cle points out, this victory "makes the first lady of Wyoming politics one of the West's most powerful political figures."

Had her husband, Keith, lived, he would have been occupying this Senate seat, but his death 1 month after his election in 1960 deprived Wyoming of one of her finest and most promising political figures.

Mr. President, I ask that the feature Post's Rena article by the Denver Post's Rena Andrews, entitled "Love Affair With Wyoming," be printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

LOVE AFFAIR WITH WYOMING

(By Rena Andrews)

CHEYENNE, WYO.-Thyra Thomson, Wyoming's first woman secretary of state, holds the highest elected executive position of any woman in the United States. That's because Wyoming has no Lieutenant Governor, so the secretary of state is Acting Governor when the Governor is absent.

This, plus the fact Mrs. Thomson, a Republican, defeated her opponent for the secretary of state's job by a decisive victory15,000 votes-makes the first lady of Wyoming politics one of the West's most powerful political figures.

And Wyoming's politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, are fidgety because Mrs. Thomson might decide to run-for Governor or the U.S. Senate, not to mention her present job-in the elections of 1966. The general feeling in political circles is that if Mrs. Thomson decides to run-for anythingshe'll be a "sure winner."

spotted a pet shop. This is how we got This is how we got Tootsie," a mixed breed black and tan dog. Mrs. Thomson sold the ranch at Cody and

settled in a spacious four-bedroom home at

204 E. 22d St. in Cheyenne.

Mrs. Thomson likes to point out her home is only about one and one-half blocks from the home Mrs. Esther Hobart Morris once occupied. Mrs. Morris, whose statue adorns the grounds of Wyoming's capitol building, was the proponent of the legislative act in 1869 which made Wyoming the first government in the world to grant women equal ment in the world to grant women equal rights.

Until after her husband's death, the closest Mrs. Thomson had gotten to politics was as a Congressman's wife. While living in the Nation's Capital from 1954 to 1961, Mrs. Thomson wrote a weekly column, "Watching Washington," which was published in 14 newspapers. She also "shared and discussed ideas with Keith" about politics.

Today it is hard to say what made Thyra Thomson decide on a political career. Some Wyomingites maintain it was an accident, others say it was anger at "what happened with (former Governor) Hickey," and still others say she may have wanted to keep the Thomson name alive by continuing in her husband's chosen field.

Mrs. Thomson gives no specific explanation as to why she decided to run for and become Wyoming's first woman secretary of state. The fact is that she was urged to run both for the U.S. Senate seat to which her husband was elected and for the secretary of state office.

When told that several political figuresrepresentatives of both parties-say they feel certain she could finish ahead in the gubernatorial race, Mrs. Thomson just smiles and says, "I'm flattered." But she adds that Wyoming's Gov. Cliff Hansen, also a Republican, is "one of the greatest men I've ever met."

Would Mrs. Thomson consider running for the Senate?

"I love my job and I love Wyoming," she answers. "There's an awful lot to be done right here in our State."

It's a woman's prerogative not to give her age, but Mrs. Thomson has no qualms about saying, "I'm 49."

Yet, when it comes to her political plans, her answer is:

"Ask me this time next year."

Mrs. Thomson was born in Florence, Colo. She moved to Wyoming when she was in the eighth grade and says she considers the Equality State her country.

A graduate of Cheyenne Central High School, Mrs. Thomson was graduated cum laude from the University of Wyoming in Laramie in 1939 with a major in psychology and minors in sociology and business administration.

Her husband, the late Keith Thomson, was Wyoming's three-term Republican Congressman who was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1960. He died of a heart attack December 9 of that year at his Cody, Wyo., ranch before taking office.

"I wasn't even near Keith when he died," Mrs. Thomson recalled recently. "The children and I were in Washington preparing for the holidays and getting settled." has three children-Bill, 22; Bruce, 18, and Casey, 13.

"It was so forlorn coming home from Washington after Keith's death," she said. "We had sold our home in Cheyenne and had bought the ranch in Cody. The children and I just drove around aimlessly. Then we

There's also a portrait of Mrs. Thomson's husband.

Mrs. Thomson's staff occupies two adjacent offices.

Part of the Thomson efficiency is having trained "every person in this office" to answer questions within minutes and to answer letters which are read and signed by Mrs. Thomson.

"The most important thing in a successful office is a good staff-people who are bright and well-trained, delegation of authority and a system of controls," Mrs. Thomson says.

"Each person in my staff is responsible for his own work. I oversee it. When something unusual arises, my staff checks with me. Otherwise they're on their own."

Part of Mrs. Thomson's job is to open and preside over the Wyoming House of Representatives.

"We have a 40-day legislature and I have to handle all the bills, send them to the printers, write titles for each bill and publish session bylaws," she explained. She also contracts pocket supplements of the statutes for general distribution.

