295-


 So we come in and say, "Liook, we presently use one-tnird of the canatl now. Suppose we guarantee one-third of the cost of building a sea-level canal. Then you gro to Japan and go to these other countries and get them each to pony-up what they would use the canal for Prospectively."
 Then the Panamanians, like anybody else, would get a consortium and go build the sea-level canal.
 They would own it. They would charge tolls. The defense picture would change drastically, because essentially, we now have something that is veritably indestructible. So we have a situation where we have breached the isthmus.
 This could all be done, I might say, before the year 1990, and it would make all of what we are saying here in this debate moot-totally

 I yield to my colleague (Mr. Church).
 M1r. CHURCHa.First of all, I want to say to the Senator from Alaska that he has presented some stunning figures. I have not had an opportunity to review them. I am sure that they are going to provoke a good deal of argument. But no one, I think, could argue with the proposition that the figures themselves, if accurate, are stunning.
 I had known, of course, that there are thousands of vessels on the high seas too large to use the canal. When one looks at the canal today, one marvels at the foresight of the original engineers for building locks with dimensions that far exceeded the needs of their time. For example, the locks were 1,000 feet long, 110 feet wide, 50 to 60 feet deep-I forget the exact figure, but they were tremendous. As a result. up until 15 years ao the canal was able to handle all ships, including the larger ships built in the intervening years.
 Then, as these charts show, about 15 years ago, the bulk carrier
-construction commenced in earnest. The same was true of giant tankers.
 Now, the impact this has had upon the canal, as shown by these fi gures, is dramatic; for, as the Senator suggests, while the canal was capable of carryingr 90 percent of the world tonnage in: 1966-just 12 years ago-today it, is capable of carrying only 42.2 percent of the world tonnage, less than half, dropping in 12 short years from 90 per,cent of the world's tonnage to less than half.
 And then the Senator makes a very conservative projection, based upon the experience of the past 12 years. In fact, he bases that projection, as I understand it, on just one-third the rate we experienced during the past. 12 years, and such a conservative projection shows that by the year 2000, that 'is, by the year we turn the canal over to the Panamanians, less than 10 percent, 7.6 percent to be exact, of the world's tonnage would be able to use the canal.
 Now, this has led the opponents of the. treaty to say something I never expected to hear them say: "Let us not give this white elephant to the ]Panamanians; it would not be fair. Let us keep it for ourselves."
 Mr. GRAVEL. [Laughing.] Maybe we could put it in fhie Smithsonian.
 Mr. CHURCH. I will never cease to be amazed by the arguments being made.
 MATr. H-ELMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
 M.%r. CHURCH. But the point that the Senator from Alaska underscores is that this canal is rapidly growing obsolete. All you have to