 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 Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Gene, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, 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? Edward P. Morgan and Bill Shadell, both of the CBS television news staff. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Jacob Javits, United States Congressman from New York. Representative Javits, what are people writing their congressmen about these days? What are they most worried about? Well, people are worried about whether the peace in Korea will continue. They're worried about whether there's any chance to disarm the world and look after the grave problems posed to mankind by the atom bomb and the H bomb. They're worried about taxes. I think if you add them all together, Mr. Morgan, they want to know how we're going to work this thing out. They know the world's in a tough spot. What are we as legislators and presidents and people who run the show going to do about it? Have the legislators got the answer? Well, every legislator has to have some idea himself, and I think that synthesizing, as I think I explained a minute ago, what the people are worried about and what they're thinking about, my feeling on it is this. First, we've got to have a shield of protection until we can work out some agreement with the Soviet Union and the communist bloc on disarmament and real control, not just word control, of the H bomb and the atom bomb to see that they're not used to destroy it. They're not used to destroy mankind. By a shield, I mean military defense, of an adequate kind, and we're putting up a good deal of money and have a lot of alliances for that. And behind that, behind this shield, we've got to integrate the whole free world, east and west, economically, socially and morally. And if we set our feet upon that path, I think we can make it work, have prosperity for the world and a reasonable feeling of well-being without feeling vulnerable at the same time. This is the best compromise I can see in the present cleavage between the free world and the communist slave world and the best way I can see in the next 10 years to reconcile the two. Mr. Javits, you're a chairman of that subcommittee on foreign economic policy in connection with the stabilization trade between the east and the west. What are the chances of ending the foreign aid as far as the economic side is concerned? Well, there's quite a good deal of disagreement in the Congress on that. I'd like to tell you very briefly, first, what I think, second, what I feel is the general opinion in the Congress. I feel that 0.4, that is technical assistance, is extremely important in enabling people to use their own resources to the greatest possible effect. We spend around figures about $200 million a year on that. I think that's a very cheap buy for the value it gives the free world. That's on 0.4. That's on technical assistance. Now, on economic assistance, it's pretty much boiled down to a couple of special economic programs in India and Pakistan and in the Near East, including the Arab states and Israel. And these take in round figures about $225 to $250 million. Other than that, everything is military aid. Now, I think we're cutting down economic aid too fast considering our own best interests. I think that the 0.4, the technical assistance program, is too limited considering our own best interests. But nevertheless, that's the prevailing view of the Congress and it's going to be a fight to hold even that. And my guess for the future is that you're going to see military aid plus a very modest amount of special economic aid and technical assistance somewhere in the area of the amounts that I've just mentioned. Well, let's, if we may, develop Schadell's question for a bit as to what you found were the most practical ways if our foreign aid is not going on in perpetuity. What we can do? What about American investments abroad and that sort of thing? Well, Mr. Morgan, may I first say why we have to do it and then say what we can do? The reason we have to do it is because we are by all odds the richest and most fruitful country in the world. To give one little comparison, the total amount of American production and output runs to something in excess of $370 billion a year. The total output and production of all of Europe, which has 200 million people and round figures as against our $155 million, comes to less than half of that. We are by all odds the greatest creditor nation. The world can't live economically, the free world, unless it's in cooperation with the United States. The world just can't make the grade economically. Standards of living are too low, too much of an invitation to communism. Therefore, we've got two things to do, one trade and the other investment. Let me just interrupt for a second and I hope it's not throwing us off. Can we operate independently ourselves? We can't possibly operate independently for many reasons, one militarily. Nobody in our country, in his right mind, with the exception of a few on the fringe, think we can go it alone, 155 million people standing off the whole world. That's, I think, pretty silly in terms of actuality. Secondly, there's so many scarce materials that we ourselves need to get from the world, like tin and rubber and antimony and incidentally uranium, the very essence of our defense today, which comes out from outside the borders of the United States, that we can't go it alone, either militarily or economically. Now, to refer to our previous subject then, we've got to, one, open up trade in the whole world and in the United States. We do a foreign trade now of about 25 billion dollars. We've got to double it in order to put the whole free world on a really sound basis. How do we do that, Mr. Jabber? I think we do it very largely in two ways. One, by helping other nations with their problems in the technical assistance field and in the economic aid field, which we referred to a minute ago. Secondly, by helping other nations to make their currencies convertible. In other words, making trade in the world based upon currencies which can be interchanged. That isn't the case today. And finally, by giving a little bit, giving a little bit on the import markets of the United States, which are unduly closed to the world, considering our very powerful financial influence in the world and the fact that we are, by all odds, the greatest creditor nation. Mr. Jabber, can you convince your Republican colleagues that tariff should be lowered? You have that issue coming up very importantly in the next session this evening. Exactly right, Mr. Shaddell. We have the issue coming up. We're going to have the benefit of the report of the President's Commission on Foreign Economic Policy