Mrs. Thomson also gives from 30 to 40 speeches a year throughout the State and outside of Wyoming and occasionally entertains at the Governor's mansion when the Hansens are out of town.

But when she entertains officials at home, Mrs. Thomson likes to give garden parties.

"I'm so proud of our garden," she says. "Casey (her youngest son) is my gardener and does a wonderful job." The garden is shaded by tall trees and neat flowerbeds decorate the close-trimmed grass.

In order to have more time with her children, Mrs. Thomson has hired a housekeeper who cleans her home, does the laundry and does most of the cooking.

One of the main reasons she cites for not running for the Senate at that time is because she didn't want to be a sympathy candidate.

However, there was nothing to stop her from getting the votes and confidence of Wyomingites when she ran for secretary of state.

"I have traveled in the State of Wyoming for 11 years with my husband, my children, and alone," she said. "While I was campaigning, I covered all 97,000 square miles of it."

Mrs. Thomson beat her Democratic opponent, Frank L. Bowron, of Casper, by some 15,000 votes.

Keeping records, mailing out annual reports on corporations, and publishing bills passed by the legislature are included in the secretary of state's job.

As soon as Mrs. Thomson took office in January of 1963 she displayed her talents as an efficient housewife by straightening out files and records in the office and, by so doing, reducing expenses.

"It used to cost this office about $20 for the fancy ribbons, retyping, and proofreading of each certified copy of registered documents on file," she said. "What we do now is pull the original document, Xerox it and stamp it with a special stamp that says it's certified. Then, I sign it and it can be put in the mail in 5 minutes."

Mrs. Thomson also saw to it that the 7,000 active corporation documents that used to be scattered in four vaults on different floors are kept in one fireproof file near her office.

The secretary of state, who draws a salary of $12,000 a year, occupies a large, cool office which is furnished with comfortable leather chairs, a large desk, a long table for conferences, and a bookcase. A wall near Mrs. Thomson's desk displays the only feminine touch in the office-a gold-framed mirror.

never do my own hair and don't have to worry about cleaning house or doing laundry. It's all done for me."

Mrs. Thomson is on the five-member commission that governs Wyoming. In this capacity, she attends several meetings of State committees. She also is chairman of the Legislative Review Committee, North American Securities Administrators, and is vice chairman of the Public Lands Committee, Western Conference of the Council of State Governments.

"Because of this five-member commission, you can change the government of Wyoming by changing the elective officials," she said. "Affairs of State are under the policymaking of the five top officials in the State."

Mrs. Thomson said the big difference between Wyoming's government and the Federal Government is that in Washington "they have proliferated to the extent where no one can keep track of the whole thing."

She said Wyoming's system of government is particularly good for the State because there are 330,000 persons in Wyoming.

"It would be folly to impose a superstructure type of government, such as they have in Washington, in Wyoming," she said.

Mrs. Thomson said that about 90 percent of the persons who serve on State commissions do so without pay.

"These Wyomingites work to support their families, yet they volunteer their services for their State," she said. "They are proud of it and to them it's an honor."

The secretary of state, who also is on the board of institutions and reformatories in Wyoming, discussed a program which has recently been introduced in Wyoming's institutions.

This program is called reality therapy and was introduced by Dr. William Glasser, she said.

"Under this program, the person who is sent to the institution is no longer asked,

'Why did you do this?' Instead, he is asked, 'What did you do?'"

She said, "The point we try to stress is that

the person involved is responsible-not his environment or anybody else for his own actions. This way he realizes the penal staff has faith in him that he, himself, can do something about his problem."

Dr. B. D. Kuchel, superintendent of the Wyoming Industrial School in Worland, among others, reported he finds this type of program works particularly well, Mrs. Thomson said.

As far as her political views are concerned, Mrs. Thompson does not like to describe herself as a conservative or liberal Republican.

"I dislike labels," she said. "They give the wrong impression."

And she won't discuss Barry Goldwater or reasons for his defeat.

"That is all in the past," she said. "The GOP needs a new view for the future. It needs intellectual exertion to bring the conservative and liberal elements of the party together."

But what Mrs. Thomson doesn't seem to mind discussing is Keith Thomson and her children.

She has worn since 1961 a gold watch which would have been presented to her husband at Senate swearing-in ceremonies.

"Isn't he beautiful?" she says of her late husband as she proudly shows his pictures which are displayed both in her office and at home.

"I wouldn't know what to do without them," she says of her three children. "They are everything to me."

Mrs. Thomson skis, dances, takes trips and plays golf with her sons at Cheyenne's Municipal Golf Course.

In the meantime Wyoming's politicians are contemplating what office Thyra will seek

next.

