Mr. DANIELIAN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Who is the other one? Mr. DANIELIAN. The CIO has been on record with the committee as wishing to come here to testify. The AFL groups in the Great Lakes and Western States have assigned one representative for all of them to testify. He could not be here before the 7th of this month. Therefore, I just told him to defer his program. Even those may relinquish their desire to come before the committee if it will expedite the proceedings of the committee. I am sure that time has been allowed for the opponents to analyze the record, and they are going to attack every aspect of the project, including the testimony of those who have spoken. There must be some time allowed, perhaps 1 day, maybe 11⁄2 days, to clear the record on points of fact that may be raised. Mr. PICKETT. Who are the witnesses that want to clear the record in rebuttal? Mr. DANIELIAN. The Great Lakes St. Lawrence Association would like to reserve the right to produce one witness. Mr. PICKETT. Who is the witness? Mr. DANIELIAN. That will be supplied to the committee at the proper time. Mr. PICKETT. We do not know who he is going to be. Do we know that is the only group that wants to appear here in rebuttal? Mr. DANIELIAN. I am merely speaking of the private people. Mr. PICKETT. Is the committee going to run this schedule, or is somebody else? Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, could we allocate one or two more days for the proponents, and then go into the opponents? The CHAIRMAN. We have already sent out notices on that motion that was made yesterday by Mr. Larcade; that we would start with the opponents on April 2. We have already sent out those notices and the AFL, and the CIO will be here to represent the opponents during that week. Mr. DONDERO. I will say, Mr. Chairman, that not all the auto workers of my home city are on that side because they are for this project. Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Chairman, may I say for the record, that I am not trying to keep anybody from testifying, or trying to deprive anybody from testifying before this committee. I share the views of Mr. Pickett, that anyone that has any real interest, and can demonstrate that interest, ought to be permitted to testify either for or against the project. As a matter of fact, yesterday, I think it was, I made a motion that all of those who were interested, and who had not asked to appear, that they be given the opportunity to file statements. The committee voted that down. I just do not want, when this bill is voted out of the committee, and gets on the floor, anybody to say, "Our witnesses never had a chance to appear. We wanted to appear but the committee did not give us the opportunity." I think the record shows that every reasonable effort was given by the committee to give everyone an opportunity to testify, either the proponents, and when the time comes, the opponents. I think both groups should be afforded the same privilege. Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the idea of having a long list of witnesses come here, and not contributing anything new to the committee. Everybody, I think, agrees with that. I have asked that a reasonable time be granted to both the opponents and the proponents, and that the time for both sides be the same. No one can find fault with that. Now, if there is anybody else that wants to come as a proponent to testify, it seems to me that that privilege ought to be extended them. Mr. DANIELIAN. I wish to make the point clear, Mr. Congressman, that we do not insist on the presentation of additional witnesses. We do not wish to protract the proceedings before the committee. We are in favor of having the opponents state their case as quickly and as extensively as is fair to both sides. We would like to see the hearings concluded at the earliest possible moment, and a decision taken on it because we feel strongly that we should not lose another season of construction on this project. However, if it appears in the course of the opponents' case that the veracity or reliability of the facts presented by the proponents are extensively attacked, it may be necessary, perhaps it will not be, that the least one or two-perhaps a Government witness would like to come in and clear up the record, perhaps one of us would like to come forward and clear up the record on any questions or facts that may be raised by the opponents. That is all I am requesting. The CHAIRMAN. We will give the same time to the opponents starting on April 2. Then let the committee decide at the end of those hearings whether they want to hear from one, two, or three proponents, or two or three opponents. We will keep that in the hands of the committee after we hear from the opponents. Mr. DANIELIAN. That is most satisfactory, Mr. Chairman. (Whereupon, at 1:30 p. m., the committee adjourned until Monday, April 2, 1951, at 10 a. m.) (The following tabulations of which mention is made on p. 140 were submitted by Vice Adm. Edward L. Cochrane, Maritime Administrator, Department of Commerce.) TABLE I.-Seagoing merchant-type vessel, United States and foreign flag, 1,000 gross tons and over arranged by draft group as of June 30, 1950 TABLE II. Characteristics of principal types of vessel in the American merchant marine 2 For channel depth of 27 feet, vessels loaded to 25 feet in salt water allow 2 feet for clearance including variation in submersion between salt and fresh water. 1 Source: Division of Vessel Operations. 3 Vessel not completed. 4 Barrels. Not available. Although the C-4 type is not listed as a principal type in Ships of the American Merchant Marine, it is believed that this type is of sufficient importance in connection with this report to note its characteristics. Source: Ships of the American Merchant, USMC. TABLE III.-Deadweight tonnage of United States flag vessels, by type, as of For channel depth of 27 feet, vessels loaded to 25-foot draft in salt water allow 2 feet for clearance including variation in submersion between salt and fresh water. Exact capacity at 25-foot draft unknown; 75 percent of deadweight-ton capacity, loaded at full draft, has arbitrarily been selected. 4 The 784 vessels comprise 56 percent of the United States merchant fleet that are privately owned and under bareboat charter from the Maritime Administration. The remainder or 44 percent are made up of other type vessels or variation of the types noted above. No vessels of the Maritime Administration's laid-up fleet numbering 2,005 are included in the above total, although many of the above types are in the laid-up fleets. 30 118 16, 700 12,600 75 31 5 27 0 26,000 3 19,500 75 35, 235 75 |