330


 What we see is that in 1966, 89.59 percent of the world maritime fleet, in terms of tonnage, could go through the Panama Canal. Ten years later, in 1976, it was 42.2 percent. Of course, today it is 0-7.8 percent.
 If we projected that to the year 2000 and only used a third of the last 12 years experience-not the full experience, only a third of itwe see that by the year 2000, about 7.64 percent of the world maritime fleet would be able to use the canal.
 If that is not an indication that the barrier of Panama, the Isthmus of Panama, is increasing for world maritime interests, I do not know what is. If you come to the conclusion that this barrier is rising and increasing every year, then you must come to the conclusion that we should make a decision that -was made back in 1908, which was made back in 1880 in Europe, in 1850 in the United States-that we have to try to find a way to breach that Isthmus for the benefit of the world commercial trade. That is the simple conclusion you come to.
 We can be rational people and take statistics such as these and say that something is wrong and we should do something about it, or we can wait until the year 2000, when less than 10 percent of the world maritime fleet can use the canal, and say, "We have to do something about it now. We have to build a new sea-level canal."
 We can wait until that time, but I submit that -we are rational and intelligent human beings, and I think we can get together with the Panamanians and perform the necessary studies and in those studies make an economic decision as to whether or not we should go forward. If it is not justifiable on economics alone, we may choose to add defense considerations. That would be up to the Senate, at a certain point in time, if it chooses.
 Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
 Mr. GRAVEL. I yield.
 Mr. LE AITY. Mr. President, the Senator f rom Verniont has a c ouple. of questions that come to mind in looking at this amendment.
 As I understand the provision in the treaty, a treaty that was ne,gotiated by, among others, a distinguished fellow Vermonter. Elsworth Bunker, the country of Panama is precluded from negotiating with anybody other than the United States on the question of a sea level canal in Panama during the remainder of the century. Is thiat correct?
 Mr. GRAVEL. ITam sorry. Will the Senator repeat that?
 Mr. LEAHr-Y. As I understand the treaty, as it was signed, Panama is not allowed to negotiate for a sea level canal through Panama with aiiv other country except the United States.
 Mr. GRAVEL. That is right.
 Mr. LEAHY. It is also a fair understanding that Panama, from ain engineering point of view, is ideally the place for a sea level canal, if one were to be built.
 Mr. GRAVEL. The most ideal.,
 I should like to quote a gentleman I know and respect, Mr. John Shieff-ey, a retired colonel of the U.S. Army. He was the Executive Director of the Inter-Oceanic Canal 'Study Commission, which comnpleted its report in 1970. I read from his testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee: