331


 First, as the former executive director of the $22 million Sea-Level Canal Study of 1965-1970, 1 assure you that there are no foreseeable circumstances in which the United States would be likely to consider building a new isthimian canal outside Panama. The only feasible routes are in Panama.
 So I think the case is very clear.
 When my colleague from Kansas talks about that we have to have our options or we are giving away something, it is absolutely preposterous that we would be giving away something. We are not giving away something. There is the only place to put a canal.
 Mr. LEAHY. If we remove this section in the treaty, then that means that Panama is free to negotiate immediately with any other country for a sea level canal, that is, with Japan, the Common Market, the Soviet Union, or anyone; is that correct?
 Mr. GRAVEL. Yes; they could, if this treaty were to pass. If the treaties do not pass, then I think that some of my colle agues will probably stand up here and say their rights under the 1903 treaty would preclude that.
 Mr. LEAHY. Assuming we ratify the treaties as they are before us but follow the Dole amendment as it is before the Senate, if we ratify the treaties but also accepted the Dole amendment, then Panamia would be free to negotiate with any other country in the world?
 Mr. GRAVEL. The answer to the Senator's question, I think, is yes.
 Mr. LEAHY. I tell my friend from Alaska that I have concern when I hear people talk about this section, and I will tell the Senator, if I could impose on his time for a couple of minutes, that in comments I have heard in Vermont and in other parts of the country, people ask us why we would have this in here, why we would allow ourselves to be restricted to negotiate only with Panama, or vice versa. I find when people ask this there is almost a huge blind spot that takes us back perhaps to the days of Teddy Roosevelt, or before, a feeling on the part of some that we could just go ahead and if we decide we want to build a sea level canal in Panama just go down and build one. I wvonder if people have listened to any part of the debate that -we have had here for the last several months, that we are dealing with a sovereign, proud, responsible, respectable country, Panama.
 Mr. GRAVEL. Yes.
 Mr. LEAHY. And Panamna's main assets, of course, are its geographical location and its land.
 Mr. GRAVEL. If my colleague will permit, I know why he runs into this misunderstanding throughout the country: We have a Senator of the United States standing on this floor saying, respectfully, hie does not know why we do not have that right, just as if it is normal for us whenever we so feel to go dig a ditch in somebody's backyard.
 Mr. LEAHY. I think one of the things that I would hope would finally come out of this debate is that the United States does not feel and should not feel that it owns Panama, certain actions in the past to the contrary, notwithstanding, that we are indeed dealing with a proud country, with a country that has diligently m aintained and lived up to a treaty that they themselves resent and have resented almost from the day it was signed but yet have shown honesty and integrity in living up to it. I really hope that the debate on this particular item, whether it is in this amendment or is an understan dingO later, does not break down into the kind of argument that we heard