In all probability, Mrs. Thomson will not say until she's ready to run and, in ladylike fashion, will keep her political suitors guessing until she's made her decision.

REFORM OF IMMIGRATION LAWS

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, it now appears that I will be serving, by designation of the Vice President, as a delegate to the International Telecommunications Union Plenipotentiary Conference abroad during the Senate's consideration of H.R. 2580, the companion to S. 500, a bill which I have cosponsored to revise the immigration laws, and particularly to remove the discriminatory national origins quota system.

The Senate will, I am confident, pass the kind of immigration reform that I have been fighting for for many years, and my position against any crippling amendments and in favor of finai passage will be noted of record.

I have long felt that in the forefront of the unfinished business of our free society has been the urgent necessity to eliminate the discriminatory national origins quota system from our immigration laws. This system, based on the national origins of our population in 1920, says in effect that the people who produced a Plato, a Michelangelo, a Kosciuszko, are less welcome in America than those who come from other parts of the globe.

I have opposed this repugnant philosophy of discrimination throughout my public life because I do not believe that there is any room in our society or in its laws for discrimination of any kind. We

must eliminate once and for all this degrading concept of subjecting human beings to the indignity of being judged on the basis of their place of birth or racial ancestry rather than on their merits and qualifications.

One of the first bills which I introduced in this session of the Congress was a bill-S. 436-to reform our immigration laws and eliminate the national origins quota system.

I am cosponsor of S. 500, and have testified before the Immigration Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee in its behalf as well as on behalf of my own bill. I have also closely followed its progress and helped as a member of the Judiciary Committee, in having this bill reported to the Senate Calendar. It is my belief that passage of this legislation is not only of great importance, but a long delayed act of justice.

LAWLESSNESS AND LAW

ENFORCEMENT

Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Mr. President, the newspaper Newsday, published at Garden City, Long Island, N.Y., lished at Garden City, Long Island, N.Y., recently printed a column by the distinguished commentator Ralph McGill. The comments are solid and sensible. I guished commentator Ralph McGill. The comments are solid and sensible. I ask unanimous consent that the column ask unanimous consent that the column be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the column was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

LOOKING BACK

(By Ralph McGill)

In chapter 5 of "Through the Looking Glass," Alice and the White Queen are confused. "I'm sure my memory only works one way," Alice remarked. "I can't remember things before they happen."

"It's a poor memory that only works backwards," the Queen remarked. The Queen fell into confusion because in her world time ran backwards. Time runs forward with us-but a backward look helps.

Mail devoted to the Los Angeles riots runs chiefly to a denunciation of "nigger lawlessness" and "what else can you expect from niggers?" There will always be some of that mentality and while one may feel sad about those who think in such patterns, they are outside the facts of our time. A few letters insist that all riots are simply a matter of lawlessness, and that all one needs to do is to enforce the law. (One could wish it were really that simple.)

There must, of course, be enforcement of law. And, especially, there must be prompt application of law to the Muslim groups, which admittedly are committed to incitement of riots and of violence. But having But having so said, it is imperative that all Americansand perhaps more particularly southernersknow that hard facts may not be solved by prejudice or oversimplifications. We are confronted with the end of an era in history. It is, perhaps, as abrupt and harsh and as difficult for many to accept as was the end of slavery itself for those who had accepted it as a way of life and as being appointed by God himself. The thoughtful, intellectually honest citizen must let his memory run backward. He must admit to himself what he knows to be the truth. Unless he wants to explain the greatest social revolution of our times in terms of "nigger" or "more police."

A wall has been torn down. Some 19 million Americans have all their lives been

lived in what was called, by the thoughtless, "niggertown." It was a place of unpaved streets and little municipal supervision. There were separate schools and they are on the conscience of every thoughtful American. There was separate justice. The sheriff, the

deputy, the policeman and most courts, unhappily became a symbol not of justice, but of injustice.

There was precious little, or no, opportunity to learn the responsibilities of voting or of citizenship. There were few opportunities for jobs save the most menial. There inevitably developed certain stereotypes of thought "They are happy the way they are." "They are dirty, uncouth, shabby, illiterate." President Johnson said of this condition that we had "created another nation." And so we had. Two great wars and industrialization caused millions to leave farms and go to the big cities of the East and West where huge industrial complexes offered jobs. Mechanization and automation have now ended most "common labor."

The big cities have the worst problem. In the first place they have the most deprived persons, the most of the very poorthe good poor and the criminal poor-the most really illiterate, the most hoodlums, the most hopeless. They are crowded as if under pressure. The environment is conducive to violence. The wall is down. It will take a long time to correct the past—

to provide education, training, and opportunity. There will be those who can't be trained. It will take time to make the poor Negro (and the poor white) feel that the policeman does not "have it in for him."

