 The world's most honored watch is Laun Jean. Laun Jean watches have won 10 World Fair Grand Prizes, 28 gold medals and more honors for accuracy than any other timepiece. Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, is made and guaranteed by the Laun Jean Wittemaw Watch Company. It's time for the Laun Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour. Brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. A presentation of the Laun Jean Wittemaw Watch Company, maker of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittemaw, distinguished companion to the world-honored Laun Jean. Good evening, this is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope? Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor of the American Mercury, and Mr. Donald I. Rogers, an editor of the New York Herald Tribune. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Charles B. Bronson, United States representative from Indiana. The opinions expressed are necessarily those of the speakers. Congressman Bronson, our Chronoscope audience, knows you as the young freshman congressman, a Republican from Indiana, who was so instrumental in defeating the Universal Military Training Bill. Now, we all know that the bill has been defeated, but we hear rumors that it's not quite dead and that there may be more news, more activity from that direction. Could you update us on that, sir? Yes, I think I can. As a matter of fact, last week when I was taking the elevator up to the House chambers, I happened to ride with Carl Vinson, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. At that time, he told me, quite off the record, that he felt that he would be out with a new UMT bill, which would be so modified that even I could go for it. I had to tell him that I doubt that very much, because as long as there's any of that old UMT bill done up in a package, no matter how much cellophane and pink ribbon they put on it, I'm afraid I can't buy that kind of a program. But it shows that they are working on it. What's the opposition to the old UMT bill? The administration UMT bill. Oh, there are a lot of points there. Mr. Rogers, in the first place, is terribly expensive. The first year will cost over $1.10 billion, and after that, it'll cost over $2 billion a year. $2 billion for when? The first year would be the first year it's in effect. Of course, Mr. Vinson sort of let the cat out of the bag, as to the extent he was willing to go in compromising when he introduced his amendment on the floor of the House to be non-effective until 1955. But the expense is a terrible factor. That $2.10 billion, for instance, amounts to more money than it cost to send all the young men and women in the United States that go through college or university to school. Well, now, sir, let's simplify this just a bit for our audience, many of whom have young sons. Now, is it true today, sir, that every young man approaching 18, a young American, must anticipate that he'll have to serve some time in military training? I think you're absolutely right, Mr. Huey. Of course, right now, the draft is taking all of the available men or that they have. Whether we call it draft or the UMT or whatever we call it, every able-bodied young man has to face some sort of military training now, doesn't he? Right. And so, your argument, is over what type of military training he's going to get. That is exactly... You're not opposed to universal military training. No, no, not at all. You're just opposed to the bill. As a matter of fact, the issue, I think, is very clear-cut. The issue is that we have to find some way of getting non-veteran reservists to replace the veteran reservists on whom we now depend. But before we get to that point, since every man must face it, and there are two plans now for it. One is the government plan, which is being led by Mr. Vinson, or advocated by Mr. Vinson, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. And the other is your plan, or the plan that's been evolved by you and a group of freshman congressmen in the House. That is right. That's right. Now, what are the major differences between the government plan and the plan advocated by the freshman congressmen? I might put it this way. The R's is evolutionary, and the R's is a little revolutionary. We're taking the high school ROTC type of program, which has existed now for many, many years, and which now trains 62,000 youngsters. All right. Now, number one, American high school. Number one, their plan would take all young men that go off the train. They'd take them away from home. That is correct. Your plan envisions keeping them at home. They keep them at home where they're subjected to their home environment and the influences of home, church, and school. Do they get no military training at a post, a regular military camp? Not at all, Mr. Rogers, because after their two senior years of high school, their junior and senior year, they are then taken to a six-week summer camp where they receive training in the particular branch of the service which they have chosen or to which they have been assigned. And presumably, they would also receive pay for this six-week. They do. That's right. But not as ROTC students. No. All right. Now, your plan first would keep them at home more. That is right. Now, what is the second advantage that you claim? The second advantage is we do not interrupt his educational progress. Our plan fits into his summer vacation and his normal high school instruction. A young man is going to take a long technical course in college. He isn't faced with the possibility of having to extend his education another year because of UM. I believe Mr. Benson, as the government spokesman, has called your plan the kindergarten plan. Is that a fair criticism? No, I don't think so because if my plan is the kindergarten plan, Mr. Benson and his committee on armed services have been engaging in a lot of kindergarten activity for several years because they have had high school ROTC almost since the National Defense Act of 1917 authorized it. And has the high school ROTC plan been called successful by the military? It has worked very well. Several of the executives on reserve affairs have stated that many of the non-commissioned officers in the early and critical days of World War II and many of the aviation flying cadets were young men who had received their first military training in high school ROTC and who jumped out ahead of the group as a result of that practice. Now, you want to keep them at home, sir, and you are also, as a congressman, you've been investigating military expenditures. Now, will your plan be less expensive