rogation, comment specifically upon those sections, but I shall be glad to answer any general questions which any of you care to ask. REDUCTION BY THE BUDGET BUREAU Mr. FLOOD. There will be no objection to that. But first, Mr. Secretary, you indicate in your statement that the estimates of the Department of Commerce have been drastically pared. I do not know if you used the word "drastically," but you indicated that was your point of view, perhaps. I believe you stated $80,000,000 was the amount of what you called the "cut." Did you state the amount you asked of the Budget in dollars? Secretary SAWYER. No; it was not in the statement. Mr. FLOOD. Will you state what you asked of the Bureau of the Budget? Mr. GLADIEUX. You understand, Congressman, we can give you those figures only on request. However, if you request us, we will give them to you. Mr. FLOOD. Yes. I am now requesting it. Mr. GLADIEUX. You understand the reason is that such disclosure violates the Bureau of the Budget's and the President's policy. Mr. FLOOD. I understand. Mr. GLADIEUX. We requested of the Bureau of the Budget a total of $474,039,754. That is both cash and contract authorizations. The Bureau of the Budget approved, as you have in the figures before you, $359,393,500. Mr. FLOOD. Suppose at this point I place in the record the fact that not only are we fortunate in having with us the Secretary, but he is fortunate, as well, to have with him the following members of his staff: the executive assistant to the Secretary, Mr. Bernard L. Gladieux; the Department budget officer, Mr. Francis R. Cawley; the Acting Solicitor, Mr. Matthew Hale; and the management analyst of the Of fice of the Secretary, Mr. Charles H. Alexander. Mr. CAWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a word of explanation on the difference between the amount requested of the Department and the amount allowed. You will recall the Secretary stated in his opening remarks that we had pared our estimates $174,000,000 before they were submitted to the Bureau of the Budget. I would like to explain that the $174,000,000 is a net figure. We actually pared our estimates $188,000,000, but permitted our bureaus to submit some secondary priority items of approximately $14,000,000. Mr. FLOOD. Will you describe for us, legislativewise, what "secondary priority items" are? Mr. CAWLEY. Secondary priority items are those which were not strictly within the budget policy of the President, but which we considered very important; so that, if there were funds available, the Bureau of the Budget might give them consideration. Mr. FLOOD. That is the first time I ever heard of a secondary priority. Mr. FLOOD. Do you have any further statement on that point? SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS Mr. FLOOD. Without objection, we will insert in the record the tables (The matter above referred to is as follows:) Appropriations, 1949 (regular bill) Supplemental appropriations (Second Deficiency Appropriation Act, 1948). Proposed supplemental appropriations due to pay increase, (Public Law 900). 1 Includes $25,300,000 for liquidation of prior year contract authorizations. was $49,341,499. 2. The 1950 figures exclude budget amendments in House Document No. 97. 02 Travel. Summary by object of expenditure (excluding personal services) 03 Transportation of things. 04 Communication services. Penalty mail. 05 Rents and utility services. 06 Printing and binding.. 07 Other contractual services 08 Supplies and materials. 09 Equipment.. 10 Lands and structures.. 11 Grants, subsidies, and contributions. 12 Pensions, annuities, and insurance losses. 13 Refunds, awards, and indemnities. Total.. 6,531,666 25, 243, 738 8,837, 678 19,936,329 16,097, 482 151, 892 4,300 29, 455, 960 13, 062, 162 41,009,000 174,377 4,300 136, 800, 927 NOTE.-The 1950 figures for positions and other objects exclude budget amendments in House Document No. 97. BACKGROUND OF THE SECRETARY Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Secretary, I am sure the members of this committee are fully acquainted with your distinguished career, but I believe this is your first appearance before this committee, at least for this purpose, and might I suggest, at least for the benefit of the record, that you give us a short biographical résumé of yourself. Secretary SAWYER. I will be delighted to. I was born in Cincinnati, Ohio, and lived there during my boyhood and then went to a little college in Ohio by the name of Oberlin. I graduated from Oberlin College at the end of a 3-year course; that is, I took the 4 years in 3 and graduated. I had intended to become a newspaper man; in fact, another boy and I had a contract to buy a paper out in South Dakota, but a cash customer came along at the last minute, and we lost the paper. Then I was offered a scholarship in the Cincinnati Law School and decided I would at least, for 1 year, try to see what law was like. I studied and graduated from the Cincinnati Law School at the end of the 3-year course. I took the bar examination in Columbus in 1911. I had first place out of 393 students who were examined. I went back to Cincinnati and bought a desk for $13 and began to practice law. I ran for the city council in that year and was elected. I was the youngest councilman who ever sat on the council of Cincinnati. At the end of that term, I was reelected. I carried every precinct in my ward. At the end of that term, I was a candidate for mayor, also being the youngest man who had ever been a candidate, and I was very thoroughly defeated. From then on I practiced law in Cincinnati until the beginning of the First World War. I volunteered, went to Fort Benjamin Harrison, was commissioned a captain; later that year I went overseas and wound up a major of infantry, and I served for awhile with the army of occupation in Germany. Then I came back to Cincinnati and renewed my law practice. After several years of practicing law intensively, I was a