Somehow we must mobilize the best we

have, our truest voices and the forces of intelligence and of civilization. But above all, man today is called upon to be true to him

self-not to deceive himself about what is required of us as a people and a nationto know that the wall is down.

BANK MERGERS

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, in 1960 the Senate passed without a dissenting vote a bill that was intended to put new restrictions upon bank mergers but which did not change the fact that the Clayton Antitrust Act did not apply to bank mergers. Numerous statements were made on the floor of the Senate that mergers authorized under the Senate bill would not be subject to the Clayton Antitrust Act. That bill was favorably reported by the House Banking and Currency Committee and passed the House without a dissenting vote.

The fact that bank mergers were not to be controlled by the Clayton Antitrust Act was not clearly spelled out in the bill, although there were repeated statements on the floor of the Senate that it was the intention not to have the Clayton Act apply to bank mergers. To the surprise of all Members of the Congress who had taken an interest in the bank merger bill and all of the interested financial institutions, the Supreme Court held in 1963 that bank mergers were subject to the Clayton Antitrust Act. That act, as previously construed by the Supreme Court, means that if there are

two competing corporations which are merged into one, competition has been diminished by the merger and therefore the merger is illegal. Incidentally, both Justices Harlan and Goldberg united in a dissenting opinion in which among other things the statement was made that no one was more surprised than the Government lawyers that the Supreme Court took that position.

In recent years more than 2,000 banks have been merged, involving assets of billions of dollars. Since there is no statute of limitations on such mergers they are all subject to attack by the Justice Department and if, as, and when attacked, the merged banks cannot win unless the Supreme Court reverses its astounding opinion that bank mergers are subject to the Clayton Antitrust Act. It is apparent to all who have considered this problem that the application of the Clayton Antitrust Act is an unnecessarily harsh rule for bank mergers.

The purpose and the only purpose of the bank merger bill, which has been pending for weeks before the House Banking and Currency Committee and on which apparently hearings will be continued as long as this session of the Congress lasts, is to give relief to the banks which in the past have merged in good faith, after securing the approval of the required banking agencies, and to provide protection for all future bank mergers unless the Justice Department, after all other agencies had agreed upon the mergers, gave notice in 30 days of its objection.

I ask unanimous consent to have published at this point in the RECORD an editorial from the Wall Street Journal of September 10, 1965, entitled "The Measure of Difference," indicating why banks should be treated differently from other corporations with respect to mergers and why the pending legislation would be a modest first step toward more clarity in bank regulation.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 10, 1965]
THE MEASURE OF DIFFERENCE

Why should banks be treated differently

from other types of business concerns?

In essence, that's the question posed by opponents of a bill that would limit the Justice Department's ability to overturn banking mergers; they claim the Department should have the same power over such mergers that it does over others. Their question, however, seems to us to be easy to answer: Banks should be treated differently because they are different.

That fact ought to be obvious; it has been recognized by laws of the States and the Nation ever since banking became a business of some importance to the country's economic well-being. By now bankers are surrounded by a tangle of legal rules which not only provide close control of mergers by Federal and State banking agencies but also impose restraints that no legislator would think of applying to the average business

man.

Though governmental agencies are taking an ever-widening interest in private business activities, for example, no agency has yet suggested that it should take a look at the character and finances of a fellow who wants to set up, say, a shoe store.

If the shoe store fails, it's a sad day mainly for the owner and his clerks. A bank's failure, on the other hand, would damage not only its owners and employees but quite only its owners and employees but quite possibly its depositors, borrowers and anyone else who had any dealings with the institution. More than that, one bank failure can, and often has, weakened public confidence in other banks in its area.

The difference between banks and other types of institutions, in other words, is measured largely by the degree of public

interest.

Consideration of the public's interest has done much to shape the legislative approach to banking competition. In the business world generally the freest possible competition is clearly to be desired. In banking, however, a total absence of restraints on competition could allow an eager institution to overexpand, to make shaky loans and otherwise compete itself right out of business. Such a bank could damage the public interest in an attempt to serve it.

The need, in the banking industry, for a somewhat different approach to competition was in the minds of Congress when

it passed the Bank Merger Act of 1960. The committee reports indicate that the legislators intended to leave decisions on banking mergers to the Federal banking agencies: the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Comptroller of the Currency.

In making such decisions, the agencies are required to consider the possible adverse effects on competition. But they are also compelled to ponder the financial condition of the banks, their earnings prospects, the character of their management, and, certainly not least, the convenience and needs of the community to be served.

