 It's time for the Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, a presentation of the Lawn Jean Wettner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wettner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lawn Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope? From the CBS television news staff, Larry Lusser and Charles Collingwood. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Alfred A. Cedarburg, United States representative from Michigan. Well, the opening shots have already been fired in the coming congressional elections, and from now on until November, there won't be a dull moment in politics. The most evenly divided Congress since World War I is straining at the leech to get back home into campaign, but they've got a lot of work to do and only one month to do it in. Representative Cedarburg, you're a member of the House Appropriations Committee and the most important thing for the federal government as well as for everyone else is money. Now, have you finished your vast appropriation bills for the fiscal year? Well, Larry, practically finished. Let's put it that way. I believe that as far as the House of Representatives are concerned, we are just about finished with the appropriation bills. However, we do have one of the major bills appending before us at the present time, and that's the foreign aid bill, which of course is very often one of the most controversial bills that we have on the floor. Then we do have some other bills, the military construction bill, which is before the subcommittee of which I am a member. That bill will be brought up, as I understand, in a deficiency appropriation and will probably be taken care of in a matter of the possibly the next 10 days. Now, how are you going to vote on that foreign aid bill? May I ask you, Representative? Well, I assume, Larry, that you would probably ask me that question. As I feel right at the present time, I am inclined to vote against the appropriation for foreign aid. However, I will say that the bill is much more palatable this year than it has been in the past, because the present administration has done a terrific job in getting it down to, shall we say, common-sense levels. Approximately three and a half billion dollars this year, much of which, or shall we say most of which, is for a military rather than economic aid. Congressman Sederberg, you said you were going to vote against the foreign aid bill. Do you mean in its present form would you be disposed to vote for it if it were less or older than some? Charlie, I think I might go along with it if it were substantially reduced, and I say that for this reason. You know, we have a large unobligated balance in the foreign aid fund. Some of the fund, of course, is obligated, but there's a great deal of it that has not been as yet obligated. I'm told, from the debate that took place this afternoon, that approximately sufficient funds are left in the foreign aid bill, foreign aid account, so that we could run the program at its present level for almost two more fiscal years. Now I realize that you can't call a project or a program this large finished at a given time, and that has to be stretched out over a period of time. But I think they've just got a little bit too much money to play with, and I'd like to take a little bit away from it. Mr. Sederberg, excuse me, Charlie. I was just going to say, speaking of foreign aid, Harold Stassen was supposed to be up here tonight, but he was kept down and watching by the Churchill meeting. Now, I'd like to ask you this question. Do you think this meeting between President Eisenhower and Sir Winston Churchill is really going to do any good? Well, let's say that we hope it will do some good. I feel this way about that particular meeting that it's always a good idea for two states to get together and have a good friendly discussion once in a while, because we have some very honest differences of opinion it appears. And I hope something good will come from it. Well, I think it's possible for two great allies to have honest differences of opinion. It's just like, shall we say, our wives. We don't always agree with our wives sometimes, but that doesn't mean we're going to take a walk. That means that we're going to sit down and probably iron out our differences, and I hope that's what we're doing here. But you do feel that, in spite of the way you feel about the President's foreign aid bill, that we need allies like Great Britain well equipped to stand by us in case of any international aggression? I certainly believe that we need allies, but I'm not convinced that we can necessarily buy allies with American dollars. I think we've got to have a good sound faith in one another as allies. They must believe in us. We must believe in them. We must have some common goals. And it seems to me that the common goal here is to definitely show the rest of the world that the American and the way of life that we allies are interested in is best for the entire peoples of this nation. Representative Cedarburg, some of the members of your party like Secretary of State Dulles have complained that you people on the Appropriations Committees are penny pinchers. And he particularly called attention to the fact that you've cut back his State Department 20% while Russia is pouring vast sums and making considerable progress in the Cold War. How about it? Larry, in your long experience as a news analyst and so forth, have you ever recalled a time when any member of the Executive Branch has said that the Appropriations Committee ever gave them too much money or that possibly they even gave them just enough? Well, let's see. Truman objected, didn't he, to the amount of money which was once appropriated for the Air Force and they kept some of it in escrow as it were? Well, as a matter of fact, I think maybe I believe he's the one that vetoed the 70-wing Air Force, wasn't he? That's right. And you know, I suppose we could get a little political about that. Well, Representative Cedarburg, how about those cuts in student exchange from $15 million to $9 million? Now, is that economy or is that isolationism? I'll give you my own personal opinion. I don't think it's economy. I think that there is a field which we, an American, can well support because I believe that the bringing of exchange students here, giving them a glimpse of what we have here in America by comparison to what we have in other nations, not in a braggadocio way, but to show them what free people can do, I think is important. And you know, we are in real competition with our Russian, shall