. The second session of the 80th Congress was the only other in the past 25 years to operate so efficiently. The total amount approved in the appropriation bills this year was $47,642,131,205-almost $7 billion less than in 1953. We have achieved a tax cut of over $7 billion.

The immense volume of legislation confrontingfronting Members of Congress is better understood when you know that 10,695 measures were introduced in the Senate and House in 1953, and by June 30, 1954, the number had climbed to 15,133. The President has signed into law in this Congress more than 500 bills.

The United States Department of Commerce reports that the gross national production for 1953 reached $365 billion, the greatest in all our history, exceeding 1952 by $19 billion. It is believed that 1954 will top any previous year. Personal services and personal income are proportionately higher than any previous years. Employment for the month of July this year showed an increase of 50,000 over the previous month. Virtually all business indicators show an optimistic picture.

Construction also is hitting all-time highs, and is expected this year to exceed any previous year by $3 million. All of this, plus an estimated increase of 19 million in our population in the next 6 years, heralds an era of continued production and prosperity. It is largely up to everyone to take advantage of his opportunities under such an expanding peacetime economy. It is my purpose to serve the best interests of the people of the Fifth Congressional District of Maryland and the best interests of the United States. I have an efficient staff dedicated to the ideal of service and always ready to assist in every way we can in any worthy matter before the Government. You will find us on the job daily at 1608 New House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

Congressional Actions Boost Service Careers

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. BOB WILSON

OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Friday, August 20, 1954

Mr. WILSON of California. Mr. Speaker, the 83d Congress has reversed the 10-year trend of cutbacks of military benefits. We have taken many constructive steps to improve the attractiveness of military service.

These results are outlined admirably in a recent article by Congressman DEWEY SHORT, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, which was printed in the Army-Navy-Air Force Journal of August 21, 1954. Under

Recent magazine articles have outlined numerous difficulties which the armed services face in retaining career personnel. Little has been written, however, to advise the public of the actions which have been taken during this Congress to overcome these deficiencies. In order to keep the record straight, I want to discuss what I deem to be the principal points of interest.

It is true that the last pay raise voted by the Congress for military personnel was less than the 10 percent requested. It is also true that subsequent to that pay increase there had been a series of actions, both in the Congress and in the executive branch, which curtailed or otherwise adversely affected a number of the so-called fringe benefits. During the first session of this Congress, this committee took this whole

problem under serious consideration and it was decided that the first priority of business should be to restore, to the maximum possible extent, fringe benefits to their original status. This decision was largely predicated on the fact that the overwhelming number of service personnel, both officers and enlisted persons, who wrote to the committee about their problems were far more interested in the restoration of fringe benefits than they were in an immediate pay raise.

CONGRESS IS CONCERNED

The following discussion of committee actions, which began in the first session, presents the best available evidence that the Congress is not only deeply concerned about the welfare of service personnel but is taking constructive action in support of those beliefs.

Some 4 or 5 years ago when the Congress began looking for ways to economize, the Appropriations Committees of both the House and the Senate, which were under the control of a Democratic administration, instituted a series of legislative riders and limitations which would have an adverse effect upon the fringe benefits of service personnel. These actions continued through succeeding sessions of Congress and through the first session of this Congress under a Republican administration. However, the President has stated his opposition to these actions and it is a definite fact to say that the trend has certainly made a turn for the better. It is also accurate to state that the Armed Services Committees have continued to oppose these infringements upon service benefits and have instituted a series of actions, legislative and otherwise, which have already overcome a number of the previous adverse effects.

RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED

Among the first restrictions placed on service personnel, particularly officers, was the limitation on promotions. This was soon followed by a restriction on retirement, an attempt to close a number of commissaries, a restriction on the transportation of household effects, and other similar adverse actions.

Without belaboring the details, the House Armed Services Committee began a detailed study of the ill effects of the promotion and retirement restrictions, which study consumed more than 6 months of effort. The net result was the approval of a bill by the committee which established a reasonable system of temporary promotions, repealed the promotion limitation, and the retirement limitation. The bill has now been passed by the House and the Senate and signed by the President.