for the taxpayer than the plan advocated by the government? We estimate that it'll only cost about 15% as much. For instance, just to give you an example of what's happening right now, in high school and college, the Department of Defense is able to state that they are training 202,141 high school and college ROTC students for a total cost of $20 million. That includes all the instructors' equipment, that type of thing, out-of-pocket expenses, actually running $11.56 a piece a year. All right, now it's not costing us to do what, sir? Contrast it to the $2,100 million, which it will cost to train the trainees under the administration plan, which calls for one instructor for each student. Well, I mean, per student. Now, you say this is $11.56 per student? That's $11.56. Plus about $100 that comes out of the $20 million. Yes. All right, now, what would the UMT, the administration's UMT, plan cost per student? About $2,800 to train one student for six months, I think it's a little high because I understand you can go to Harvard or Yale for $18 or $1,900 for a whole school year, very comfortably. Yeah, that's right. Now, it costs $2,800 for the government to train one young man for six months. That is right. And it costs $1,800 for a young man to go to Harvard for nine months. That's right. And you think that that's too much money. I think something is wrong. I think there's a lot of empire building in there. A lot of new commands will be created and a lot of extra staffs and a lot of high commitment. Well, do you contend that the military training, the child, or you can't call him a child, the young man, the student will receive, under your program, will be comparable or as good as the military training he'd receive? Yes, I absolutely do it. You stick to basic training, which is the only thing Congress ever authorized in Public Law 51, which is the basic legislation behind this whole plan. That's what we used to call branch and material training. Exactly. I see I have a comrade in arms here. As a matter of fact, this whole scheme grew up through our belief that if you can take a young man and give him four years of college ROTC, six weeks of summer camp, and commission him as a second lieutenant to lead men in combat, you can certainly make a private out of a young man in the last two years of high school with a six-week summer camp. It has worked in the past, and I can't see what it's about. We used to make second lieutenants in 17 weeks. That's right. And some pretty good ones, I might add. Now, Congressman, you and your colleagues are freshmen, congressmen. Yes. And you're challenging some of these old timers who've been on the arms services committee for 30 years. Now, what is there in your background that leads you to think that you might be an expert in this field? As a matter of fact, I'm very humble about that whole thing. You see, as close as I can figure, Mr. Carl Vincent came into the Congress the day I was born. We offered this plan to the arms services committee for their study. We offered this plan to the American Legion for study. We have tried to work with all of these groups that exist as far as we possibly can. But we are very proud that the common sense, practical approach of our plan made it successful in carrying the voice vote and the telephone on the floor of the House of Representatives meeting as the committee of the whole. Have you had training as a psychologist? Yes, I have. My college work is in psychology. And as a matter of fact, I was a personnel consultant on military duty at the start of my five-year service in World War II. All of us who drafted this plan, you see, have seen this thing, not from the standpoint of the boys with the stars and the boys with the white gold and the cuffs, but all of us have been on the underside training men and being trained. We think that gives us a perspective. By and large, the arms services committee is composed of a majority of non-veterans. Now, sir, we'd like, as finally, we'd like you to give us your prediction as to what will happen in this struggle between the two systems, the government and what you're advocating. Well, my prediction is that the American people are going to evidence a continued interest. We have never had a flood of mail such as we had on UMT. If the American people want an American plan of UMT instead of a European-Asianic type plan, all they've got to do is let their own congressman know, and he's sitting down there waiting in Washington, waiting to hear from them, and he'll do what they want, because in the wonderful American tradition, this is an election year. Well, thank you, Mr. Bronson. I'm sure that our audience has appreciated your views. Thank you for being with us, sir. The editorial board for this edition of the Long-Jean Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Donald I. Rogers. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Charles B. Bronson, the state's representative from Indiana. Do you have the problem of selecting a gift of great prestige for someone important to you? That problem is most happily solved with Long-Jean, the world's most honored watch because of the outstanding quality of the watch itself, and because of what the name Long-Jean stands for. To the whole world, Long-Jean stands as the only watch in history to win the highest of all awards 38 times at World Spheres and International Expositions, including 10 grand prizes and 28 gold medals. Long-Jean also stands for the watch of first choice in sports, aviation, science, and other fields of precise timing. Long-Jean stands for the only watch to be classified first at the four great government observatories Washington, Geneva, Q. Teddington, and Neuchâtel. The gift of great prestige for any important occasion is Long-Jean, the world's most honored watch. And throughout the world, no other name on a watch means so much. And yet, you may buy and own or buy and proudly give the Long-Jean watch for as little as 7150. Long-Jean, the world's most honored watch. The premier product of the Long-Jean with Norwatch Company in 1966, maker of watches of the highest character. We invite you to join us every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday evening at the same time for the Long-Jean Chronoscope, the television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Long-Jean, the world's most honored watch, and with Nor, distinguished companion to the world honored Long-Jean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Long-Jean and with Nor watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem agency for Long-Jean with Norwatches. This is the CBS television network.