we say, friends? I hope we can count them as friends sometime. But they are bringing forth, as I understand, great programs in bringing students from some of these other nations into Russia. And I think we have to combat that. And I think it's a good program. Yes, but why was it cut back then? Well, probably, I'll tell you why. Probably because the subcommittee that handles that and the appropriations committee felt that they could do the job with a lesser amount of money. And possibly they're wrong. If so, the Senate has a great ability of adding to what the House takes out. So possibly something will be done along that line. Representative Cedarburg, what about the labor and health department? Now you've cut back Mrs. Hobby's department about $15 million. Some people say our health program is a stretcher case now. Well, I'm not convinced that our health program is a stretcher case at all. I think that we're going forward and making great strides. And if you'll compare what we have done in the years past with what we're doing at the present time, appropriation-wise, you'll find that we haven't done too badly. And I'll say this, that as far as I'm personally concerned, I think the federal government would do well if they would do what they could to be sure that the states and the local communities are adequately aware of the problem themselves. You know one of the easiest things in the world to do is to, when you get into a little problem locally, and I've had a little experience with that as a mayor of, what shall we say, a town of around 55,000 people, that you have the opportunity to turn to Uncle Sam, you're going to take it every time. Well, I can turn to another case though. There's the Labor Department. You've made deep slashes in that, almost a million dollars. And the Labor Department people complained that they haven't got enough inspectors to go around and oversee the keeping of the minimum wage laws. Now that surely is a federal job and not a state job. Well, Larry, actually I would hesitate to say too much about that because I am not thoroughly familiar with it. However, I will say this, that I'm positive if we are not adequately enforcing the minimum wage laws through a lack of appropriation, that the President administration will make mighty sure that we have a supplemental appropriation when we come back next January to see that the job's properly done. You know, I think one of the great things that we can do in these appropriation matters is this, that if you find that you're running a little short at the end of the year, you can always come back for more. And if they prove their case before the Appropriations Committee, we're not so bad that we won't give it to them if they have a good case. You mean that appropriations have nothing to do with expenditures then? Well, appropriations do have something to do with expenditures. However, you do of course always have the problem of the carryovers. For instance, as we, before we went into Korea and as the Korean incident developed, we found ourselves with appropriations which were rather huge because we had a crash program. We do not know what Korea meant in reality. It may have well taken us into the Third World War. And I'm not criticizing anybody for that, but we have had tremendous backlogs of unexpended appropriations. For instance, in fiscal year 53, we had 78.7 billion dollars. We got that down in fiscal year 54 to 66.5 billion dollars. Well, I can only say that having talked to Secretary of Treasury Humphrey and actually having heard him just on television yesterday, he anticipates that it's still going to be necessary. You probably realize that we in the House took care of that matter last year and it's up for the Senate to decide now what they want to do. Personally, I'm much more concerned about the people who are managing our national debt. Those who are responsible for seeing that we spend our money wisely and that we are getting a dollar value for every dollar spent as much as we can in government. That's a good idea. You think that the people are going to give President Eisenhower a Republican administration Congress to work with? Larry, I sure think so because I don't see why they wouldn't. You know, this administration reduced taxes 7.5 billion dollars. That's the first time taxes have been reduced in many, many years and our Democratic friends never reduced anybody's taxes. And in addition to that, we've increased social security and we'd like to do it more. And we've got a large road program, the St. Lawrence Seaway, many things. I'm enthused about that. Thank you very much for an interesting campaign talk and some information that I had represented. The opinions expressed on the Launcine Chronoscope were those of the speakers. The editorial board for this edition of the Launcine Chronoscope was Larry Lesser and Charles Collingwood. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Alfred A. Cedarburg, United States Representative from Michigan. They say everyone sees the watch on your wrist. To be really well dressed, every detail must conform, including your watch. Now, Launcine makes a watch to fill every need and to suit every taste. The choice of models and the choice of styles is almost unlimited. For ladies, Launcine creates superb examples of the jeweler's art. Exquisite in taste and finish, and literally for every occasion. For men, Launcine produces watches for every requirement. Watches for dress and sport. Launcine automatic watches, the most advanced in the world. Waterproof and shock resistant watches for rugged service. Launcine chronograph watches for sportsmen and for scientists. And every Launcine watch, whether for a lady or for a gentleman, is made to the unique standards of excellence which have won for Launcine ten World's Fair Grand Prizes. Twenty-eight gold medals, highest honors for accuracy in fields of precise timing. And this statement is true throughout the world. The Launcine watch on your wrist is not only one of the finest watches made anywhere in the world, but equally important, it's the watch of highest prestige. And yet, unbelievably, you may buy or own or proudly give a Launcine watch for as little as seventy-one fifty. Launcine, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift, creamier product of the Launcine Witner Watch Company, since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Launcine and Witner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than four thousand leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem, agency for Launcine Witner watches.