315

 Mr. LAXALT. To continue:
 Only the remarkable growth in tonnage transiting the canal, coupled with technological improvement, has permitted -maintenance of a relatively constant toll rate. Until 5 years ago, the canal broke even as an operating concern and actually showed an annual profit, even after deduction of the rental payment to Panama of $2.3 million a year. But the cost of operating the canal is noxvabout $250 million annually and there was a deficit of $11.8 million in FY 1974 and $8.2 million in FY 1975. Toll revenues and credits only accounted for $143 million in 1975, another $87 million coming from supportive services, and the two most recent increases were deemed necessary to offset anl anticipated deficit of $36.5 million from July 1975 to October 1977. Since enactment of the Panama Canal Reorganization Act of 1950, significant elements of the 'true maintenance costs of both canal and zone had been defrayed by the U.S. Government under other budgetary headings. For 40 years the Panama Canal has been a well-run, low-cost enterprise, responsibly administered and heavily subsidized by the United :States on behalf of the world community.
 Mr. GRAVEL. I do not buy that. I will be happy to yield the floor whenever the Senator wants recogitiom. but I do not think he is adding to the colloquy with me on the subject. We do not have to go through this group of Pennsylvanians he has there. The Panama Canal spent good money with a Palo Alto firm to do a lot of these analyses and studies. I think their studies are better than what the Senator has right there. Ilie is free to read that, but I would like to (lisengragemyself.
 Mr. LAXALT. That would be satisfactory. I just have one more paragraph.
 Mr. GRAVEL. I would be happy to respond to it and I will restat[e just in closing there is nothing the Senator has read that appears at variance in numbers with what I have presented. I think what the Senator is reading is a lot of editorial comment, but he is privileged to do that.
 I have presented to the Senate, in my capacity as, a Mlember of this body, some very unusual figures. Either those figures wash or they do not wash. If they do wash, then I hope the people w~ho are on the other side of the aisle might reexamine their position with respect to these treaties. If there is ever a time to do, it is now. We are not talking about emotion. We are talking about the future economic well-beingr of the United States and the peoples of this world. I want to thank my colleague f or his patience.
 M.Nr. LAXALT. The only point I want to make in summarizing this discussion is the fact that the one pertinent point I find to be of great value in this analysis, whether or not it is correct, is the projected tonnage in 1985 of 184.9 million tons. 'That would indicate a trend toward increasing tonnage coming through the. canal as opposed, I think, to the thrust of the Senator's discussion here that gradually, almost from this point on, -we are going to have a reduced tonnagfe.
 Mr. SARRANES. Will the Senator yield?
 Mr. GRAVEL. I yield.
 Mr. SARBAINES. I listened earlier to the Senator from Alaska and now this statement which has just been read. I see no inconsistency between them. The Senator from Alaska did not say the canal has n o utility. He was very careful in response to questions not to say that the number of transits in absolute terms, or the amount of tonnage, would decrease. The number of transits did decrease in recent years but it is now going up a little bit. The amount of tonnage has increased