[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 27 (Friday, March 11, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   COST ESTIMATE ACCOMPANYING S. 208

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, on February 11, 1994, the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources filed its report accompanying S. 208, the 
National Park Service Concessions Policy Reform Act of 1994 (S. Rept. 
103-226). S. 208 is now pending on the Senate Calendar (Calendar No. 
369). At the time the report was filed, the cost estimate prepared by 
the Congressional Budget Office had not been completed. The cost 
estimate has now been transmitted to the committee, and I ask unanimous 
consent that it be printed in the Congressional Record immediately 
following this statement.
  There being no objection, the estimate was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                    Washington, DC, March 9, 1994.
     Hon. J. Bennett Johnston,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 208, the National 
     Park Service Concessions Policy Reform Act of 1994.
       Enactment of S. 208 would affect direct spending. 
     Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to the bill.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them.
           Sincerely,
                                             Robert D. Reischauer,
                                                         Director.
     Enclosure.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

       1. Bill number: S. 208.
       2. Bill title: The National Park Service Concessions Policy 
     Reform Act of 1994.
       3. Bill status: As reported by the Senate Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources on February 11, 1994.
       4. Bill purpose: S. 208 would repeal the Concessions Policy 
     Act of 1965 and replace it with new federal policies to 
     govern the process by which the National Park Service (NPS) 
     contracts for visitor facilities and services. The bill would 
     codify existing NPS practices that:
       Require concessions contracts to be subject to a 
     competitive bidding process; and
       Require contractors to depreciate the value of their 
     ``possessory interest'' in assets constructed on public 
     lands.
       In addition, the bill would direct the NPS, wherever 
     practicable, to require concessionaires to deposit all or a 
     portion of their franchise fee obligations into park 
     improvement funds rather than into the U.S. Treasury. Amounts 
     deposited to such funds, including interest earnings, would 
     be spent by the contractor on activities and projects within 
     the park as directed by NPS.
       Any franchise fees not paid to park improvement funds would 
     be deposited into a special fund in the U.S. Treasury. 
     (Currently, such amounts are deposited to the general fund.) 
     These amounts would be available, subject to appropriation, 
     for resource management and other park uses.
       5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 1994   1995   1996   1997   1998   1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated budget authority....  .....      4      9     15     22     32
Estimated outlays.............  .....      2      6     11     17     26
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       The costs of this bill fall within budget function 300.
       Basis of estimate: CBO estimates that enactment of S. 208 
     would increase direct spending by about $2 million in fiscal 
     year 1995, rising to about $26 million annually in 1999. The 
     increase in mandatory spending represents CBO's estimate of 
     amounts that would be spent by concessionaires from new park 
     improvement funds authorized by section 8. Because these 
     funds would be controlled by the NPS, their expenditures 
     should be considered government outlays for budget purposes.
       In preparing this estimate, CBO has assumed that the NPS 
     would phase park improvement fund requirements into most 
     major new or renewed concessions contracts as the existing 
     agreements expire over the next five years. We estimate that 
     by 1999 fully 90 percent of all franchise fees would be paid 
     to the new funds, reducing deposits to the U.S. Treasury from 
     $35 million to about $3 million annually by that time. No 
     decrease in offsetting receipts is shown in the table for 
     this reduction, however, because deposits to the federally 
     controlled park improvement funds should still be considered 
     federal receipts. Outlays from the park improvement funds 
     have been estimated on the basis of spending patterns for 
     similar activities and projects at national parks.
       Other provisions of S. 208 would merely codify existing NPS 
     policies and would therefore have no impact on the federal 
     budget.
       6. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting 
     direct spending or receipts through 1998. CBO estimates that 
     enactment of S. 208 would increase direct spending by $2 
     million in fiscal year 1995, $6 million in 1996, $11 million 
     in 1997, and $17 million in 1998.
       7. Estimated cost to State and local governments: None.
       8. Estimate comparison: None.
       9. Previous CBO estimate: None.
       10. Estimate prepared by: Deborah Reis.
       11. Estimate approved by: C.G. Nuckols, Assistant Director 
     for Budget Analysis.

                          ____________________