299


 But this does not say that we can unilaterally build our canal, because it is not our land. It is their land.
 Mr. CURTIS. Then we can assume, if everybody is going to be fair, tile Senator is saying that if we built another canal we would have to have another treaty?
 Mr. GRAVEL. This is merely stargazing f rom my side, but I would say that if we get into a mode to make an affirmative decision in 3 or 4 years on a sea level canal, we will look back on this debate and it will appear to be so utterly ridiculous and we will be so quick to change the treaties. Why would we want to stick with this treaty if in 1990 the present canal is nothing but an artifact, nothing but something wich should be in a museum? Obviously, the whole ball game would change immediately. We cannot be in that position for 3 or 4 years.
 Mr. CURTIS. I am not arguingy with the Senator about the idea that we ought to have a new canal. I do not know. I am trying to find out how we get to it.
 Mr. GRAVEL. How we get to it is through an amendment to be offered in the Senate by Senator Magnuson, myself, and others, which would permit the authorization of $8 million to update the canal 'study which
-was done in term-s of economics arnd engineering, and then do an environmenal impact statement.
 We could not get involved in guaranteeing anything in the way of financing a sea-level canal without knowing the environmental impact.
 Similarly, the Panamanians would not want to do anyth11ingy. Nobody in the world would want to do anything there until we know what the environmental problem is.
 The Panamanians would share in the development of that data, working with us as equals. Once we have that information we can say if it is an obvious decision that the world should try to bring about a sea-level canal. The command decision would be with Panamanian people -and their government. They could be persuaded like anybody else in the world that they have an asset, and they could be persuaded to put it to productive use to give them an econom ic benefit. They would rush to a decision. So would the rest of us. That is what we need to do.
 We need to, one, approve the treaties to secure their good will, and then lock ourselves into a situation where we will be involved in a fluture canal. Then, two, posthaste approve the moneys to get this study going as soon as possible. As soon as we have the results of the study, we will make our own decision and then make an offer to tile Panamanians, make them an offer they cannot refuse, giving them some economic benefits for a change.
 Mr. CURTIS. What does this treaty give the United States in the effort or the right to participate in the building of a sea-level canal after the year 2000?
 Mr. GRAVEL. After the year 2000 we have no rigilts at all.
 At one point in time there was talk on the Senator's side of the aisle in opposition to the sea-level canal language. I felt people did not understand and did not see the value of this language. I must confess at one time even the negotiators did not see this as very important language.