Hon. ROBERT GILES,

Acting Administrator, Maritime Administration,
Washington, D.C.:

The expressed policy of our Government with respect to the shipment of American wheat to the Soviet Union is that at least 50 percent of the shipments are to be carried in U.S.-flag vessels. We have repeatedly been assured by various Government agencies that this shipping requirement would be observed in the interests of the American merchant marine and American maritime workers. Despite these assurances, we are now confronted with the threat that our Government will once again waive the 50-percent requirement by allowing Continental Grain Co. to select foreign-flag shipping over available American tonnage. We vigorously protest the manipulation of shipping requirements in order to produce greater profits for Continental at the expense of our Nation and the maritime industry.

If the Government permits this waiver it will deal a devastating blow to American shipping and will defeat the very purpose which gave rise to the requirement in the course of the wheat sales negotiations that American shipping carry at least 50 percent of the shipments. In the event of a waiver, we will be forced to take immediate action in the interest of the industry, the workers involved, and the American taxpayer. We will also call upon the Maritime Trades Department of the AFL-CIO to take steps for appropriate action by the American labor movement that would effectively call to the attention of the American public the disastrous effects of our Government's actions in repudiating the 50-50 policy with regard to the wheat shipments to the Soviet Union.

PAUL HALL,

President, Seafarers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO.
THOMAS W. GLEASON,

President, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO.
JESSE M. CALHOON,

President, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, AFL-CIO.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS W. GLEASON, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION

Mr. GLEASON. My name is Thomas Gleason, representing the International Longshoremen's Association. I heard a lot here this morning about the ground rules being set by Continental and the other gentlemen here. I thought the ground rules were set some time ago by President Kennedy and followed up by President Johnson. As you know, the International Longshoremen did not want to handle this wheat in the first place. There was not any restrictions put on the number of American ships that would handle this grain. There was a minimum of at least 50 percent. From what I have seen here this morning, no matter what President Kennedy said or President Johnson said, it is very obvious that very many American men are not going to get a job out of this shipment of grain to Russia. The position of the ILA has been very clear over a period of years. We have been boycotting all Russian cargo and are ready to take a boycott position on the wheat shipments. However, because of the interest President Kennedy had shown, his desire to sell this wheat to Russia and after meeting with Mr. Jim Reynolds of the Labor Department and Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., they claimed it was in the best interest of the American Government to carry through this transaction.

I called the meeting of my executive board from all parts of the United States and Canada with the exception of the west coast which we don't represent and recommended that President Kennedy's recommendation to carry out this shipment of grain to Russia be carried through. It was not a unanimous decision. Nevertheless we gave our word to the President, Mr. Reynolds who is here now, and to Mr.

Roosevelt, that we would carry this on, only on the grounds that the majority of this wheat would be carried in American bottoms and would create jobs for our people. There was not any ground rules whether it was 32-foot-draft ships or whether Russia's had lighters to take them in, partially to discharge the ships and then take the grain in by lighter and be able to handle these larger American ships. We were instructed that American ships would get the preference of this work. On this basis we decided to handle it.

Now, lo and behold, the American ships are being pushed aside and the foreign-flag ships who have been dealing with the enemy, with Cuba, whom we are also boycotting, are now being taken off the blacklist and being put in here at the expense of the American ships. Now we have boycotted and we will boycott every single ship that comes off that Cuban blacklist. We will boycott them. We think there are enough American ships around here and regardless of the Russians we should make the rules. They are the hungry ones, we are not. Listening to this gentleman today that we may be in the position 4 or 5 years from now about grain, I assure you if we are the Russians won't help us, we will go hungry.

Now if this agreement is not lived up to by our Government, I will call my executive board back into session and make a recommendation that our longshoremen refuse to load this grain on any ships regardless of the flag she flies. You see, with the longshoremen it does not make any difference. We load all ships whether they are flags of convenience, foreign ships or American ships, we load them all. But we believe as American trade unionists here that we should help our brothers. In the last 5 or 6 years the American merchant marine has gone down now to where they carrry 8 percent of the cargo. It is a crime to see one man who was operating out of London at the present time send this Tulsa Hill into Baltimore for a cargo of this grain and he still has 24 ships chartered in that run, still going to take those buses that we are condemning the British for-taking that cargo to our avowed enemy. And then we are going to put some of this money in his pocket, all this crying about the balance of payments, this $500 million in grain is going to help out balance of payments, help our gold situation, but still no consideration is given to the money we give these foreign operators to bring back and put in those banks in these different countries, they are American dollars, they are being paid in American dollars, and American seamen not getting 5 cents of this business at all.