With reference to commissaries, it should be pointed out that at the time of the commissary limitation in the appropriation bill there were approximately 206 commissaries

a liberal interpretation on the restrictive language in the appropriations bill and, as a result, only six commissaries were closed. Four of that six were located on installations which were then scheduled to be deactivated and have in fact now been deactivated. Therefore, the net loss of commissaries has been 2 out of more than 200.

In this regard it is pertinent to point out that the House Armed Services Committee will consider legislation as soon as possible with the view of determining whether or not present cost limitations on commissaries should be relaxed.

INCREASE HOUSEHOLD LIMIT

A study was also instituted last year to determine the net effect of the limitation

on the transportation of household effects. In accomplishing this study a comparison was made between the same type of authority granted members of the Foreign Service of the State Department for the transportation of their household effects. The result clearly showed a discrimination against military personnel. During the course of this study it was also determined that an increase in the present maximum limit of 9,000 pounds to approximately 11,000 pounds would relieve practically every person in military service of the possibility of defraying any portion of the cost of transporting his household effects. The House Armed Services Committee strongly recommended the increase to 11,000 pounds, and that has been accomplished..

The inadequacy or total lack of family housing for married personnel in the service, as well as the inadequacy of barracks for enlisted personnel, has been another source of disappointment and an additional reason for the lowering of service morale. In this regard the President recommended a new housing program for military and naval installations throughout the country, and it is pertinent to note that, even though this request was made late in the second session of this Congress, the Congress today took final action which authorizes the construction of approximately 12,000 new family units on bases throughout the country, with a limited number at stated overseas installations. The supplemental appropriation bill contains an initial increment of $75 million toward this authorization of $175 million. In addition, the same bill includes another authorization in the amount of $25 million for the construction of family units at overseas bases through the use of foreign currencies generated through the sale of agricultural products in those countries by the Commodity Credit Corporation. This is a completely new venture in the various attempts to provide more and better family housing both at home and abroad; and if it proves successful, an additional authorization for overseas construction will undoubtedly be granted by the Congress.

MEDICAL CARE IS PROBLEM

The question of dependent medical care has become increasingly serious. This has resulted from a series of related actions. In the first place, all of the services except the Air Force are decreasing in size. When the forces in any given areas have been drastically decreased, there can no longer be a justification for maintaining the particular service hospital in the area, if, through reorganization, the normal complement of service personnel in that area are assigned to another area. This has definitely occurred in some cases, resulting in the closing of certain service hospitals which dependents have relied upon for medical care.

In addition, the services must all rely upon doctors whose services are obtained through

the Doctor Draft Act. It is only natural for any doctor to complain if he is drafted from his civilian pursuits into one of the services and then required to devote a major portion of his time to the treatment of service dependents. I think all reasonable people will appreciate that there is some validity to that type of complaint. It is this very situation which is causing much of the present hardship in those service hospitals which are continuing to operate. Of course this provides no comfort for the service dependents.

However, it should be noted that the President has recommended legislation which would provide dependent care on a scale never heretofore attained. It would authorize service dependents to obtain such care in their own civilian communities, from their own family physicians under circumstances wherein the Federal Government would defray almost the entire cost. That legislation will be before the House Armed Services Committee in the 84th Congress.

A final item of great interest among enlisted personnel concerns a possible increase

in the reenlistment bonus. The Committees on Armed Services have taken speedy action on this legislation and it has already been approved by the Congress and signed by the President. As a result, those reenlisting will receive a substantial increase in their reenlistment bonus.

MAKE SERVICES ATTRACTIVE

In times like the present it is always true that it is possible for the more able service personnel to earn more money in a civilian occupation than in the pursuit of a service career. However, history has proven this to be a temporary situation and it is factually correct to say that there have been many occasions in the past when life in the service was far more attractive than life in the civilian community. In the final analysis, persons in the service must view their situation on a long term basis and then reach that decision which they feel would most nearly meet their own desires and needs.

The foregoing discussion of service benefits does not exhaust the list of matters under consideration. However, it should serve to insure all reasonable persons in military service that persons in authority in the Government, including the President, various able representatives in all of the services, responsible committees of the Congress, and a large number of individual Congressmen are all working in concert for a common goal: To make service life more attractive and give the maximum amount of stability to a service career.

