211


retirement payments we have been holding in trust in the civil service retirement fund. A smaller payment would be made on behalf of Panamanians being employed by the military in the Zone. Payments would be made to a Panamanian social security fund in both cases.
 Tyhe second retirement payment would be a direct offer of early retirement for American employees of the canal enterprise. The Government of Panama gains nothing from any of these payments.
 Second. There are budgetary implications associated with our continued military presence. One such is the consolidation of defense f acilities. Another would allow the DOD to assume operation of schools and hospitals. A small expenditure to develop new recreational and other base support facilities would be a f urther cost.
 The Panamanian Government gains nothing from these payments.
 Third. Relocating the remains of Americans who are buried in the zone may also require new outlays.
 F ourth. Then there are contingent liabilities to the U.S. Government. At the present time, the Panama Canal Company has a line of credit with the U.S. Treasury of $40 million. If the canal showed a temporary operating loss, the company under the present arrangemients could borrow to continue operations until tolls could be raised and repay the loan from canal revenues.
 Under the new treaty, the Panama Canal Commission, a U.S. Government agency, is expected to require similar borrowing authority as a mtter of prudent management.
 We also promise, Mr. President, to turn the canal over "free of liens and debts." Opponents who argue that this is a blank check for the Panamanians use a fascinating bit of log-ic, as I understand their arguments. This provision of the treaty represents our promise to turn over a canal in operating order and not a worthless piece of junk. It is also our promise, that the new Panama Canal Commission, as an agency of the Federal Government, will be a competent, efficient group of men and women who will run the canal as wisely as they can.
 In both cases, to promise otherwise is not to promise at all. And those who complain about this section, it seems to me, would have us apply a different set of principles than those all Americans use in their daily commerce.
 Fifth. Obligation to continue the current level of assistance to Panama is nothing more than our promise to continue our current policy toward Panama, a policy developed in light of American security and economic interests and approved separately by this Congress.
 Mr rsdnthe distribution of revenues from the canal is another question. Opponents have tried to claim these as costs of the treaties. They are nothing of the sort. They are simply agreements on how to distribute revenues. There might be a net revenue loss to the Treasury as a result of canceling "interest payments" which the United States unilaterally began to charge in the 1950's to siphon off profits from the canal. The Government of Panama would, of course, benefit from these distributions of revenues, and it should. It certainly has not until now.
 While projections are difficult, my best estimate is that over the next 21 years the reduction of the U.S. role in Panama will cost us $34 million a year more -than under existing arrangements.
 Of course, if the United States were a private company like United Brand, we would already be paying upwards of $200 million a year