[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 32 (Monday, March 21, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: March 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CONCESSIONS POLICY REFORM ACT OF 1994
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we resume
consideration of S. 208.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
privilege of the floor
Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Jim Beirne,
Jim O'Toole, Jim Tate, Kelly Fischer, Carol Craft, Gerry Hardy, and
Camille Heninger of the Senate minority staff be permitted the
privileges of the floor during the pendency of S. 208.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, S. 208 as reported from the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee would reform the process by which the
National Park Service awards contracts to private persons or
corporations who seek to do business inside our national parks. The
legislation has been before our committee in one form or another for
many, many years. It has been the subject of numerous hearings, some as
early as 1979, and has been considered at several committee business
meetings. Throughout this process, under the leadership of the Senator
from Arkansas, Mr. [Bumpers], who is the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests, we have crafted a very
reasonable and progressive bill. This measure is a bipartisan measure.
It was ordered reported by the committee by a vote of 16 to 4.
Our colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett, worked very closely with
Senator Bumpers to craft the compromise bill before us today. In fact,
Senator Bennett, who is one of the renowned businessmen of this body,
put a businessman's approach to the matter of concessions in national
parks, and I think our result is one that utilizes the best of business
principles, that is competition, so that the park concessions will be
awarded to the very best of the applicants.
Madam President, under today's law before this bill is enacted we do
not have a competitive situation in our national parks. To the
contrary, those that have the concessions are almost guaranteed that
they will get a renewal of that contract. That is so because of two
features of the present law. The first is what we call the possessory
interest so that all of the improvements that are made in a national
park are, in effect, the property of the concessioner so that when it
comes time to renew the contract, anyone who wishes to compete must pay
the full or ``sound'' value, what in effect is the fair market value,
for all of the improvements made at that national park. Improvements at
our big national parks total hundreds of millions of dollars. In
effect, if you build a hotel at a national park, then there is no
depreciation of that asset. Rather the concessioner gets to keep the
assets, and at the termination of the contract anyone who wishes to bid
for that new contract must pay the full nondepreciated value of that
asset.
The second basis on which it is almost impossible to compete is that
concessioners get a preferential right to renew. That means that if
someone goes to all of the expense, trouble, difficulty and time of
putting together a bid for a concession, then the existing concessioner
has the right to come in and equal or exceed that bid.
So, on that basis, no one is going to go through the trouble and
expense to make the bid and, indeed, have to put up all the money for
the assets and then find that he or she is unable to get the contract
because the existing concessioner equals the bid that they made.
So what we have done, Madam President, is provide for a competitive
selection process. It prohibits the preferential right of renewal
unless the contract is less than $500,000. In those very small
contracts, the Park Service is permitted to go ahead with the
preferential right of renewal. In all others, it must be done on a
competitive basis.
With respect to the possessory interest, those who have assets,
concessioners who have these assets at the present time, will be able
to keep those assets. So, if an existing concessioner wishes to, or is
not successful in getting a renewal of the contract, then the person
who gets the contract would have to pay him the full possessory
interest, the full fair value of those assets. However, if the
concessioner is able to get a renewal of the contract, then he must
begin to depreciate that asset on the basis of the number of years
provided by the Internal Revenue Code, which, in today's code, would
provide for 39 years.
So, Madam President, what we have here is a bill that will ensure
that national park concessions are managed not only in the interest of
the taxpayers, so as to maximize the return to the taxpayer, but so
that we will be able to get the best concessioner, the one who
competitively is able to bid for the contract.
I think, Madam President, what we have in this bill is national park
policy which is realistic and combines the very best of park policy
with the best of business policy.
For that reason, Madam President, this bipartisan measure was, as I
mentioned earlier, passed out of committee by a vote of 16 to 4.
Madam President, the instant bill before us really is a tribute to
Senators Bumpers and Bennett, who worked this bill out. They worked out
complicated, difficult and, I might say, controversial provisions of
this bill. In doing so, it was able to garner the overwhelming support
of the Senate Energy Committee. Both of those Senators have my
congratulations for an excellent job done in putting together a
difficult bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WALLOP addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I am sure it is a very rare occasion
upon which I would disagree with the business judgment or the political
judgment of my friend from Utah, Senator Bennett. And rarely have I
been on the other side of a bill that the committee has brought to the
floor from the Senator from Louisiana. In fact, the two of us, I still
believe, passed the only really major piece of legislation in the last
Congress, the national energy strategy.