Any merger, of course, reduces the number of banks by one. Yet at the same time

it may save a weak bank from insolvency institution, provide banking services badly needed by a fast-growing community. As committee reports noted in 1960, a merger sometimes can be in the public interest even if it would result in a substantial lessening of competition.

or, by creating a larger and more versatile

Soon after the Bank Merger Act went on the books, however, the Justice Department

began attacking a number of bank mergers in the courts solely on the basis of com

petition, and on a pretty restricted view of competition at that. Since the courts have backed the Department, banks now may have a merger approved by a Federal bank agency and, possibly years later, have it thrown out by the courts. It is this situ

ation that the pending legislation would

straighten out.

In the first place, the bill would wipe out the past 5 years of confusion: It would validate all mergers approved up to now by the banking agencies, whether they've been challenged by the Justice Department or not. After all, banks entered such transactions in the belief that Congress meant what it said in 1960.

After approval of any future bank merger, the Department would have 30 days to challenge it in the courts; during that period and any resulting litigation, the merger could not be consummated. Though there's more than a little question whether the Department should have that much power, it would at least end completely the threat of any future effort to unscramble a merged bank.

As opponents of the proposed bill have argued, such unscrambling can be handled. But it can't be handled without a great deal of confusion and inconvenience for the bank's customers-in other words, without damaging the public.

The pending legislation, in sum, would be a modest first step toward more clarity in

bank regulation. If Congress bothers to measure the Nation's interest in a sound banking system, it's hard to see how it could do anything very different from that.

President,

REA PRIZE WINNERS Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. members of the Oklahoma delegation were fortunate to entertain again this year the youthful winners of essay contests sponsored by various rural electric cooperatives in the State. There were some 1,500 essays prepared and judged this year in Oklahoma, so it is not extraordinary that the 40 winning essays on rural electric cooperatives are excellent. I ask unanimous consent to have two of them printed in the RECORD at the close of my remarks.

There being no objection, the essays were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

WHY HAVE COOPERATIVES?

(By Johnny Snyder, Dacoma, Okla.) The lack of money is the root of much evil, including extreme poverty, suffering without relief, hunger pangs never eased, and youth with no hope for a better tomorrow. This pictures much of the world today with 10,000 persons starving daily.

tual slaves under Communist governments. Already one-third of mankind lives as virMany others live under the grasping hand of big business bent on profits. But there is a private enterprise that must be locally owned and controlled, because its owners must be

those who use its services; this is our cooperative way.

These cooperatives have played a big part

in making the United States a land where

ful place. the farmer stands economically in his rightNorway, Finland, and Denmark, which were This is also true now in Sweden, once very poor countries.

However, a cooperative is not always the answer. When private industries offer the same service at a comparable or better rate a cooperative is not needed. Then when do they can provide service at a more reasonable we need cooperatives? We need them when rate or when they can provide service that

would not otherwise be provided.

Last summer with Oklahoma 4-H peopleto-people delegation, I was privileged to visit several European countries. From our Danish guide we learned that Denmark takes pride in being like the United States in many ways, which include patterning their cooperative life from ours.

Today Denmark is known as a land of cooperatives, which has been the most impor

tant factor in the advancement of Danish agriculture. For example, cooperative enterprises process 90 percent of their milk and pork. In general their standard of living is good.

Hungary and Czechoslovakia, the two Communist countries we visited, make a sharp contrast with Denmark. These are not lands of cooperatives-no, these are lands of socialistic community farms. As I watched women use the ancient hoe through long weary hours and eat their lunch in drainage ditches, often without the comfort of even a shade tree, I viewed a land I never want to call my home. World history verifies that where communism reigns, there are no citizen-owned cooperatives; but where democratic freedom exists, cooperatives flourish.

Through the American Institute of Cooperation, I learned that many countries of the world would prefer that we guide them in the organization of cooperatives rather than giving the handout of food. They know

that nothing lasting will be accomplished until they learn to provide for themselves.

For example, government officials, engineers, and technicians from 31 countries have been visiting our rural electric cooperatives and our REA headquarters to get firsthand ideas. In turn we have been sending well-trained men to Ethiopia, Tunisia, South Vietnam, and many Latin American coun

and many others, including electrical power in our sparsely populated farm areas, that would not otherwise be provided. All this contributes toward comfortable homes, thriving communities, and a secure country. What more could we ask for?

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION GOOD FOR ALL AMERICANS

ply, as a goal, each newly formed board set up policies and hired a manager to operate the systems they were starting to build. Nearly half of all member-consumers in the United States are farmers, and no one knows better the necessity of a profit system than the American farmer; but behind the rapid and successful development of rural electrification in the United States, lie the ef

Desperate people turn toward dictatorship not always because they want to but because they see nothing else to do. There is a better way, and we are the ones to show the world that way-not by guns, not by free food, but by an educational plan to train for the cooperative way of life.

