298


 Mr. CURTIS. Well, I am not arguing either one.
 Mr. GRAVEL. So if you are asking me, in the future will the Panama Canal make money ?-yes, it will. It will make money. Probably, I do not know, but it well may make enough moneyI in the year 2000 that the 7-some-odd percent may be equal to the income they are making off ofit now.
 But how tragic, because I can go to great lengths and show where, with discoveries of oil in Alaska, the income to Panama could be not the paltry $50 million that may at the outside be what they will get under this situation, but it could be 300 or 400 or even $1 billion a year income to the Panamanian people. But whenever they are making that kind of income, just remember that we are receiving economic benefit from that resource.
 Mr. Cuw~is. One other question. The Senator held up the chart to show that the choicest location for a new canal was in Panama, some 10 miles from the present one.
 Mr. GRAVEL. Right.
 Mr. CURTIS. Is it the Senator's opinion if these treaties are ratified that the United States will build the canal without an additional and further treaty with Panama?
 Mr. GRAVEL. I have had occasion to talk to Panamanians and I would never insult them with a statement that I would build a canal on their land as an American. I would take my hat off and button my suit and go up there and say, "gentlemen, I think we can work out an intelligent economic arrangement which would be to our mutual benefit."
 I would begin to treat them as equals, which we have never done.
 Mr. CURTIS. That is all right, but what I want to know is what does this treaty provide? Does it open the way for a new canal if we want to build one? My question is rather simple.
 Mr. GRAVEL. If the Senator wants to ask it, I would be happy to answer it.
 (Mr. Culver assumed the chair.)
 Mr. CURTIS. The question is: If we are to build a new canal 10 miles from the present one at the place the Senator has indicated, does this treaty provide for us to do that, or would it call for another treaty?
 Mr. GRAVEL. No. This treaty permits us to be involved in the decisionmaking which will take place with respect to a sea level canal. I would hope that from this day forward we will take a new approach, that it is not us who will build the canal. This is their land and one does not negotiate with people about their land by telling them what you are going to do on their land. You take a different attitude. I do not know how we will educate people around here to that.
 If the Senator wants to sell -wheat from his State, he does not arrogantly strut around and tell them that they are going to have to buy his wheat. You sort of ask them if they might be interested in buying some of your wheat. Then they might buy some.
 I would hope that with respect to Panama. in the coloquys -we have on the floor, we would show them respect. WhV~en we look at the language in the treaty the language protects our ability to be involved. It does this by saying the Panamnanians caliot bring anybody else in to build a Panama Canal without our involvement.