We laid forth a pretty miserable record. Unless I had the time to read it all I would not want to touch it in detail, because it involves the names of some people in this room and some companies. We made very serious allegations. We made some allegations which in my opinion should have been answered forthwith.

We had with us in our delegation, Mr. George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO; his executive assistant, Lane Kirkland; myself; and the same Mr. Calhoon to whom we have been referring. We not only laid these charges orally on the table, but documented a number of them. These are part of your record here. We supplied enough to Mr. Goldberg to supply all of the agencies and we gave him, I believe, six extra copies.

In it, Mr. Chairman, we traced the manipulations of the brokers in handling cargoes. We also described in detail the manner in which they would break the market. That is why I was interested in the $18 and $17 picture of Mr. Spalding. Some of the brokers would call up an operator and say, "I have a cargo to go, how about $18?

"OK."

He calls another guy. "He said $17."

He would call a third guy and say, "Somebody offered $17." Now he gets $16. Now he comes back to the $18. "I am sorry, Jack, I have a $16 offer," breaking the market wide open. Fair and reasonable did not mean a thing. We established this pretty well, Mr. Chairman, now what happened.

Now to go back to this other issue, I think this probably accounts for some of the bitterness. This is why I think it is unfortunate you have not been in industry a little longer in the sense of the position you are in. That may have accounted for some of the bitterness of Calhoon's wire.

We were assured action on it. We held this meeting, and presented all of the documentation. We were told we would get an answer. We checked it out later. They said this is a very serious matter. Therefore, we want an executive investigation, and within the framework of the executive itself. So we waited. These are very serious charges I repeat. We go on and we go on and we go on. We check again.

This is now a year later or better than a year. We are told that in view of a certain Supreme Court decision which in effect dealt with the runaway flag question that this became a moot question so far as the Government was concerned. Mr. Chairman, to try to relate this issue to the runaway flag where we were charging manipulation, corruption, and perversion of a public law by people who were in our opinion handling the letting of these cargoes, with or without the knowledge, with or without the consent of certain people of the Government, we made no charge in that direction.

To have tried to relate the runaway flag issue to the very serious nature of the charges we had brought up was to try to relate the most impossible things in the world. It did not add up. We have heard nothing since that time. I would point out too, Mr. Chairman, that even in the wire today you read from Calhoon, these are the vessels that had been listed as having not been employed when they should have been employed.

Mr. Chairman, again, not to dwell on a sour subject, I point out that two of those vessels have been cleared for shipping since he

notified you of this matter. Now, Mr. Chairman, he mentioned two ships. Two of them were hired as a result of this kind of discussion, as a result of gentle persuasion on your part.

Also in the same area, the same discussion, we have the issue of the dollar of Mr. Spalding, on which I am still interested in hearing some point of comment by Continental. Now, Mr. Chairman, whether you like it or not and whether I like it or not, when the record over a period of time indicates this type of record, and where even though he may have been wrong in some of the points he made-I am not saying he is right, I am not saying he is wrong-nevertheless, two of the ships were evidently hired after he made his complaint.

At the very hearing almost immediately prior to the producing of his wire for the record, two of the vessels were announced as being hired. Mr. Chairman, I submit that something, while it might not be wrong, I would submit that everything is not quite right either.

What bothers me a great deal is this. I recall that when President Kennedy made his announcement of the possibility of the wheat sale to Russia and it had been done, I am sure, after a lot of grave consideration in the highest places, on October 9 he stated they would be carried in available American vessels, supplemented by ships of other countries as required.

I could not help but think when the issue came up here and you pressed the point yourself, Mr. Chairman, why hire the foreign 50 percent first, then go in the market for the American flag? I could not help but think, Mr. Chairman, that the expressed desire of the President of these United States on this matter certainly was not meant to be implemented in this fashion.

He said to be supplemented by foreign bottoms. He didn't say to take the first 50 percent foreign. There is no implication, no inference, nothing in here that you can read in that sense. Check the speech, it is there. He said the American shall be supplemented. But I heard cold evidence today that the foreigners in this case are being supplemented. They are the ones being supplemented.

