the Federal Government under the provisions of section 202(7) of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended.

The Department of the Navy has therefore indicated that the exist ence of similar authority in respect to the Department of the Navy in section 7474 of title 10, United States Code, is undesirable since it can lead to inconsistent wage practices in scales within the Federal Government, particularly if either the exclusive naval authority or the general wage authority of the Federal Government were amended independently.

Subsequent to the scheduling of this bill I have been advised by various representatives of employees at naval activities that they are opposed to this repeal of section 7474 of title 10, United States Code.

In view of this development I feel that the hearings on H.R. 3367 should clearly explore all opposition views for the purpose of determining whether in fact the bill is desirable and in the public interest. Our first witness is to be Admiral Cronin, but I will ask you to allow our distinguished colleague to appear.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question at this point. How does this piece of legislation fit into the roles and missions of this subcommittee? I thought this was a subcommittee on Reserve matters.

Mr. SMART. Not exclusively.

Mr. RIVERS. He gave Mr. Brooks exclusive authority on Reserve and National Guard, I believe, and Mr. Vinson tells me that all the committees have concurrent jurisdiction.

It would have suited me just as well if Mr. Vinson introduced this bill instead of putting it in in my name.

I said in my statement there is some opposition from the Naval Establishment, and I can tell you there is plenty down in my district. I have enough wires here to cover my desk.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. There are some of us who have no Navy yards. Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Miller, we will hear from you and we are very glad to have you testify.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. MILLER. I appear here in opposition to H.R. 3367. I would be reluctant to come before this committee and oppose a bill the distinguished chairman has introduced, but I know the method by which the bill was introduced and I know it does not reflect his own feelings in the matter.

This bill would repeal section 7474, title 10 of the code, and the basic law that has been in effect before any man here was in Congress. Mr. RIVERS. 1862.

Mr. MILLER. It is the cornerstone on which the wage board legislation is based. You could repeal other sections they say "This is covered by another law," but certainly this law which has given protection and which has been the basis by which the Navy has employed its blue-collar people all of these years, is sort of the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence, on which labor stands.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. What do you mean by "blue collar"?

Mr. MILLER. The wage board employees are quite frequently referred to as "the blue-collar employees," as opposed to white-collar employees, who are administrative employees.

Mr. RIVERS. Per diem employees.

Mr. MILLER. They are per diem employees.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. In other words, the term "blue collar" is used here the same as you would use it under civil service?

Mr. MILLER. Yes. It has always been referred to as wage board employees, per diem employees or blue-collar employees. It is a colloquialism which explains who these peope are.

This is the basis, and the very fact that we come in here trying to repeal this law disturbs these very faithful employees, who feel that their salary structure is guaranteed under it, and I can't understandthe Navy comes before this committee, and two came before it when I was here, committee after committee, pleading, telling you what they have to do to build up morale in organizations in the Navy.

I am not going to limit it to the Navy: to the three Departments of the Department of Defense.

And then they come in because someone conceives something like this that has cost and will cost in the lack of morale within the shipyards and naval establishments and naval air stations enough of lost time, because this thing comes in here that costs us hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost time-the chattering that takes place.

The time off within every naval establishment in the country when this bill was brought in has cost us already hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost time, and when they talk about morale in the armed services I sometimes think they ought to sit back and take a little look at those things that go to make for morale.

I want to vigorously oppose this bill, Mr. Chairman, because I feel that it is not in the best interests of defense. If the legislation is covered in other places, this thing certainly isn't doing any harm as a vestige of another area.

I have weighed very carefully what I have said, and I suggest that the bill not be acted on favorably.

Mr. RIVERS. Has anyone any questions of Mr. Miller?

Thank you very much, Mr. Miller.

Admiral Cronin, we will be pleased to have your testimony.

Give your name and title to the reporter, please, Admiral, and you can make your statement, and then after you have finished we will ask questions.

Admiral CRONIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a very short statement, Mr. Chairman, if I may read it.

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. R. E. CRONIN, USN, ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS L. GARDNER, DIRECTOR OF WAGE AND CLASSIFICATION INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Admiral CRONIN. I am Rear Adm. R. E. Cronin, USN, Chief of Industrial Relations of the Department of the Navy and I have been designated to represent the Department of Defense at today's hearing on H.R. 3367.

With me is Mr. Thomas L. Gardner, who is Director of Wage and Classification for the Office of Industrial Relations. The Department appreciates the opportunity to present its views on this bill.

The intent of the bill is to repeal that portion of Public Law 1028, 84th Congress, 2d session which includes the following statement for the wage-fixing authority of the Secretary of the Navy:

The Secretary of the Navy shall establish rates of wages for employees of each naval activity where the rates are not established by other provisions of law to conform, as nearly as is consistent with the public interest, with those of private establishments in the immediate vicinity.

The Department of Defense strongly supports H.R. 3367, since the need for separate wage-fixing legislation for the Navy no longer exists.

Section 202(7) of the Classification Act of 1949 provides almost identical authority and is used by other Federal agencies to set wages for ungraded Federal employees.

During the past few years efforts have been made by the military departments to bring their pay fixing systems and practices as closely in line as possible consistent with the needs of the respective depart

ments.

The past two personnel advisors to the President have sponsored and even directed this action.

It appears inconsistent in the face of this intent and practice that the Department of the Navy should be set apart from the other military departments or other Federal agencies in the matter of legislation for pay of wage board employees. It becomes difficult to explain satisfactorily to interested parties why separate laws with almost duplicating effect continue on the books.

