293


we had a recession in this period-would amortize over 60 years, 6 percent interest bonds, that could be used to build the sea-level canal had we gone forward with it. Now we look -at what actually happened to the revenues in question. The blue line here shows what really happened to the revenues. The revenues far outdistanced what, -actually, they projected.
 Take the situation depicted here and you look at the phenomenon that took place in that period from 1966 to 1977. Even with the climb of thie increase in obsolescence, the revenues have been such that they could have even supported a sea-level canal that was projected at that time. The phenomenon is even more than what is shown here, because you have to place yourself introspectively and say there is Something going on in the world: for one, vessels are getting larger. There is more tonnagre. The tonnage they expected to go through the canal went through.
 We had two increases in the toll, one in July of 1974. But you will notice that we were above the projection prior to the recession. So the increase simply took advantage of existing elasticity, which we have never fully used. Another toll increase of 19 percent took place in 1976.
 We can argue over elasticity, and there is probably another 30 percent in there. We can argue whether it would decline.
 Mr. LAxALT. Will the Senator yield?
 Mr. GRAVEL. Yes.
 Mr. LAXALT. I do not begin to pose as an expert in this area at all, but I understand that we have had an era in the last few years of going to the larger ships; that that has plateaued out, and the maritime industry, worldwide, has come to the conclusion that perhaps they should not have that size ship in the future. Is there any merit in that at all?
 MAfr. GRAVEL1. I do not know where my colleague heard that. First of all, these figures that I have belie that -statement. You can talk to one shipowner and he can say, "Well, we have plateaued out, We are not going to build big ships." What I am showing here is what happened in the. last 15 years.
 Mr. LAxALT. I understand that.
 Mr. GRAVEnL. That is what has happened. I think any other statement is conjecture and not very reliable. I think we have to look at the performance to see what happened.
 I think the important thing, if I may focus on thiMr. LAXALT. May I ask a tangential question?
 Mr. GRAVEL. Please.
 Mr. LAxALTr. In the trends here, in terms of the size of the ships, which relates directly to the utility of the canal, obviously, has the Senator from Alaska adopted the same trends in relation to size of ships in the next 15 to 20 years as he did in the past 15 years?
 Mr. GRAVEL. Yes, that is what that chart is, right there.
 Mr. LAxALT. So there is a direct relationship in that chart to the size of the vessels.
 Mr. GRAVL. The blue line in the chart on the farthest right is actually what happened in the 15 years. The red line is only a third of that experience. I had to be more conservative, because if I continued the line, it would be more preposterous than it presently appears.


36-614-79-20