To better understand what cooperatives can do for the world, let us look at what they are doing for the United States where twothirds of the farmers belong to one or more cooperatives.

First, we will consider the marketing cooperatives. Whenever a producer raises any product for sale, he faces a marketing problem. The cooperatives-marketing grains, cotton, and dairy products have put millions more dollars annually into the farmers' pockets. About one-fourth of all farm crops are marketed cooperatively. Herbert Hoover once said, "I see no way out for the farmer except by cooperative marketing."

Second, we will consider the consumer, purchasing, or supply cooperatives. These appeared in large numbers after World War I. The farmers at this time were receiving low prices for their products and paying high prices for their purchases. Their survival as individual farmers was at stake. Thus they began to purchase feed, seed, and fertilizer from a wholesaler and distributing these among themselves. Soon formally organized cooperatives appeared. Today three out of four farm families purchase supplies through cooperatives. Here are services provided at more reasonable rates.

Third, we shall consider the service or utility cooperative with electrical cooperatives heading this list. By 1935 the urban areas of the United States were enjoying light and power provided by commercial electric power companies while 90 percent of the farmers remained in darkness and powerless. Why? Because it was not profitable for these companies to bring electricity to the sparsely populated rural areas. However, what the profit motive could not and would not do, the service motive of the cooperatives did. There is much difference between the 33 customers per mile of line among commercial electric power companies and the 3.3 customers of the rural electric cooperatives. Here is a service offered by a cooperative that would not otherwise be provided to the sparse population in rural areas. From 1935 to 1965, a period of only 30 years, the United States has dropped from 90 percent of her farmers being without electricity to only 2 percent not having this valuable light and power. The Rural Electrification Administration and the rural electric cooperatives have made this possible.

The coming of this light and power ranks with the advent of modern genetics, fertilizer, pesticide, and the farm tractor as one of the five most revolutionary forces to be introduced into agriculture during our century. Some even say electricity tops the list in importance.

This cooperative service has made our farm life comparable to urban life in comfort and convenience and gives us a way of life known to no other average farmer of the world.

In closing let me ask, Why do the people of the world want cooperatives? True, the cooperative way does not offer dazzling wealth to anyone, but it can and does provide many services at more reasonable rates

Walters, Okla.)

The dream of an electrified America for all

Americans was conceived in the minds and hearts of far-seeing men many years before it was born. It lay there-shimmering like foxfire-sometimes quiet-sometimes struggling to be born. Even the doubters conceded that electricity over the entire country would be good for all Americans, for in this Nation the poor farmer makes the poor businessman; poor rural communities make poor cities; low standards for the farmer make low standards for the Nation. So the dream grew, matured, and burst upon the American way of life with an impact that has shattered forever the isolation and bleakness formerly associated with rural living. From the hand-drawn water, salt-cured meat, lamp-lit homes, and newsless weeks, today's farm family has graduated to the same appliances and equipment as their city friends.

gle. There was the usual shadowy army But the dream wasn't born without strugof scoffers and doubters in the background, raising their usual battle cry of "It can't be done," as there has always been when anything new and startling threatened their complacency. Somewhere in the memory of the dreamers must be a heroic story of visits to influential men, telephone calls to people in high-up places, and letters writ

ten to government officials. There is a record of the organizing committees committees of dedicated workers who visited rural homes and held meetings almost nightly to spread the story of what could be done. In these gatherings the longings of rural families came to light: the dream of having lights, electric pumps, freezers, and the many other advantages of electricity that their city neighbors were enjoying as a matter of

course.

As in most united efforts, dedication paid off. In 1935, in an age when letters were becoming a way of life to the people of the United States, three new letters burst upon

the American scene-REA. These magic letters meant Rural Electrification Administration, set up by Congress to loan money to extend electrical systems into rural areas. This all-important step became an official act of the Federal Government on May 11, 1935, by Executive order of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It authorized a 10year electrification loan program, which was extended indefinitely in 1944. Its purpose was to make loans to qualified borrowers, with preference to nonprofit and cooperative associations. These loans were to bear

2-percent interest and were to be repaid over a maximum of 35 years. Private utility companies were not interested, so the U.S. Government decided to try the rural electric cooperative method-an old American custom-people working together for a common cause.

