 It's time for the Lawn Gene Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, a presentation of the Lawn Gene Wettner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Gene, the world's most honored watch, and Wettner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lawn Gene. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Gene Chronoscope? Mr. William Bradford Huey, author and analyst, and Mr. Hardy Berth, noted author and correspondent. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Charles B. Bronson, United States Congressman from Indiana. Mr. Bronson, our viewers will probably remember that this is your second appearance on the Chronoscope, that you are a Republican congressman from Indianapolis, and that you are now one of the investigators in Congress. You are a chairman of a special subcommittee to investigate certain international operations of our government. And first of all, sir, is it true that you've made a special study of monies that our government is spending in Germany now? Yes, it is. Mr. Huey, our jurisdiction concerns the State Department at all of its levels. We're charged with the responsibility of investigating the Department for Economy and Efficiency. And in that connection, we have gone in very carefully into the expenditure of counterpart funds in Germany. And is it fair to say, sir, that you're one of the members of Congress who is most interested in saving money and curtailing expenses? I would certainly say that that is eminently fair. It's a tough fight, but we're all in it. Now, can you give our viewers some illustrations, sir, of what you regard as the way that our money has been wasted in State Department operations in Germany? Yes, I certainly can, Mr. Huey. As a matter of fact, just today, the Bureau of the Budget cut back a program as a result of our committee's investigation for a housing project in Germany from the original estimate of 19 million dollars. They cut it back 60% until they came out with a total of $7,655,000 for a saving of $11,345,000 on this one program alone. Has money been saved in Germany as a result of your investigations there, your committee's investigations in any other way? Our investigations to date have been on the Councilor House, America House program in Germany, and on the Bond Housing Program. Now, this is money that is being spent to house American representatives in Germany. Is that correct? American and German representatives. And is it your contention that the Americans abroad have been living a little bit too luxuriously? Yes, I think so. When you find a $3,000 a year stenographer working for the Department of State in Germany, occupying an apartment that cost in the neighborhood of $21,000 or $22,000 to construct, I think it's a little bit expensive. Now, you would say this is a waste of the taxpayers' money when you're Congressman? Indirectly yes, because we're spending these German-Dutch marks in counterpart funds. But as we drain them out of the German economy, we put the taxpayers' money into the German economy, so it amounts to eventually a waste of money. Well, how was it permitted in the first place that the taxpayers' money could be spent with such a lavish hand, as you say it is, in Germany and presumably in other parts of the world? That's a very good question, Mr. Burt. It wasn't actually permitted. The Bond Housing Program, for instance, was constructed completely without any authorization of the Congress of the United States at any time from the Deutschmarks on hand in the possession of the High Commissioner of Germany. Can you give us some specific illustrations of what you regard as rather ridiculous expenditures of taxpayers' money? Yes, I certainly would like to. As I mentioned in connection with the program, these apartments were running about $25,000 a piece before they were cut back by the Bureau of the Budget. And that $25,000 was construction cost in Germany, but construction costs in Germany are only about 80% of what they are here, so that would amount to about $31,000 America construction costs. Well, if you take a look at your apartment houses here in New York City, Manhattan House, which is certainly a luxury apartment, only ran $30,000 a unit, so you can see how it aligned these. What about the fittings of those apartments or the furnishings? They were pretty lavish. The High Commissioner of Germany published this book in which he listed an inventory of all of the fittings in the apartment. I think you might be interested in the glassware in the dining room. We find, for instance, that depending on the size of the apartment, they either get six, eight, or 12 each of the following glasses. Water glasses, beer glasses, champagne glasses, cocktail glasses, liquor glasses, white wine glasses, red wine glasses, and sweet wine glasses. The question is, where do they get the wine, Congressman? That is much of a problem in Germany. I don't think as you travel over there, Mr. Byrd, I'm sure you will. Do the taxpayers pay for that too? I hope not. Well now, as a result of your investigation, you say the cost of these apartments have been cut down, and I assume the number of wine glasses perhaps has been cut down. The cost of the apartments has been cut down. The total number of the apartments has been cut down. The America House Community Center program has been eliminated completely. We saved $3,115,000 there, and they eliminated eight principal officers' residences in eight German cities, which cut down another $1,188,000. Well, Congressman, this is one specific area of saving that your committee has been working on. What other areas are there? There must be even larger areas and a few millions expended on housing and bond. Well, there are tremendously larger areas. As a matter of fact, of course, we spent between $30 and $100 billion overseas. Since the end of World War II, nobody can even tell the exact amount. Our staff is now working on a study, which will indicate for the first time how much each of our executive departments has spent overseas since the end of World War II. We have 27 of our executive departments operating overseas, Mr. Byrd, and 75 separate agencies are involved in the operation. Do you have any indication that these agencies are wasting money? We have certainly found that pattern wherever we've investigated the situation. We're starting out next week on TCA, the Technical Cooperation Agency, point four, and following that, we're going to look into the situation in regard to the MSA, the Mutual Security Agency. Well, Mr. Branson on our previous program, Mr. Abril Harriman, presented his views as a Democratic critic of the administration, and one of the things that he very vigorously criticized was the proposed $5 billion cut in Air Force expenditures. Now, do you support the administration