Representative Rogers Rips Reds

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. D. R. (BILLY) MATTHEWS

OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, August 20, 1954

Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include in the RECORD an editorial which appeared in the Palm Beach Post, a great Florida newspaper, in its issue of August 5, 1954. This editorial commends my friend and able colleague from Florida, Congressman ROGERS, for his successful fight to prevent reinstatement and payment of damages to 11 "fifth amendment Americans" employed by the United Nations. I supported Congressman ROGERS' position and I am proud of The the great victory which he won. editorial from the Palm Beach Post follows:

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS RIPS REDS There is no more vigilant foe of communism and subversion in Congress than Florida's own Representative DWIGHT ROGERS. Most recent example is his concurrent reso

lution designed to prevent reinstatement

and payment of damages to 11 "fifth amendment Americans" employed by the United

Nations.

Representative ROGERS asked the Congress to throw its moral support behind the United States delegation to the U. N. to "resist and prevent" salary awards from being paid by the General Assembly to what he termed "disloyal" employees. He said they "refused to testify before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee when asked about their membership in the Communist apparatus and other subversive activities. All of them took refuge under the fifth amendment and refused to answer questions.

Whereupon Secretary General Trygve Lie dismissed them from the United Nations employment."

The disloyal Americans appealed to the Administrative Tribunal at Geneva, which decided they must be reinstated and awarded damages of $179,420. This verdict was later upheld by the International Court of Justice. The court's opinions are not binding on the U. N., so the next step will be a decision by the General Assembly on whether to pay the awards.

Representative ROGERS points out that since the the American taxpayers foot most of the bills for U. N. expenses, payment of the awards would be contrary to national policy. "We should not use American taxpayers' money ⚫ to pay American employees engaged in subversive activities and who refuse to testify on account of self-incrimination and take refuge under the fifth amendment," he told the House of Representatives.

ROGERS' proposal drew immediate support of many of his House colleagues and will gain further widespread backing among his constituents, including us. Any covenant which binds this Nation to pay compensation for the privilege of being betrayed is indefensible. Any agreement which permits any body except the United States Congress to appropriate or allocate American tax moneys is stupid.

If, in spite of the efforts of Representative

ROGERS and other true Americans, the United Nations insists on paying those subversives, there will be chalked up another reason why the United States should get out of that international fiasco. It may take the admission of Red China as a member to do it, but there is already on the record good and sufficient cause.

Perhaps Representative ROGERS may some day see fit to lead the fight to extricate us from that foreign entanglement. We still think George Washington was right.

Alcide de Gasperi

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. PHILIP J. PHILBIN

OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, August 20, 1954

Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in the RECORD, I include therein a recent statement appearing in the Washington Post and Times Herald concerning the most unfortunate passing of Alcide de Gasperi, distinguished Italian statesman.

most sobbing as he warned his protege that "if the defense community is not established, God knows what will happen."

"Gesu! Gesu! (Jesus! Jesus!)" were De Gasperi's last words just before he died, his

Like everyone in the free world, I was greatly shocked to learn of the passing of this great man. He was a fearless champion of freedom, a courageous ghter against communism and his family reported. death is a great blow to the cause of freedom.

Signor de Gasperi, though confronted with powerful, ruthless opposition and defection among some of his own followers and suffering from poor health, never gave up the fight to keep Italy free. Head of the Italian Christian Democrats, it was through his influence that radical and conservative extremes in his own party were deterred from that unhappy compromise and vacillation characterizing recent developments in France.

Facing not only difficult problems of foreign affairs but an avalanche of violent attacks by adversaries of the left and right, Signor de Gasperi was beseiged by baffling internal problems of agrarian reform, unemployment and over-population. No opposition, however strong and ruthless, was able to suppress the zeal and high spirit of Signor de Gasperi's determination to fight off and conquer dangerous Communist movements threatening to engulf his nation.

He was a statesman of first caliber, and we can only hope that time and events will develop new leadership of his quality, persistency, and ability to maintain an unyielding front against communism.