So, electric cooperatives were started, even though there were many, many problems to overcome. But it seems as though, working together, men can accomplish anything. By the end of the 1930's, rural people had held meetings, discussed their problems, and signed up as members of rural electric cooperatives. Besides getting enough people to sign up to make a system worthwhile, these kilowatt pioneers had to get easements for lines and substations, obtain land rights from owners, and elect boards of directors. With dependable electric service at the lowest possible rate a nonprofit system can sup

tems. While a few of these were organized as public bodies, the vast majority are consumer cooperatives. To obtain capital necessary to build their electric systems, to purchase poles, wire, and equipment, local coops turn to the REA in Washington for loans. These loans must be repaid with interest, but time has proved that rural electric cooperatives can and do pay their own way. As a matter of fact, the repayment record of rural electric systems is considered by many financiers to be an all-time miracle. Though created on small capital and big wishes, rural electric systems have repaid their loans from the Government on schedule, many making the necessary payments plus large future payments every year. The Cotton Electric Cooperative of Oklahoma, for instance, paid the REA loan of $230 million 24 years in advance of its due date.

And time has proved that rural electrification is good for all Americans. Financially, it has brought in the greatest returns for the smallest investment of tax dollars of anything the American people have ever seen. Large sums of money have reached the Treasury of the United States in interest from coop loans and from co-op taxes; for while rural electrics do not pay profit taxes, they do pay sales, property, excise, and vehicle taxes like any other business firm. Often they are the largest single source of revenue from property taxes in their countries. And added to the taxes they pay directly, rural electrics bring in an enormous amount of revenue in many other ways. The electricity they supply has given birth to scores of local enterprises, expanded the scope of other businsses, and vastly enlarged community payrolls. All this has materially broadened the rural tax base, produced badly needed public revenue, and

thus strengthened the economy of the United States in an era when a presidential assassination has definitely rocked the ship of state, especially in the areas of stock markets, foreign aid, and inflation.

The benefits of the rural power program to all Americans are too obvious to be doubted. Since electricity has increased the prosperity of farmers, it has consequently improved the prosperity of their city friends as well. Prosperity has come as a natural result of time-saving and more efficient management-thanks to the rural electrification program. Electricity now performs more than 600 different tasks on the farm, and has promoted the development of all America by extending the boundaries of modern living to the country's most remote areas. It has been instrumental in putting American agriculture out front as the most modern and most successful in the world. Electricity, as dispensed by member-owned cooperatives, has raised farm production to such heights that our expanding city population has an abundance of nutritional food at reasonable prices. This has enabled the people of the United States to be the best fed in the world. The abundance of fresh meat, eggs, and fruit in this country keeps well-fed Americans the envy of less fortunate peoples. And these farmers who worked so hard to help themselves, have helped their city cousins in other ways too. In small towns and big cities everywhere, merchants and businessmen can credit millions of dollars in purchases to the new rural market. Low-cost electricity is such a boon to all Americans that rural living in the United States today is considered the

epitome of all that is desirable, for farm families can now build and equip all-electric homes, with electric heating, air conditioning, ranges, washers, dryers, television, dishwashers, and disposal units-all because rural electrification has given them the wherewithal, the power, and the means to live on a par with people anywhere.

Household equipment isn't nearly the whole story of rural purchases either. Large investments, like automatic dairies, irrigation systems, electric pump units, and grain loaders are everyday buys in today's modern, electrified rural America.

As a direct result of electricity and member-owned cooperatives, new enterprises have sprung up all over previously thinly settled areas of the country. In rural areas where once were seen only lonely lamplit farmhouses, today can be found modern, flood-lighted homes, with electrically equipped barns, stables, and chickenhouses; large shopping centers with clothing, shoe, and grocery stores; service stations, garages, motels; concrete block plants and lumber mills; plus drive-in movies and drive-in banks. Members of electric co-ops, as participants in local development groups, are helping to launch a wide range of ventures to develop industry in rural areas and to provide thousands of jobs for local inhabitants. Rural electrics are in addition helping their communities to develop recreational areas and needed public facilities like hospitals and water and sewage systems. The availability of electricity in rural schools, churches, and small communities has helped provide equal opportunity to many thousands of people who would otherwise have been denied these advantages.

Yes, rural electrification has revolutionized rural living in the United States and proved a boon to all Americans. It has helped keep

efficient farmers on the land and made the

freedom, energy, and attainments of America's rural population the envy of the world. It has increased sales, services, and revenue of the small American community, and its benefits have penetrated into the largest cities. It has truly lighted a torch in present-day America, and promises to shed its rays even more brightly in the future; for the future of electricity is beyond presentday imagination. In this brilliant future, we should see every farm home heated in winter and cooled in summer-by electricity; we should see family-sized filtration plants that will purify farm pond water for household use-by electricity; we should see new barn equipment that will blend feed concentrates with roughage and meter out the correct portion to each cow-by electricity; we should see farm soil made more porous and thus more absorbent-by electrical treatments. These and many more unforeseeable miracles will mean that all Americans should live better, more productive lives-through the miracle of having electricity available to all.

