319


 The Senator made some very conservative projections but it is not necessary to move with the projections. Just take the facts. The f ats are that more than half of the world's tonnage cannot now move through the Panama Canal. It is on that basis that the Senator has made his very strong argument for the sea-level canal. That does not minimize the continued utility, in my view at least, of the existing canal with respect to those ships and that tonnage which can transit the Panama Canal. In other words, you have a growth of trade and you continue to have ships that can move through the canal and make use of the canal and, therefore, I think you can project out a use of the canal that is important and will be productive in terms of revenues even w ith*In that more limited category.
 The only point the Senator from Alaska has been trying to makce is that there is an opportunity here with a sea level canal through the isthmus to open up transit to all of the world's tonnage, whereas at the present time transit through the canal is limited to less than half of the world's tonnage.
 Now, the canal is important to that tonnage that can make effective use of the canal, and I do not miiniize that aspect of this matter. But I think the point made by the Senator from Alaska has a great deal of validity and no facts have been brought up which would in any way ind-1rcuit or refute the analysis the Senator has submitted.
 Mr. SrEvENs. Mir. President, will the Senator yield?
 Mr. GRAVEL. I am happy to.
 Mr. STEVENS. It seems to me, with due respect to my colleague, that the whole point of this presentation misses the fact that that tonnage was not designed to go through the canal in the beginning. The Senator still is not talking about numbers; he is talking about tonnage.
 One of these new vessels is the size of five that are carrying our oil through the canal now. Those vessels still must go through the canal to carry our oil, and you are not going to get anything bigger than 60,000 tons to take through there carrying our oil until you build ante- cnl which is another subjet
 Mr. GRAVEL. I would like to thank you my colleague
 Mr. STEVEN~S. This new tonnage was not designed to go through the canal. It is immaterial to the canal issue because it was never intended to go through the canal.
 The trouble is, that was not built to go through the canal; it -will remain in the fleet for at least another 40 years. I do not see how we can possibly judge the adequacy of the Panama Canal treaties on the basis of tonna ge that was not bulilt to use the canal in the first instance.
 (Mr. GLENN assumed the chair.)
 Mr. GRAVEL. I want to stand here and thank my colleague deeply and sincerely for informing us that canal architects who designed the supertankers knew that they would not go through the canal. I want to think my colleague for bringing this information to this body.
 Mr. GOLDWATER. Will the Senator from Alaska yield?
 Mr. GRAVEL. I am happy to.
 Mr. GOLDWATER. T subscribe to what the senior Senator from Alaska said. These large ships, ranging up to 500,000 tons, were never designed to sail the routes taken through the canal.
 Mr. GRAVEL. It is quite obvious