headed by Clarence Randall and including our own Jock Whitney from New York and a great many very distinguished people. And I'm rather hopeful that they will make the facts so eloquent than the facts are eloquent that many of my ultra-conservative Republican colleagues, whether they like it or not, will have to be convinced. This is just the facts of life. Congressman Javits, do you feel, or as a result of your investigations on the committee, is it possible that private venture capital can supplant government grants abroad and do a better, more healthy, healthful economic job? Well, there's certainly no question about the fact that they can do a better economic job. They're more flexible and not tied to political considerations. They move right into the heart blood of a country's economy. The question is whether they can be made to move abroad. And we've taken a lot of testimony on that. Incidentally, the amounts involved are not great. Today we're investing abroad something under $2 billion. If you made that $3 or $4 billion, it would make the most enormous difference in the whole world in terms of prosperity. That is in the free world I'm talking about now. Now how do you do it? The people that do the investing say you've got to concentrate on giving them some tax advantages for investing abroad, on making treaties with foreign countries so that they aren't going to be discriminated against as between themselves, that is Americans who are investing and local people who are investing. And finally, on seeing that currencies are convertible, the subject that I talked about before, I think we certainly ought to be able to do that in an administration which has such strong support in American business. Well, of course, this whole pattern affects our economy and it affects the working man and labor. And that brings up another point that I want to switch to, if I may, domestically. By reading the papers, one gets the impression that the administration, so to speak, has a labor problem. Mr. Durkin has resigned as Secretary of Labor. There's a great deal of talk about the administration's pledge. If it was a pledge on the Taft-Hartley Act, what are your views on that, sir? Well, the administration hasn't the problem yet. It may have one, but it hasn't one yet. Mr. Durkin has resigned. I'm very sorry to see him resign. I think it's a very good thing to have a labor leader in our cabinet. Very useful. But he has resigned. Now, the important thing is whether or not the administration will follow through on recommendations of amendments to the Taft-Hartley law, which was something the President said he would do and which is something that Senator Taft considered the leader of the Republican Party in terms of the Congress was very much for and actually put in a bill to make a great many amendments. Now, the important thing is the American trade unions are for the first time since the Taft-Hartley Act was passed willing to see amendments to the law with their cooperation. I hit a four. They have just said they want the law repealed. They want no part of amendments. This, I think, is a very great game for the country in terms of the relations between management and labor. And I would like to see very much, and I'll do everything I can to see that the administration follows through with its amendments on the Taft-Hartley law exactly as originally outlined as in the best interests of the administration and in the best interests of the country. Mr. Javits, you're probably aware of an impression in Washington that has been prevailing the last few days. It seems that the Republican administration has given up on any amendments to the Taft-Hartley law. They'd like to avoid that subject in this next session and that the labor unions are out in the cold. Well, I notice that the administration is very carefully refrained from confirming any such thing and I shall certainly move heaven and earth myself and I think there are many who will join with me who are in positions like my own and respect of the administration to see that they do go through on recommending these amendments to the Congress and that we put up the fight to get them. As a last question, Mr. Javits, it's quite a long time till Congress reconvenes in January, but people are still talking politics. What, in your opinion, are the main issues that will face the Congress when it gets back to work? Well, I think I would say there are four issues. First and foremost, I think is the issue of taxes and fiscal policy. We're going to hear a lot about that in the new Congress. Then, this very labor point that we've just been discussing I think is going to come in for a lot of discussion. Also, foreign policy and finally, the whole foreign economic policy of the country which we talked about a few minutes ago. I think those are about the major issues which will face the Congress in the next session. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you. The opinions you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope was Edward P. Morgan and Bill Shadell. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Jacob Javits, United States Congressman from New York. If you're contemplating the purchase of a very fine watch, it would be profitable to compare the facts about Laun Jean watches with the facts you have about any other timepiece. And you'll find that the facts about Laun Jean are convincing proof of surpassing quality. Factual evidence that in a Laun Jean watch, you have one of the world's very finest timepieces. In competition with the world's best watches, Laun Jean watches alone have won for excellence and elegance ten World's Fair Grand Prizes and twenty-eight gold medals. For accuracy, highest honors from the leading government observatories. For dependability, a position of leadership in sports, aviation, and in science. Yet, though Laun Jean is one of the very finest watches made anywhere in the world, a Laun Jean watch is not excessively expensive, for you may buy and own or proudly give a Laun Jean watch for as little as seventy-one fifty. And this is important. Whatever the price, every Laun Jean watches manufactured to the highest standards of quality, which have made Laun Jean the world's most honored watch. The world's most honored gift. Premier product of the Laun 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 this same time for the Laun Jean Chronoscope, the television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Laun Jean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Laun Jean and Wittner watches are sold in service from coast to coast by more than four thousand leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem. Agency for Laun Jean Wittner watches. Tuesday nights, there's suspense on the CPS television network.