It is a crime that the American shipowner is being bypassed in the situation and ships that have been trading with the enemy, Cuba, are being taken off the blacklist and are being given preference in carrying this cargo. The ILA has already taken a stand against one of these blacklisted ships; namely, the Tulsa Hill, and will continue to take a stand in favor of our American sailors so that some of this money that we pay to the foreign shipowners will not continue to hurt our balance of payments.

I sincerely hope that this matter of 50 percent moving in American ships will be lived up to. Now this was only the minimum. There was not any deal that said that we must only move 50 percent of the wheat in American ships. I will be glad to say that we move 65 or 80 percent in American ships and let the Russians go to hell. I am

for boycotting them and give them nothing. Don't move a ton of grain. Let them starve. Let the Canadians give it to them. They would not have.

New Zealand has not got the grain; Australia does not have the grain to sell them at the present time. I think it is about time the Americans got their back up and told these guys: "We make the rules. If you want the grain take them at our price, take it the way we send it to you or not at all." This is the way the longshoremen feel about it.

Mr. GILES. Thank you, Mr. Gleason.

I would like to ask you a few questions.
Mr. GLEASON. Go ahead.

Mr. GILES. In your joint telegram that was sent here, first let me say that with respect to the Cuban shipping matter I understand your general situation on that. That is a separate matter, not in the province of the Maritime Administration. So I am not in a position to pursue that.

Mr. GLEASON. Those ships are coming off that run, sir, and they are coming back and put in this Russian run.

Mr. GILES. So far as Continental is concerned that is the application or waiver that we have got. What is the position of Continental on using foreign ships that have been in this Cuban business?

Mr. STOVALL. To my knowledge Continental has chartered no vessels which have traded with Cuba. We have taken a firm stand since January 1, 1962, that any vessel trading with Cuba would not be chartered for any commodity irrespective of the destination. As of present time we include, and have for the past year and a half, a clause in every charter wherein the owner stipulates he has not traded with Cuba since January 1, 1963, and has no commitment on the vessel to trade with Cuba subsequent to the charter party.

Mr. GILES. So far as Government policy, Mr. Gleason, the Government policy with regard with Cuban shipping has been a blacklist or restriction on Government cargo, Government-aid cargo. Now I know there are a lot of differences of opinion as to that policy whether it should not be extended to all, commercial and otherwise. The fact remains as far as my Maritime Administration's abilities and responsibilities, the fact remains that the President of the United States has not seen fit to adopt a policy to go that far. So long as I am here I am going to have to administer the laws and the decisions and basic policies that the President of the United States decides upon regardless of my personal feelings or regardless of anyone else's personal feelings. But the point that concerns me

Mr. GLEASON. Can I follow up a little more on that Cuban situation?

Mr. GILES. All right.

Mr. GLEASON. I realize that none of us want to break the laws. We must have a head and we must respect our country and the people who run it. I realize that people like President Johnson and President Kennedy, God rest his soul, if he were here he possibly could not take the stand that some of our trade unionists would take because Congress would not possibly back it up.

I believe that the stand we have taken is a popular stand. I believe you cannot give an enemy a little bit and believe he will be eventually

happy with it. I believe he will take over once he gets his foot in the door. On this Cuban situation, Continental says, "For example, as of January 29, of the nine foreign-flag tankers that the Continental Grain Co. had already chartered to carry wheat to Russia there were three ships, the Demran, Yugoslav Marvellia, and Dressa that participated in the Communist buildup in Cuba in 1962." He said January 1, 1963.

One tanker, British-flag Londoncraftsman owned by London & Overseas Freighters, a company which has operated 10 tankers under its own name in the Cuban trade in the last 2 years and still has 10 tankers totaling 160,000 deadweight tons shuttling gasoline between Russia and Cuba. Now, this is something that we should try to stop.