I think what I am really saying, it is a question of the implementation of the desires of this administration, of the desires of the Government. I think, Mr. Chairman, this is possibly where we have a breakdown or certainly where we have a misunderstanding. What are we to believe as workers in a free society where we have a President who gets up and makes this kind of statement, but nevertheless, at the end of that line where the implementation takes place, the reverse of what he said comes off?

What makes it worse, Mr. Chairman, is this. Those of you who sit in this room, all distinguished and honorable people, your life as such does not depend on a fireman's job aboard a vessel, nor of an ordinary seaman's. The difference in the implementation of the Kennedy message and desire or the misimplementation of it, I should say, can mean the economic death of an American worker that Kennedy himself had expressed a feeling should not die.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would urge on you, possibly as a person who has not dealt with waterfront workers in maritime labor, that when we discuss this issue with you, Mr. Chairman, this is our living and our families' living. Maybe we don't express it properly in the most polite language, but I hope you take into consideration when you

make this judgment that it is our people's living that we are talking about.

Also, on October 10, the day after, Kennedy told Congress he was quite sure that these sales would bring added income and employment to American shipping, and so forth. We are all familiar with this. Mr. Chairman, I could now take these records and read them and show the changes in the pattern, but I think it has been established enough here to indicate quite a change.

I am not arguing over the application of the law that you are in a position of having administered. Who am I to do that? I don't know your problems. I don't know your interpretations. But I say this, If your implementation or applications or interpretation have resulted in this constant twisting and winding, then your interpretation is wrong. Or if the law itself or the rules or the ground rules that we have been discussing are the things that cause this twisting, then it is quite evident, Mr. Chairman, we need a set of ground rules.

I heard with great interest some of the people testifying here today and outside, those who appeared quite frightened, Mr. Chairman, who may get in trouble with the people who let out the cargoes, and all, I heard some pretty competent operators today express very marked points of view on the rules. I would think this, That to get to the heart of this problem is one of the very basic considerations you should give.

I think we should go back and try, and I say "we," Mr. Chairman, because I think labor also has a stake in this matter, because we are taxpayers. This wheat that is moved has been subsidized by the taxpayers of this country and, Mr. Chairman, we are taxpayers as well as anyone else.

I think we should go back and try to establish the ground rule that has some degree of flexibility where you can take into consideration the plight of a shipowner. Maneuvering a ship is not moving a checker on top of a table. I submit this, Mr. Chairman, if you examine the hearing when this is all over and if you take the attitude of these gentlemen across the aisle from me today, I think it is quite obvious what conclusion I would come to, and I would like to express it.

First, what do you do? You put in the bank the 50 percent foreign flag. This is safe and solid as home. The next 50 percent is supposed to be the Yankee flag. Then, Mr. Chairman, you break out the rule book. Mr. Chairman, you are an experienced person in Government, I am an experienced person in trade unionism. It is like the interpretation of a law and constitution. There are several ways you can interpret it, in a liberal and helpful manner or you can be mean and tough and give a narrow interpretation without consideration of the problem of the individual, though who might not comply legally with other points of view.

I haven't heard one word of yielding today, Mr. Chairman, on the point of view of the gentlemen across the aisle, and I listened very carefully. I listened as Teddy Gleason said you were pleading with the fellow here to go this way. I listened, Mr. Chairman. Did you plead on that side of the aisle, too? I didn't see an inch budge. If they don't want to budge, fine. But on the basis this is the law, this is the rule, this is our charter.

39-375-64- -18

I would suggest this, knowing if they are going to follow these things in the strict, tough manner they are, Mr. Chairman, I think from now on the rules where possible, should reflect care for that individual case that has an individual problem, to take care of it, not to use this law on strict, tough decisions, to chisel the American flag out, but to try to help him get in.

That is what the rules should be used for, not to the financial benefit necessarily only of Continental. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to you that in this broad program, this is not only a question of economics, it is not only a question of agriculture. It is important to the economy of this country. It is important to the people in agriculture. It is important to us internationally. It is important to every single segment.

I submit this, Mr. Chairman, that this law should not be interpreted nor the application made in such a manner as to be based purely and simply on whether or not the specific point of law has been met to meet the pleasures of Continental Grain, however wonderful they may be, however noble they may be.