Madam President, I find, from talking to colleagues, the first thing
everybody wonders is, what is all the fuss about? I mean, who can be
worrying about a couple of hot dog stands? That is what the concessions
are. They do not know, the average person in this body does not have a
clue, what we are talking about. And possessory interest puts them
straight to sleep. It is a word not often used in the rest of business.
But, it is important I think to realize what the concessions are.
They are the hotels, they are the dude ranches, they are the rafting
operations, they are the gasoline and convenience stores, they are
riding, guiding, sight-seeing operations, depending on the nature of
the park; they are the bus systems, they are boating opportunities,
they are what America has asked the private sector to do for it.
The Senator from Louisiana said, quite correctly, that these assets
run to hundreds of millions of dollars. Madam President, that is
precisely correct, and the taxpayer did not pay a dime for it. Nor
would the taxpayer have paid a dime for it; not even during the plush
times of absolute abandon on deficits and Government spending, would we
have ever funded what the private sector has funded.
That, Madam President, was the whole point when Congress passed
Concessions Policy Act of 1965. We intended, on purpose, to discourage
the turnover of concession operations.
As a matter of Federal policy--and a darn good one it has been, too--
we decided that the private sector should be encouraged to provide the
visitor services. They would be regulated and they would be allowed to
make a reasonable profit. In exchange, they, and not the Federal
Government and not the taxpayers of America, would be required to raise
the capital to construct and maintain facilities to standards set by
the Federal Government.
Continuity of good services at reasonable rates to our park visitors
was judged to be more important than the collection of receipts. That
was at a time when the national parks were to be considered public
treasures for the benefit of the public. That was before reinventing
Government tried to turn them into cash registers for the Federal
Government.
Madam President, I will talk for a minute about the right of
possessory interest and the preferential right of renewal, along with
the ability to award long-term contracts. These were all included in
the Concessions Policy Act to provide the contractor with the necessary
collateral to take to a lending institution--a bank or whatever;
investors, even--so that moneys could be borrowed to fund park
improvements for the visitor.
We have gotten off on the idea, somehow or another, that these were
processes for the concessionaires. The Congress made a specific
decision--and a wise one it has been--that these moneys would be
invested for the pleasure of the visiting public, the convenience of
and the safety of. And this was consistent with our view that these
types of improvements and services should be furnished by the private
sector and not the taxpayer.
The success of the program in concessions is obvious, if you look at
the privately operated visitor facilities in America's national parks
today. Under no set of circumstances--I defy anybody in either body to
tell me that they believe that the Federal Government would have
developed, would have constructed, and would have maintained the
hundreds of visitor facilities throughout the park system without this
private sector involvement and, more importantly, without making major
trips to the Federal Treasury for buckets of money.
Has it been entirely, 100 percent perfect? Of course it has not. But
I will tell the Senate this: it has been more successful than darn near
any Federal program that anybody can point out to me. And we are on the
threshold of toying with it for a new idea.
The situation in the parks has not changed and, in fact, has become
gravely worse, given the budget constraints and our unending appetite
to add more parks.
One of the things we are about to do is add another park in
California called East Mojave. This, after having accepted the
Presidio, which is going to cost us more than Yellowstone, more than
even Yosemite, and more than most of the rest of the parks in the
system combined. But we are not going to add any more personnel and we
are not going to add any more money. And guess what is going to happen?
The Secretary has already taken 400 people out of the National Park
System and put 301 of them in his office. And we are sitting around
here taking the one thing that works, and my guarantee is that it will
add somewhere between $150 and $200 million a year out of a budget of
$1 billion to the National Park System's problems.
These facilities that exist in our parks are, by and large,
wonderful. There are facilities that still need to be developed, and
there are some that need to be replaced and some that need to be
maintained. It is unfortunate that the very fundamental building blocks
of the successful and cost-effective program have been undermined and
eliminated by the legislation reported by our committee. It is
unfortunate the Appropriations Committee does not understand the
magnitude of the expenses they will bear if this legislation is to
pass.
Let there be no misunderstanding; the parks will receive their money,
although not all they need. Other programs will suffer as well.
While I understand and do not quarrel with the proponents of this
legislation, who believe their efforts will result in increased
competition and revenue, it is my belief that, as reported, this
legislation will exact an enormous price from the taxpayers, and worse
still, will result in a degradation to the National Park System and a
very specific degradation to the services provided to the visitors of
the National Park System.
The Senator from Louisiana said, ``It is going to maximize the return
to the taxpayer. It gets you the very best franchisee.'' Madam
President, the very best franchisee has nothing to do with this. It
will get you the cheapest franchisee--who may or may not be a good
franchisee--but he will darned sure be the cheapest. His effort to try
to maximize the return of the investment that he is about to make will
result either in lower fees from the National Park Service charged to
the franchisee, or higher costs to the visitors. That is what this will
get you.