Mr. GILES. Mr. Gleason, I am not in a position this afternoon in regard to Continental waiver, which is our main item of business, to discuss in detail the Cuban matters. I am sure that if you and I sat down and talked about it we would find many areas of personal agreement. But when it comes to administering the laws or the policies, why this agency, of course, will have to proceed on the basis of what our Government adopts.

Now, it seems to me, to make the final general comment on that, that we have got to have an orderly way and an orderly procedure for our Government to make these decisions. The basic questions that you raise, it seems to me, is who is going to make the basic decision, who is going to have that responsibility? Is it going to be the President of the United States to decide our foreign policy or will it be some private segment within the United States, some private individual or some group? This is a big country. We have a lot of room for differences. We get along, we get up on the stump and everybody says his piece. I believe in the right of labor unions to strike, to improve their conditions. I believe in the right of longshoremen not to load ships when they do not want to load them.

I am expressing my personal view, Mr. Gleason. I do not think it is right, I do not think it is in the interest of our country, for longshoremen who not only refuse to load the ships but will throw up a picket line so that no one else reasonably under the circumstances would work them. That is expressing a personal point of view. I think, whether we all like it or not, when it comes to a matter of our foreign policy, these basic decisions, we have an obligation not to frustrate the policy of the President of the United States.

Mr. GLEASON. I think we don't need pickets in the first place. The longshoremen don't need a picket. We can turn it on or off like this. Mr. GILES. Let me ask you this. Would you as a matter of principle just say to your longshoremen, or they would say to you, "We just won't load this ship but if the shipowners, whoever is involved, just round up a band of men that can come in and load it, that is all right with us"?

Mr. GLEASON. You would have to send the Marines in for that. Mr. GILES. I am searching out how you would follow up on your principle. In other words, what you are saying is that you and your executive board should make the foreign policy of the United States rather than the President?

Mr. GLEASON. No, I don't say that. I think that we have a right to refuse to handle any kind of package that we think is going to contaminate us.

Mr. GILES. I do, too.

Mr. GLEASON. This is all we are doing. I was very happy, I was up there on that Montreal strike when Montreal was out. I had to settle that strike up there. I was happy to read when most of that wheat went over to Russia there was a lot of glass in it. I was very happy about that. The more of this happens the better I like it.

Mr. GILES. Mr. Gleason, I can understand and appreciate your point of view on that particular question but I would like to ask the specific question here in connection with Continental. In your telegram or the one you signed jointly there is this language, "We vigorously protest the manipulation of shipping requirements." Now I can understand, I have been through this for two and a half months. I can understand there has been a lot of confusion or misunderstanding, lack of information amongst some of the shipping owners. A good many shipping owners were not as well informed, for example, as, say, the officials of shipping associations who actually attended meetings where we discussed these matters. Then many labor officials were not and could not have been as well informed as to what we were doing. Now I would like to ask you, do you have any specific case or any specific situation that you have been informed of that you think is plausible on the face of it where this agency has endeavored to manipulate this matter so that we would evade the shiping requirement?

Mr. GLEASON. All I can say, I stated evidence I have seen here this morning, the arbitrary stand that was taken against ship that appeared in this testimony here, that Continental just took a position and he was placed in a box, he was boxed in, he has to do business with your people, he has to do business with Continental and if he takes a position and demands that his ship be used, then it becomes a boycott of the shippers or somebody else.

Mr. GILES. I am not going to try at this point to justify all the positions of Continental. I have disagreed on many items of Continental. What I am concerned with, and I think properly so, is, do you feel that this agency, the Maritime Administration, has been arbitrary here this morning and today as to what you have seen?

Mr. GLEASON. Well, I think on certain occasions here in your own position you were begging, the way I understood it, you were begging these fellows not to ask for the ships to be used in this trade. I saw Dowd here was willing. I saw the first gentleman who testified was willing to put a ship in the gulf. The funny part of these fellows, Continental Grain or Cargill, if they have labor trouble they can change those ships around in 2 hours, they don't need a week, 10 days or 17 days. It is funny how they can change those ships around. I saw this morning here these guys were begged off in my opinion, the shipowners, not to press for the use of their ships in this business.

Mr. GILES. Begged off by whom?

Mr. GLEASON. By you.

Mr. GILES. So, you regard what I have said here today in these specific cases, you would put a label of "begging off the shipowners?" Mr. GLEASON. That is the way I feel about it.