in that? Are you in favor of cutting the Air Force by that $5 billion? I certainly am. Mr. Huey, we've seen a lot of Democrats in Congress, most of them with big spending records, and I might say in my opinion, Mr. Harriman was no slouch as a spender, right off to bloodless battle on the Democratic donkey in an effort to increase our armed services expenditures. It just comes down to this, are you going to take President Truman's budget recommendation, or are you going to take President Eisenhower's budget recommendation when it comes to the armed services? Of course, the aircraft industry, as you know, Congressman, says that they cannot plan ahead without having money appropriated for the purpose that they, in other words, they've got to manufacture the plane from the Blue Prince today, and they'll have to have the money three or four years from now. Mr. Burt, the Air Force is not exactly out of money. They, with the funds that would be appropriated and the funds they have on hand, they have some $40 billion, as a matter of fact, to carry out their program. Now, if they get in the pinch, Congress is in session almost all the time, and a supplemental appropriation can certainly be gained quickly. One of the things that concerns many of our viewers is the fact that President Eisenhower now expects to cut the appropriations for atomic energy. Now, you have investigated that, and you've seen some of the blast out in Nevada. Do you think that atomic energy can be cut safely? Yes, I think it can be cut safely. There are certain factors involved there that you can't discuss publicly, but I do believe that certain economies have been affected. How do you know anything about those factors, Congressman? From the briefings that we got out there at the time of the explosion. You went out there to see the explosion. And it's your belief that we can cut... It's my belief that we can safely cut atomic energy back to the extent that the President is indicated. After all, we're dealing with a man that won the European victory in World War II, and I'm a little inclined to go along with his judgment when it comes to the armament that this country needs. Congressman, you mentioned just now that your committee is going to look into the Point Four program, where the idea of seeing money is wasted. Are you opposed to the Point Four program? No, I've been highly in favor of the Point Four program. I was more in favor of it as it started out when it was a limited program under Dr. Bennett doing the agricultural agent type of approach to the situation, providing technical assistance and not so much aid. Some of the big spending people from the MSA and the Department of State have moved in to a certain extent, and I think the program has gotten quite a long ways away from its original concept. Who are these big spending people that you keep referring to? Are there any particular people in the government who are inclined to spend more than other people? Well, I refer to them in two categories. The first big spenders I refer to are those in Congress, and all you have to do is check their voting records. The second big spenders are those in the agencies who love to build empires, and of course, the more money you can get for your little project to spend, the bigger an empire you can build. One of the criticisms leveled at you Republicans who won't agree expenditure is this. Now, you have Mr. Dulles head at the State Department, and you have Mr. Stassen head of the Mutual Security Administration. And the criticism is that you are treating those two gentlemen who are Republicans just in the same manner that you treated Atchison when he was Secretary of State. Is that valid? Well, as a matter of fact, I don't think it's true. Our own committee has been working in close cooperation with Mr. Dulles, Mr. Don Lowry, and Bill Smith. As a matter of fact, in Washington, we really haven't had enough of a chance to take a look at Mr. Dulles and Mr. Stassen since they took office to know exactly what we do. Briefly, sir, and as a final question, from your studies so far, do you honestly believe that you can cut government expenditures substantially without jeopardizing the national defense? I absolutely believe that there's a great confusion between dollars spent for defense and planes, tanks, and guns produced. If we concentrate on the planes, tanks, and guns, instead of only dollars alone, I think we'll make it. After all, they've had 225 billion dollars since the end of World War II. Ridgeway testifies we have an adequate defense in Europe, Van Fleet testifies we don't have enough in Korea. Apparently, appropriating money for defense is not enough. It's time we got more for our defense dollar instead of more defense dollar. Thank you, sir, for being with us this evening. The opinions that you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Hardy Burt. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Charles B. Bronson, United States Congressman from Indiana. This is New York, 1866, the year of the beginning of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch. Now, probably no person in those days could forecast the marvels to come. Bridges and tunnels to span the rivers, electric lights, subways, automobiles, the airplane, radio, television, and atomic energy. And throughout the years, Lawn Jean watches have always kept pace with the rush of progress. Lawn Jean achievements in winning 10 World Fair Grand Prizes and 28 gold medals represent a succession of successes unparalleled in watch history. And Lawn Jean's position as official watch of leading sports and contest associations throughout the world confirms the highest steam with which timing experts regard our timepieces. The Lawn Jean watches of today are the matured products of almost a century of watchmaking experience and achievement. And every Lawn Jean watch combines in masterful fashion the signs of the watchmaker and the art of the jeweler. These Lawn Jean watches are beautiful, accurate, dependable, and made with such consummate skill as to promise untold years of proud service. For any important gift occasion, no other name on a watch means so much as Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift. Premier product of the Lawn Jean Wittner Watch Company since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. We invite you to join us every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday evening at his same time for the Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion for the world honored Lawn Jean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Lawn Jean and Wittner watches are sold in service from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem agency for Lawn Jean Wittner watches. For coronation coverage, the crown will go to the CBS television network.