The place of Alcide de Gasperi in the history of our era is already assured. It will be a high and noble one. His death is an irreparable loss to the free world; but the memory of his deeds, his personal valor, his never-say-die spirit, will continue to inspire the great Italian people.

The memory of his triumphs will give them courage, I am sure, to fight with the same fortitude and determination

against the unprecedented threat to their liberties. The way may be hard, the problems great, the alternatives of economic chaos and spiritual decadence distressing. But the recollection of what Signor de Gasperi did to preserve human freedom in his day may well be the spark that will again fire the noble Italian people with the fervor and indominable will to protect their free way of life against the great Communist conspiracy seeking to destroy it.

Alcide de Gasperi has left a noble legacy. It is for a revitalized Italy to proserve it.

The article referred to follows: DE GASPERI, FOE OF ITALIAN COMMUNISTS DEAD AT 73 AFTER A HEART SEIZURE SELLA VAL SUGANA, ITALY, August 19.-Villagers mourned side by side with national leaders today at the bier of former Premier Alcide de Gasperi, the anti-Communist battler who led Italy out of postwar chaos.

The body of the 73-year-old Christian Democrat leader lay in a simple wooden bed in the pine-surrounded chalet in his native Tyrolean hills, where a heart attack felled him early today.

De Gasperi fought for the European Defense Community (EDC) almost to the last, and hazards now besetting European unity at a six-nation Brussels meeting apparently contributed to his passing.

Only last night he made an impassioned telephone call to Premier Mario Scelba, al

POPE SENDS CONDOLENCE

One of the first to send condolences was Pope Pius XII, whose Roman Catholic faithful provide a bulwark of support for the Christian Democrats.

President Eisenhower praised De Gasperi's "devotion to democracy and his dedication to the cause of European integration."

Prime Minister Churchill said De Gasperi served both Italy and all Europe "loyally and well."

From the Brussels EDC meeting, West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer sent a message declaring that the "loss of De Gasperi is a blow for everybody who cares for the future of Europe."

Even De Gasperi's longtime political foe, Italian Communist Chief Palmiro Togliatti, Joined in the condolences.

It had been generally expected that De Gasperi would have been elected president of Italy next year at the end of the term of incumbent Luigi Einaudi.

NO HINT OF ILLNESS

De Gasperi ended his 71⁄2 years as head of the Italian Government a year ago, in July 1953. He resigned after losing a confidence vote in Parliament, but his party kept its political grip and successive Premiers have

been Christian Democrats.

A little more than a month ago, De Gasperi relinquished his titular leadership of the Christian Democrat Party machine to a younger man, Amintore Fanfani, former Agriculture Minister in one of his cabinets.

Although there had been reports of poor health, De Gasperi's death came without any prior public hint that he was seriously ill. Only after his death was it revealed that he suffered a heart attack a week ago.

His heart pains became intense Tuesday. He suffered a seizure at 2 a. m. today, an hour before the attack that took his life. His physician, his devoted wife, Francesca, and 2 of his 3 daughters were at his bedside. A third daughter is in a convent.

"I say goodbye to all people who loved me,” he told his family and Msgr. Rodolfo Grandi,

who gave his extreme unction, minutes before.

De Gasperl's body will be brought to Rome Sunday. The final services-a solemn state funeral will be held Monday.

BROKE WITH MUSSOLINI

Born near Trent, De Gasperi stemmed from Italian parentage in the southern Tyrol region. At the time of his birth, that area was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Dedicated to the ideal of a democratic

Italy as a youth, he was arrested at the age of 23 for taking part in a political demonstration.

He was elected to this first legislative post in 1911 when Trent electors sent him to the Austrian Parliament in Vienna. There he became a powerful voice for the Italian minorities.

When his native Tyrol went to Italy after World War I, De Gasperi joined the Popular Italian Party-forerunner of the Christian Democrats. He was elected a member of its national council in 1919 and 2 years later entered the Italian Chamber of Deputies.

Under De Gasperi's leadership, the Popular Party broke with Mussolini after the rise of Fascist power and De Gasperi retired to Tyrol in the face of П Duce's suppression of opposition elements.