candidate for Congress in the Second District and was defeated by Mr. William Hess, who was recently defeated by Mr. Earl Wagner. I continued to practice law. From time to time, I was active in some political activities and was Democratic national committeeman from Ohio. I was, in 1932, elected lieutenant governor of Ohio. In 1934, I was a candidate for governor and was defeated in the primary by Martin L. Davey. In 1938, I defeated Mr. Davey in our primary, who was then Governor, and I, in turn, was defeated by John W. Bricker, now Senator from Ohio. In 1944, I was appointed Ambassador to Belgium and Minister to Luxembourg by President Roosevelt. I arrived in Brussels just about 2 months before von Rundsted's counter-offensive began. I was there during the entire period until 1946, when I resigned. Since then, I have practiced law in Cincinnati until I was appointed Secretary of Commerce by President Truman. Mr. FLOOD. When was that? Secretary SAWYER. In April of 1948. Mr. FLOOD. In view of the fact you have had some experience with foreign affairs, I would like to ask a few general questions. DISCUSSION OF CLOSER CORRELATION OF FOREIGN SERVICES OF THE GOVERNMENT What is your opinion with reference to these new proposals or new ideas or new discussions of a closer correlation of some of the foreign services in the Government, in a Department like yours, with the State Department? Secretary SAWYER. While I am very much in favor of it, I think the problem presents several aspects. I am not one of those who believe that the Commerce Department should have a far-flung organization over the world, parallel with that of the State Department. It was pretty clearly demonstrated to me, when I was chief of mission in Belgium, that the country to which the chief of mission is accredited should be able to look to one man only for consultation, contact, and advice in connection with all matters, whether matters of statecraft or economics. I do feel, however, that in the economic field the Commerce Department is better qualified, or at least should be better qualified, to discuss and handle problems of a business nature than the State Department and, as a matter of fact, efforts are being made now to work out a better program in that connection and a better allocation of functions between the two Departments. But I feel the State Department, through its ambassadors and ministers, should head up every activity in the particular country involved. Does that answer your question? JURISDICTION OF COMMERCIAL ATTACHÉS Mr. FLOOD. Yes. What jurisdiction do you think should be conferred upon commercial attachés accredited to the various missions in the various countries? Secretary SAWYER. You mean jurisdiction of authority or activity? Mr. FLOOD. Both. Secretary SAWYER. I think, as far as they are concerned, they should be completely under the ambassador or minister. As far as activity is concerned, I think in large measure that should be left to the ambassador or minister. The theory is, of course, that the ambassador is the President's envoy and representative, and he should be given a very free hand in allocating the functions in his own staff and directing the activities of groups there, no matter what their alleged functions might be. When I was in Brussels, for example, we dealt continuously with FEA, and there were many questions of authority which might arise. As a matter of fact, I had no trouble at all in Brussels. We had a very smoothly working organization; that is, it became smoothly working. When I first went in there, the Germans had just left, and we had a rather chaotic situation for a few weeks, but eventually there was no difficulty about the allocation of functions. Mr. FLOOD. Do you look upon the Department of Commerce as having the directive chiefly for domestic or international affairs? Secretary SAWYER. No; I look upon the Department of Commerce as having a directive for the promotion of both domestic and foreign commerce. I do not regard its functions as involving questions of foreign policy. That, I think, is for the State Department to handle, although they do overlap. I mean it is impossible to have a clear line of demarcation between the two. Mr. FLOOD. Before we go to any specific questions on the items in the budgets, there may be some general questions from the other members of the committee. Mr. PRESTON. I want to ask you one question, Mr. Sawyer. The thought has occurred to me in approaching the budget for the CAB that this agency is more or less suspended, without a supervisory head, and in my belief this agency should be properly under the Department of Commerce. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD It may be you would not care to comment on this, but I would be very much interested in your views, as to how you feel about the Department of Commerce assuming the administrative, and some other jurisdiction as well as administrative, over the CAB. Do you care to comment on that? Secretary SAWYER. I am glad to comment generally. May I say, Congressman, I have no desire, from my brief experience in the Department of Commerce, to add anything to its diversified functions, as far as I am personally concerned. I think the job is so big and the needs of coordinated administration are so great that I would not personally welcome, and I do not imagine any other man would, adding to those functions. NEED FOR CENTRALIZATION OF AVIATION ACTIVITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT One of the reasons why I think the Office of Secretary should be fairly well staffed is because there is such a diversity of activities in the Department of Commerce. You take the CAA, the Patent Office, the Census Bureau, the Coast and Geodetic Survey, the Bureau of Standards, and so forth. But I do feel that one of the chief difficulties, I might even say "curses," of the Administration is the duplication of effort of Federal bureaus and the overlapping of effort, and |