Mr. Chairman, I submit that there are other interested parties in this whole picture and, Mr. Chairman, there are other issues involved other than whether or not they may not lose a dollar or may not lose a day. I suggest, too, Mr. Chairman, that on the overall question, that unless something is done on this it can only lead to further difficulty. We know that we have had great troubles in this industry.

I am happy that you qualified your remarks in one respect, Mr. Chairman. You included some shipowners. I would include also the short-sightedness of some of the Government officials as well. But regardless of where the blame might lay at this late date and it lies in every direction, no one's hands are really clean.

I can show you very irresponsible people in every section of this industry. I can show you drunks. You show me one type of character in one segment of our business, Mr. Chairman. I will show you the identical type across the board. You show me one type of individual who has made one type of mistake in any one segment of our industry and I will match him off for you. So we don't prove anything.

The problem is, Mr. Chairman, we are so busy arguing, so busy trying to save a buck where the buck is not the issue or where in the long range you could save a lot more than the buck, and all of these things are carried on in a welter of feelings and personality.

There is only one basic thing which has been forgotten and that is to make this industry survive, to think on a positive basis, on the basis of moving forward not backward. For goodness sakes, it is a terrible thing for people who make their living on a ship to sit in a room here where you are moving all this cargo that could mean a living for our people and keeping this with the expressed policies of administration of this country and to hear the foreigners already have their half and deciding what part of our cargo is to be removed, all because Henry Dowd does not want to go to the Atlantic companies.

This is a terrible feeling. This hurts and it hurts bad. You see, unlike the shipowner we have to be honest with you. They will reserve certain facts because they do business tomorrow and they are doing business, Mr. Chairman, and this is the point I make for one company, their company, four ships, five ships, six ships.

We are not in that position. We do business with everybody. We sail everybody's ships, all seamen, whether SIU, NMU, or anybody else's. We must be interested in it to all industries. Maybe this is why we are more sensitive to the industry, to see some of these things developing.

I am not an expert on cargo like Gleason is. I am not the expert on the operations that Goodman is. I am a marine fireman. I have been in it most of my life in one capacity or another. I know without belaboring the details some of the objectives here, Mr. Chairman.

I will not say they are not legitimate as to the letter of the law. I will say that they are aimed in one general direction. But see how the remainder of what could be American-flag cargoes could be knocked off. I have to come to that conclusion. I can come to no other conclusion.

I want to point out, I don't intend to belabor this record. Again, there are lots of things that I could have read in here, but fortunately many of the gentlemen here have said those things for me, what I might have read, and some of them did a better job than I could have done.

I think that the point Kahn made relative to the rules and all these things, again these are essential things and I think we have to get down and get to work on them.

You know what time there is an We are called on We are called to

One more point, Mr. Chairman, and I will close. bothers me is that in this country of ours every emergency, the waterfront worker is called on. to make our sacrifices the same as everyone else. make our sacrifices in time of war and in time of peace.

There is a problem like Ted Gleason said earlier. Maybe the gentlemen across the aisle cannot maneuver in 15 days for Mr. Dowd, but when there is a labor problem they can maneuver in 20 minutes. This is because they are called on to do something that they don't want to do, to make a contribution to the industry in an overall fashion. I have sat with gentlemen in the room like Mr. Reynolds. I have sat with many of the Federal representatives and talked to people on the waterfront who went against every thing they were raised to believe in only to help the industry and the country.

If we can participate to this degree in our life and our community, Mr. Chairman, I think it is rather silly to exclude us at a time when you decide in the due process of this business of this Administration to set the ground rules on which we will live or die or on which we will go hungry or have food.

I am not suggesting we should muscle in on your business and exercise any prerogative that you have, but in addition to the operator, in addition to the person who is to do the shipping, I would suggest, if it is at all possible, practical, and proper, that we should be allowed in at some point. We are not all idiots, Mr. Chairman. We might not all know the finest and tiniest facets of the business, but we were raised in the business. We work at the trade with our hands. We have ideas, too.

I tell you why it would be perfectly safe, not only safe but in my opinion advisable, because, you see, better than anyone, we understand quite well that without an American ship, no American sailor, without their job, there is no us. So you can be sure that whatever we will