Under current law and under current practice, concessionaires are
encouraged to make investments to the infrastructure to accommodate
park visitors, and so they should. They obtain their own capital and
comply with all Federal requirements. Title to all the facilities
resides with the United States, and that is wherein this crazy word
``possessory interest'' comes, because while there the title resides,
the franchisee, if he is to lose that for reasons of malperformance or
other reasons, then the Park Service and the Government owes him the
fair market value of those improvements.
Possessory interest is calculated as to the sound value of those
improvements, and that possessory interest has to be either acquired by
the Government or a new concessionaire if the current one does not
obtain a renewal of his contract. That is the basis upon which people
can go to borrow money. There is nothing strange in the business world
about that. The guy goes to the bank. He says, ``Here is what my
interest is. Here is what you can get from me should I collapse and
fail. This is the reason I am able to come to you, Mr. Banker, and
borrow money.''
The new concessionaire is going to say, ``I have a contract from the
United States Government. That guarantees me at the end of time I get
half the value, a depreciated half of this thing. But I have no
possessory interest in it. It is declining.''
These changes will simply have to be reflected, and I am certain my
colleague from Utah, as a businessman, will understand that. They have
to be reflected. Nobody is going to absorb them by ignoring them. So it
certainly eliminates the collateral basis upon which to finance
improvements. My concern is the practical effect of failing to
grandfather those existing possessory interests.
The legislation as reported applies a schedule to reduce the value of
any existing possessory interest if the present contract is renewed.
That is a cute theory, but let us examine the implications of that in
practice, in the actual business world in which these people are going
to have to operate. Assume for the sake of argument this is an existing
concessionaire who has invested in a modest facility which provides
limited accommodations, meals, supplies, and fuel for visitors in a
park with a very limited season. Not all our parks have the 12-month
season of the parks in the chairman's State, or in Florida, California,
or Arizona. A lot of them, as in my State and Alaska and the State of
the Senator from Utah, have a limited season. The money they make, the
return on their investment, has to be made in 4 months, 5 months--
certainly not 12.
The possessory interest that exists today, of a concession the likes
of which I described, could be in the neighborhood of $5 million, based
on sound market value. The contract is coming up now for renewal. Let
us assume the new contract will be for 10 years with a 20-year
devaluation schedule. A concessionaire, who is the investor today, is
faced with a choice. Should the concessionaire renew, he will directly
forfeit approximately $2.5 million over the life of the contract under
this legislation. So now he either makes that up in higher charges or
gets it back from the Park Service in lower franchise fees, or he will
simply leave and ask for his $5 million for some other enterprise.
These people are not fools. They have a great affection for the
national parks and they have a great affection for the jobs they do.
But they are not fools and $5 million is better than $2.5 million. The
latter is the more likely scenario.
That possibility is even more likely if you consider the time value
of the funds. If the concessionaire stays, the $5 million interest will
be reduced to $2.5 million under the terms contained in this bill. If
he were to take the $5 million and invest it at 7 percent over the same
period, it would be worth $10 million. Do we really expect people to
forgo $7.5 million for the privilege of being abused by the Department
of Interior?
There are family operations where the possessory interest represents
a large portion of their estate, and keep in mind that a lot of these
concessions about which we are talking are family operations. The
former Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Mr. John Turner, his
family has been operating in Grand Teton National Park since before it
was a national park. So these are a portion of an estate.
What responsible family is going to leave their estate to be divided
in half by the Federal Government? Sadly and reluctantly, they will
leave, the people who have been providing this kind of service to
visitors to the National Park System. And you are telling me that you
are going to get a better concessionaire than people who have been able
to stay in business for 75 years as a family? They have been able to
stay because they have been good, because they have run good
businesses, because people like to come and have the guided nature
tours, and to ride the horses that they have, and to go on the pack
outfitting trips and run the river. They have been good for all this
time. But this is their family's estate and they dare not leave it on
the table; they just dare not.
So assuming the existing concessionaire does what is likely, who gets
to pick up the tab? Under current law, it would be the new
concessionaire, who would then hold a possessory interest and, in fact,
would use the possessory interest as collateral for the loan to pay off
the existing concessionaire.
However, under the legislation in front of us, any new concessionaire
is faced with the same prospect of paying $5 million and watching that
investment dwindle to $2.5 million over the contract term.
