238


and to some extent large tankers and cargo ships, are becoming more competitive with the canal.
 Since the canal was opened in 1914, tolls have been raised only about 40 percent, all of that since 1974. Think of that. From 1914 to 1974, the tolls were not raised. Since those toll increases have taken effect, shipping through the canal has dropped about 6 percent per year. All experts and those who have dealt with this problem do agree that there is some limit to the amount the tolls can be increased without driving away traffic to the point of financial collapse. The question is, What level is too high? At what point do the financial burdens on the commission that drive tolls upward begin to result in net operating losses?
 The administration cannot give us anything concrete to rely upon past 1983. The committee staff study shows that in the unlikely event tolls cannot be raised above current levels, the canal will suffer a $3.5 to $3.7 billion operating loss over the period of the treaty.
 As I say, those are just figures which are not written in concrete. No one can be certain about them. They are, however, based on the -unlikely event that tolls cannot be raised above current levels. I assume they can be raised some, and will be raised, but there is the starting point.
 Assuming no loss of traffic due to toll increases, tolls would have to be increased 149 to 168 percent to offset this deficit.
 That is the increase which would be required, to put it in another wording, to offset this prospective deficit to which I have referred.
 The committee staff study shows if tolls can be increased only 75 percent above current levels by the year 2000, the canal would suffer an operating loss of about $1 billi on.
 This is as near as we can get to a hard, rock-bottom calculation.
 This is by way of illustration of what we might be facing as a downside risk of appropriations being required and the prospective amount.

APART FROM POSSIBLE OPERATING LOSSES, WHAT WILL THE TREATY COST?
 The second question is whether or not, aside from possible operating losses, -the U.S. Government will have to pay certain costs as a result of the treaty. The answer here is clearly "Yes." The committee staff study summarized testimony showing about $1 billion of these costs over 22 years. The State Department has acknowledged most of that. The one significant area in dispute is the possible $220 million payment to Panama for the so-called contingent payment of $10 million per year if earned. The State Department asserts the United States would not have to pay this payment if it has accumulated by 2000 A.D., but presents no hard evidence to support its position. The testimony showed that while the U.S. Government may feel this money will not have to be paid, many Panarnanians expect that it will be paid.
 It will be paid to them, or to their government, during the intervening time of these 22 years.
 On that one single point of the $10 million per year if earned, that would constitute only $220 million of this estimated payment that would have to be made of around $1 billion.