ENEMY OF COMMUNISM Although he kept a hand in politics and was imprisoned in 1927 for 18 months on charges of clandestine activities, De Gasperi's

fullscale return to political life came only with World War II. He joined the opposition and the reconstructed Popular Party.

Once, after Italy's surrender and the Nazi seizure of Rome in September 1943, he took refuge from police in the Basilica of St. John the Lateran.

In July 1944, when the Christian Democrat Party was formed, De Gasperi became its leader and party secretary. He became foreign minister in April 1945, and premier in December.

In 1948 he inflicted a smashing election defeat on Italy's Communists, and for 5 years after that fought the Reds at every turn. In 1949 he brought Italy into the North Atlantic Alliance against Communist aggression as a charter member of NATO. He was one of the leading spirits in the Schuman coal-steel plan, the Council of Europe and the European army.

Take the World in Stride

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. J. VAUGHAN GARY

OF VIRGINIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Friday, August 20, 1954

Mr. GARY. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I should like to call to the attention of the Members of the House a recent address by Vera Micheles Dean, editor of the Foreign Policy Association, recently visiting professor of government at Smith College, and now visiting professor of government at the University of Rochester, delivered on June 5 at the annual alumni-alumnae dinner at the University of Richmond, Va. The address proved most stimulating, and I believe that every American interested in the world crisis and America's responsibility to meet this crisis in the atomic age will profit by reading excerpts from it.

The address follows:

TAKE THE WORLD IN STRIDE

(By Vera Micheles Dean) Earlier generations, in other periods of crisis, had to grapple with problems which, for them, were no easier than those of our own times. Yet they summoned the courage to live, and to us now living they transmitted a rich heritage or ideas and aspirations which we, in turn, must pass on to those who come after us. They took the world in stride. And so must we.

It is the fashion among us today to deplore the mistakes the United States is said to have made in world affairs. With this deprecatory and often cynical attitude I emphatically disagree. I see no reason why we should go around, either at home or abroad, in sackcloth and ashes, saying that this country is always wrong, or that the Republicans or Democrats, as the case may be, are guilty of treason because we did not always achieve the goals we set for ourselves.

Of course we have made mistakes in the past; and we shall make other mistakes in the future. But what nation hasn't? Search the records as much as you want to; you will find no such nation. What we must remember is that we are new to foreign policy. It is only since 1945 that our country has emerged as a great power on the world stage. Before that time we were like spectators who from comfortable seats could watch the drama of world events unrolling before our eyes. It's true that once in a while we would become sufficiently excited

about what we saw to hiss the villain or applaud the hero. And twice in the lifetime of your parents we became so deeply aroused that we leaped upon the stage and took part in two world wars.

But even as we did so, we had the reassuring feeling in the back of our minds that, once the curtain was rung down, once the war was over, we could get off the stage and again lean back in our comfortable seats. It was only in 1945 that we realized we could no longer do this; that from then on, whether we liked it or not, we had to take part permanently in the world's drama. We were unprepared for this sudden change in our role.

We have improvised policies in areas of the world where we had had little or no experience before. And, given our amateur status, we have turned in what is on the whole a creditable performance; a performance that includes the Marshall plan; the defense of Greece and Turkey; the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; the Berlin airlift; point 4 aid to the underdeveloped areas of the world; the struggle for the independence of South Korea; and cooperation in many spheres with the United Nations.

For a Nation which on the eve of World War II was still dreaming of isolation from the crises of Europe and Asia and hoped to maintain its neutrality, the United States has moved far on the road toward responsibility in the building of the world community. And we have done this together, Republicans and Democrats, as we have tried to develop and maintain a bipartisan foreign policy.

But a nation, like an individual, can never stand still. It can't rest on its laurels. And as we move forward from national adolescence to maturity, there are two things we must bear in mind if we are to fulfill our new role in world affairs to the best of our ability. We must not expect everyone to love us; and we must learn to face the facts of international life without flinching.