When the original law governing establishment of wages within the Navy was passed in July of 1862 (12 Stat. 587; 34 USC 505), it provided

That the rates of wages of the employees in the Navy yards shall conform, as nearly as is consistent with the public interest, with those of private establishments in the immediate vicinity of the respective yards, to be determined by the commandants of the Navy yards, subject to the approval and revision of the Secretary of the Navy.

Recodification of that law under Public Law 1028 resulted in updating the format and content to that which I previously quoted. There are two differences between the Navy law and the section 202 (7) provisions. These differences are contained in the use of the words "private establishments" and "immediate vicinity," in the Navy law.

In practice such differences have been inconsequential, for the most part, since the general practice of agencies has been to use wage data from private establishments almost entirely, and to follow the "labormarket" concept, which is the "immediate vicinity" for all practical purposes.

One change which could result if the Navy were to use wage data from nonprivate sources would be to include laundry wage rate data from municipal and county institutions in order to obtain a more valid coverage.

In the San Francisco area, for example, laundry rates for the Army and Air Force have been somewhat higher than those of the Navy

because municipal and county institutional laundry data could be used which were higher.

Regardless of the effect, however, it does not appear proper that one agency should be able to use certain data and another agency be denied such use. The effect of these differences is quite negligible on

the whole.

For the foregoing reasons and in the interest of promoting a closer coordinating relationship of the Navy with other Federal agencies, the Department of Defense requests that H.R. 3367 receive favorable consideration.

Mr. RIVERS. Admiral, I have a number of questions I want to ask. I will only ask a few of them and save some of them for later, so other members of the committee can interrogate you on various aspects of this bill.

I notice that you said, and you were careful to say throughout your statement, that the Department of Defense favors this.

Did the repeal of this thing originate in your office?

Admiral CRONIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. You were the moving hand behind repealing this law? Admiral CRONIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. You want to repeal yourself out of a job?

Admiral CRONIN. No, sir.

As I indicated in my statement, Mr. Chairman, I don't think this will make any difference at all in the way we handle our wage board practices, our method of obtaining wage data, or the use we put that data to.

We think it will make absolutely no difference whatsoever except the minor differences I mentioned in the statement.

Mr. RIVERS. Are you aware of the widespread opposition to this bill?

Admiral CRONIN. I wasn't until just a couple of days ago, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. Do you think that is good for the morale of the people with whom you have been working and the Navy has been working since 1862?

Admiral CRONIN. Well, of course, I never like to see the Navy do anything our employees don't understand or don't agree with.

Mr. RIVERS. Do you have any trouble with them in operating under the act of 1862 ?

Admiral CRONIN. No, sir. As I indicated, the only reason for our recommending that that section be repealed is because it isn't consistent to have two different laws controlling the same actions.

Mr. RIVERS. Why wouldn't it be just as sensible to put the Army and the Air Force under the act of 1862 ?

Admiral CRONIN. That would accomplish my purpose, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. If you are getting along fine with them, why couldn't they get along fine with them?

Admiral CRONIN. I don't know of any reason why they couldn't, sir. As I say, in practice there would be no difference in the two

Mr. RIVERS. One time a fellow told me a foolish consistency is a hobgoblin of a small mind, and I wouldn't say that about you.

Just to be consistent, it appears to me if it is going to destroy morale and cause widespread criticism of something that has been getting along well over these years-and if there is anybody in Con

gress who knows something about this thing it is I, because I was raised in the Navy yard at Charleston, as you know. As a matter of fact, the road leading out there was named for me--I was on it so much.

So, I lived in the Navy yard and I sat on this board when they had members over there who were less sensitive to the needs of these people than anyone.

I remember when they had a Captain Fisher down there. He was as cold as a dead Eskimo. And then they had another fellow down there by the name of Nibecker. He was pretty hard to get along with. But you and Admiral Hague and George Holderness-these people have a very high respect for you and I am reluctant, very reluctant, to disturb something that is working well if it can be avoided, because trouble picks me out of the crowd. I don't live to look for trouble and I like to avoid it.

We have some trouble with people from far off down in our place, telling us how to run business; particularly the preachers. I saw one of my preachers in the Washington paper. We call that the uptown edition of the Daily Worker. An Episcopalian preacher. The only way he could get his name in the paper was by asking for integration. All he could do is talk about my people and not try to save anyone's

soul.

We have enough trouble, and I like to avoid it.

I apologize for introducing this bill because we are the arm of the Government, the Congress, which handles the Department of Defense matters. If we don't introduce legislation which they desire, it can't be introduced. That is why we have hearings and that is the way the Congress runs.

So Mr. Vinson has the courtesy to the Department of always introducing the legislation whether he favors it or not, and I want you gentlemen who represent the opposing views of this to understand it. That is why this bill was introduced. Because I think the Navy should have the right to present their views the same as you.

We are the only voice that the Department of Defense has, and we think that it is our responsibility to introduce these pieces of legisla tion despite the fact we personally may not favor them.

Isn't that right, Mr. Smart?

Mr. SMART. Correct, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. And that is the only way we can get the legislation. before the committee.

I am going to ask some of the other members to express their views. Mr. Van Zandt is an old Navy man here, who has come up from apprentice seaman to the point where he will soon have flag rank. He ought to have it. He has been one of the greatest exponents of the Navy's destiny on Capitol Hill that I know, and he has done a terrific job for the Navy, and I am certainly glad he is on this subcommittee because I am going to lean pretty heavily on Mr. Van Zandt.

Any questions, Mr. Van Zandt?

Mr. VAN ZANDT. I hope the gentleman will make that same statement this time next year, when we are running for reelection. Mr. RIVERS. I am for you.