So the REA and its member-owned coop

eratives is a story to equal the "Arabian Nights" tales of old. It is a modern success story of dedicated farmers who built electrical distribution systems that most experts believed and predicted were destined for bankruptcy. It is the story of a force that has held the most efficient people on the farms, that has supplied a large part of the world's population with food and clothing, that has kept capable young people on the farm, engaged in worthwhile activities such as FFA and 4-H work; that has brought the American farm home into the brilliantly lighted 20th century, with modern plumbing, lights, appliances, television and radio, and all the countless blessings of modern-day living. It is the story of a force that has contributed to America's greatness in many areas; that has insisted on progress for all segments of American life—not just for the

city folks, or just the country folks, or just the industrial workers, or just the scientists— but has insisted that all Americans, big or little, rich or poor, must have the chance that the U.S. Constitution guarantees them-the opportunity of freemen to advance. This then is the story of member-owned cooperatives and their impact on the American way of life-an impact that has brought many blessings to all Americans and made the rest of the world aware of what concentrated effort and dedicated people can do when the need is great and the dreams are clamoring to become realities.

IRA KAPENSTEIN, POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT'S SUPERLATIVE PRESS CHIEF

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, rarely does the general public have a chance to hear about the performance of the men behind the Nation's top policy makers. The advisers and experts who can make or break a Cabinet officer.

The retiring Postmaster General John Gronouski is blessed with such a man in his top press officer, Ira Kapenstein. Ira came to the Post Office Department from the Milwaukee Journal, where he was as able a reporter as any I have ever observed anywhere. It was no secret in newspaper and political circles that Ira Kapenstein could have had his choice of a number of excellent newspaper opportunities throughout the country.

Two years ago at the age of 27 he had mastered reporting-as a clean, crisp mastered reporting-as a clean, crisp writer, an astute, sharp observer, and a scrupulously fair and honest reporter. He chose to serve his Government and the Postmaster General John Gronouski. As press chief to the Postmaster General, Kapenstein not only was responsible for the press relations of the head of the Post Office Department, he was consulted frequently on policy decision, and he administered an excellent press section of his own.

There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Kansas City (Mo.) Times,
Sept. 1, 1965]

L.B.J. SHIFTS PLAYERS IN THE BIG GAME The administrative changes in Washington-Goldberg to the United Nations, Gronouski to the Warsaw Embassy and O'Brien to the Postmaster Generalship are beginning to sound like infield changes in a baseball game. L.B.J. shifts the team around, but few players are consigned to the bench.

As a man who gets things done, Lawrence F. O'Brien can be expected to expedite the mail as Postmaster General. It is an enormous task and a function of Government that deals every day with hundreds of millions of transactions affecting millions of Americans. More and more, the Post Office Department is concerned with computers and the mechanics of mail delivery. O'Brien, we predict, will retain for the Department a touch of humanity. At the same time, through the Kennedy years as political adviser, and as the White House congressional assistant to both John F. Kennedy and Lynand a talent for detail work. don Johnson, O'Brien demonstrated efficiency

When John A. Gronouski visited Poland last year, it might have been suspected that changes were in the wind. Gronouski's name will not hurt him in Warsaw, and the United States needs help there because of deteriorating relations. The American Vietnam poldescribed as young Polish liberals. In that icy has caused alarm among what might be Communist state the young identify to a surprising degree with their Western counterparts who dislike authority, engage in peace marches and denounce the bomb.

Gronouski in Poland probably will be a happier man than Gronouski in the Post Office Department. His qualifications as a former college professor and an Americanstyle liberal will be more applicable.

The O'Brien-Gronouski switch has a cer

tain logic, and it shows the Johnson touch of producing more than one desired result in a single transaction. The question is, who's

next?

Sept. 1, 1965]

AN APPROPRIATE ROLE FOR GRONOUSKI The selection of Postmaster General John

A. Gronouski to be Ambassador to Poland was both appropriate and imaginative. It is to a degree startling that the head of a department devoted to the delivery of the mail should receive such a demanding diplomatic assignment, but Mr. Gronouski has special qualifications for his new role.

Grandson of a Polish immigrant, speaker of the language, a director of the Pulaski Institute, and in general the possessor of a large fund of knowledge in United StatesPolish relations, Mr. Gronouski should carry out as well as possible the President's desire to establish a closer, more friendly contact with the people of Communist-dominated Poland.

As Postmaster General, Mr. Gronouski has not been outstanding-he has been most often described as "adequate." He was named to the job in response to a political need for representation of people of his background in the administration; we can expect him to operate with more assurance and more adeptness in Warsaw than in the giant postal bureaucracy. Of course the nomination still has to be considered by the Senate, but there is no apparent reason to expect it to be overturned.

As for Mr. Johnson's choice to take over as Postmaster General, Lawrence F. O'Brien has established himself in two administrations as a man who can get things done. As