I find it embarrassing to hear some of our fellow citizens ask "Why don't the Indians (or British, or Chinese, or Russians) love us?" Or, more constructively, "What could we do to make them love us?" It is time we discovered that there is no such thing as love affairs among nations. True, some nations have begun to be aware of our desire for public expression of appreciation. Take Pakistan, for example. In 1953, when we gave wheat to that drought-stricken country, the Pakistanis drove 400 camels to the dock in Karachi, their capital and principal port, each carrying a placard which read, "Thank you, America." Now that kind of gratitude is, of course, very pleasant, when it comes spontaneously, from the heart of those to whom we have found it possible to give aid. But we must not expect all the nations whom we help-knowing that by helping others we also strengthen ourselves to go about like the Pakistani camels, saying, "Thank you, America," every hour, on the hour.

As we grow in maturity, we shall realize that it is impossible to please all nations all of the time. If we support France in Morocco, we shall lose the support of many Moroccans, and many more Asians and Africans. If we help the Moroccan nationalists, we are bound to hurt the feelings of the French. But this is the kind of decision that each of us make day in day out in our homes, on the college campus, in our local community. We have to learn to make choices on the basis of the best information we can get, and stop worrying whether we please everybody. For if you try to please everybody and have no critics or enemies, you will turn out to be a Milquetoast, without convictions, without principles, and without a policy.

Thus we see that to have an effective foreign policy we must make the next step:

we must learn the fact of international life. Here there are three main points which, like Ariadne's thread, may help us to find our way through the seemingly exitless labyrinth of world affairs.

First, let's remember that ideologies come and go, but geography remains. Some people dispute this point, contending that atomic weapons and the H-bomb have obliterated geography. But take a look at the map. You will find that the main trouble spots which have plagued mankind throughout history are still important in the strategic plans of the great powers at mid20th century: Suez and Panama; the Baltic and the Dardanelles; Poland and Korea; Persia and Tibet; and so on down the list. Even if we atomize Moscow and Peiping tomorrow-or they atomize us-we would still have to cope with the problems of geography: That is, of course, assuming that the whole universe does not blow up in the meantime.

Second, the world struggle in the midst of which we live is not only a clash of 2 sets of ideas; of 2 moral, political, and economic systems. It is also a struggle to strike a new balance of power, to replace the balance shattered in World Wars I and II.

When I was in college the balance of power was regarded as a sordid device used by the British to keep hold of their world empire. It is only since the United States itself has become a world power and, in many areas of the globe has taken over some of the responsibilities once carried by the British, that we have come to realize there has to be a balance of power, or, if that sounds better, a balance of interests, in all human relations: In New York, and Washington, and San Francisco; between Republicans and Democrats; between the various elements in our society-labor, capital, farmers, conon every college campus and in every organization. But now something new has been added. For we are now working to create a community of nations. What we are trying to do is to bring the balance of power within the confines and under the supervision of the United Nations, where not only the great powers, but also the small countries, are represented; just as in the United States we try to fit the often conflicting interests of the many diverse groups into the framework of the Nation so that they can work together for national, and not only for their own special interests.

sumers;

This brings us to the third point that may help to guide us in world affairs: The value of diversity. Some of us, as we read or hear the clashes of views between nations different in their traditions, historical development, political, economic, and social conditions, may be tempted to say: "But this is dangerous; we can't cooperate with peoples who don't see eye to eye with us; let's get out of the United Nations and work only with nations whose ideas and practices are exactly like ours."

This is the road to isolation. For there is no nation in the world which is exactly like any other, and if we have to wait for nations that agree with us on everything, we shall be postponing international cooperation till doomsday. And do we really want to have complete uniformity? Americans believe in individualism. Democracy by definition, welcomes diversity-diversity of race, religion, and ideas. What we welcome at home we can hardly reject in our relations with other peoples. Nor need we fear, as some of us do, that by mingling with peoples who challenge our beliefs and way of life, we shall succumb to theirs. Those are indeed men and women of little faith who think that our convictions are so frail they will be blighted by the first contact with the outside world.

What, then, are the facts of international life our Nation must face? Nothing would be more dangerous for the future of our Nation than if we, through fear of criticism,