212


more than we now pay for using the zone. But -we are a government, so we are getting a bargain. Z This $34 million is less than we now pay more fortunate allies for similar considerations. For instance, the Spanish base treaty alone costs the United States $35 million per year in direct payments. The still incomplete base arrangement -with Turkey, if approved by Congress, will cost $50 million annually. The package of credits and loan guarantees to be made available for Spain and Turkey, in concert with these base arrangements, will amount to $120 million and $200 million per year, respectively.
 In my discussion of the costs of the treaties, Mr. President, I did not attempt to place a value on the canal and related facilities as assets of the Government.
 This was not an oversight on my part. Our Federal budget lists no capital assets. We use a unique accounting system which routinely puts no dollar value on our public buildings, aircraft, ships, tanks, typewriters, or paper clips. We do not hold depreciable assets as a government.
 One reason for this decision might well be the very difficulty proponents and opponents are having in estimating the value of the canal. I have seen estimates ranging from $230 million to $10 billion. In fact, mny staff has made estimates in that range, and the numbers depend on the accounting system which is chosen.
 Those numbers are no more relevant than would be the sum total of assets abandoned in Europe after World War II, or assets abandoned whenever the military decides to close an airbase or Army fort. I am fighting a decision to cut back an airbase in Maine, and I would very much appreciate having that kind of accounting weapon at my com mand, for I could then argue that the Air Force must write the capital loss off on its balance sheet.
 When military bases are closed at various times and places in our country, no one would call the price paid by DOD for leaving the local community "a good deal" to the people now left with a piece of barren real estate and vacant old buildings. The Panama Canal's value is in its use, not in its standing as a monument. The Panamanians cannot sell it, and we are not going to allow it to be placed on the international auction block. :
 The fact is that decisions to abandon governmental capital assets are made regularly. The canal is not being abandoned, in f act, but will continue to be just as much of an asset to American commerce as it has been for the past 75 years.
 These treaties are no giveaway. They are a change of command. Panama will not want to sell its chief asset for scrap metal.
 There is another part to the cost equation. I began my statement by discussing whether we have been fair to the Panamanians over these past 75 years. I think it is appropriate to bring the subject up again at this point.
 The United States has not been the sole contributor to the building and operation of the canal. The Panamanians have shared the burden. Their contribution has been less tangible than ours, but just because we cannot attach a dollar value to it, it is no less real.
 To begin with the most obvious-Panama has contributed its unique geography and its valuable real estate so 'that nations of the world could improve their commercial positions. Granted that the location of the isthmus in Panama is a geographical accident. But so is the loca-