334


 In fact, we are paying more than a dollar a barrel over what it would cost if a sea level canal were in existence today. Imagine that. I have heard exclamation upon exclamation on the floor of the Senate as to the high price of energy. If we had a sea level canal today, whiat is se.11ing for $14 a barrel would be $13 a barrel, and it wold be Amierican oil at that, anid would not have to import it from other countries causing a balance of payments de-ficit. That is just our oil.
 Then we get ourg~as. There is not a liquified gas tanker in the world today that can gro through the Panama Canal. N-ot one. Obviously, if we are to use the gas potential of Alaska, wich is enormous, the only -way we are going to do it is with a sea level canal.
 We talk about coal. Coal is the second most important commodity going through the present canal, and that is coal that goes f rom the East coa st of the United States out of Hampton R~oads, Va., and goes over to Japan. We could get a better price for our coal and more jobs for our people-my colleague is very concerned about that-and a better:- price for our coal if we could ship it more efficiently, meaning the(, large(,r vessels. W e cannot do that. We are restricted in the size of the vessels because of the size of the present canal.
 I c ould go on and make case after case, but if it is not clear let me restate it one more time: Fifty-seven percent of the world's tonnage cannot go through the Panama Canal today. That is a change from what it was 12 years agro. Twelve years ago almost 90 percent could go through the Panama Canal. We cannot be oblivious to that simple fact, that in 112 short years there has been an unbelievable obsolescence taking place. What will happen in the next 20 years? That is the simple question that I ask, and in order to try to find out I have pressed t~o have some language put in this treaty that wi11 accopmmodate a study by the United States and Panama, and when that study is in it will speed the negotiations between Panam. and ourselves.
 To me that sounds very reasonable. It sounds very logical, and if somebody would stand on the floor of the Senate and say, "Take all that language out and lt us just concentrate on the present Panama Canal because it is going to last forever," well, I say the facts do not substantiate that. And the facts, I think, have to ether be refitedor people just have to stand in the dock and be judged by the Amnencan peopl,)e for the ridiculousness of their proposals.
 I reserve the remainder of my time.
 The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Riegle). The Senator f roma Kansas (_Mr. Dole.)
 Mr. DOLE. M-r. President, I thank my distinguished colleague.
 I might join him in supporting ,additional money for updating the study, assuming we could satisfy the environmentalists and, perhaps, we will need an environmental impact statement. But the, Senator from- Kansas, of course, is aware.Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for clarification? There was no environmental impact statement dIone in the orig-inal study. That is why a large part of the money in our sugg estion for the study would go for an environmental impact study, because if the United States were involved in any guaranteesw ol biul do anything without having an EPA statement made. That is the purpose Cf that.
 ,, DOLE. All right.