Again, Madam President, these people are not fools, either the ones
that are there or the ones that will be coming in. That investment will
have to be recouped in higher charges to the national park visitor or
lower fees from the National Park Service. Somewhere or another, it is
not going to come just out of the tax advantages of being able to
depreciate property. It will not.
The statute that sits in front of us eliminates the value of the
purchased interest as collateral. I do not know why that is hard to
see. I really do not know why it is hard to see. These operations are
not such gold mines in their entirety--there may be one or two--but in
their entirety, they are small businesses yielding very little return.
They are yielding livings to mom-and-pop operations. They are yielding
the ability to create small estates, like the rest of America's
businessmen and women have.
The most likely result is that all the parties are simply going to
let the Federal Government buy out the existing concessionaire and then
bid on contracts without any possessory interest. That contract is not
going to be of the same value. No businessman around is going to do it.
The Park Service is going to hold an item that it has paid for with
taxpayers' money that immediately has a diminished value as a
consequence of the passage of this bill. Why is that hard to
understand?
It accomplishes the goal of the legislation, gets it out of the hands
of the existing concessionaire, and it gets people to bid for it. It
gets them to bid, I will grant you that. But it does so at the expense
of a beleaguered national park system, and out of the limited funds
available to the Appropriations Committee and ultimately out of the
ability of the National Park System to take care of the national parks
under its control.
The entire budget for the National Park Service in 1994 is just over
$1 billion. A lot of us are, with good reason, concerned about the
present level of park maintenance and, even more so, Madam President,
about the backlog in land acquisition. We should be concerned when 20
percent of the Park Service budget or 15 percent over the next 10 years
goes to paying off possessory interest when we have taken the property
of Americans and refuse to pay for them.
A lot of Americans do not realize that this Congress annually
authorizes new parks, many of which have private property holdings.
Congress has the biggest appetite in the world for parks. We use it to
run for reelection. We use it to say great things about America. But,
Madam President, we have absolutely no stomach in the world for paying
for it. In the Chair's own State, in California, in Wyoming, in
Indiana, in Utah and Florida, in virtually every State, there are
Americans whose property has been declared national parks for which we
have not paid.
Now all of a sudden we are going to put concessionaires at the front
of the line and virtually force them into the decision of saying, yes,
pay for these. A, it is not right; B, it is bad business; and C, it
further diminishes the capacity of the National Park System to pursue
its mission. We are not going to add any more money to it. We
absolutely are not. And we are already taking personnel away from it
while adding more parks to it.
There is something really silly about this operation, and I do not
know how to get the attention of the Senate to say how absolutely silly
it is. We have all the right words and all the right names:
Competition; revenues to the Treasury; it will pay us more. But an
examination of this bill shows us the opposite.
There is fundamentally something wrong with this picture. On the one
hand, we, as the Congress, and this administration, are advocating
private ownership of lands and facilities within the former Soviet
Union. On the other, we now seem to be striving to get more Government
ownership of the private facilities which occupy our Federal lands.
The cost to purchase existing possessory interests will be
expensive--as the Senator from Louisiana mentioned the values of them--
and it is unnecessary and it is counterproductive. The appropriators
ought to be paying attention. Somebody is going to have to pay. It is
not going to come for nothing. It will not be the new concessionaire.
It will be the taxpayer and a system that is underfunded and under
siege.
The legislation will do enormous harm to a system that has served
very successfully, very handsomely the parks' visitor for over three-
quarters of a century. Visitors who have become accustomed to a high
quality of service may some day ask us: ``What happened? Why did you do
it?''
We are not even going to try this thing before we put it in play; we
are just going to do it.
In the interim, revenues to the Treasury almost certainly will be
decreased. Services in our parks will become too expensive for the
average visitor to afford. Maybe that is the way we can limit the
visitors to America's national parks, by making them just the
playgrounds of the upper-middle class and the rich--no longer the
playgrounds of the great touring American.
The process of using concessions must go up. Somebody has to pay and
it is going to be the visitor or it is going to be the Treasury, and we
do not have it in the Treasury and we are not going to let the parks
disappear. The private facilities will either begin to degrade or
eventually be owned by the Government and then they will degrade, if
history is any judge, and at some point in time, it is going to cost
fortunes to rehabilitate what we have allowed to be destroyed.
Guess how we are going to do it? We are going to go back to the
system that we have today which grants a possessory interest so that
people can get the capital to do it. That is the only way it is going
to be. I promise you that nobody in Congress is going to give you money
to rebuild the Lake Hotel in Yellowstone or any of the other wonderful
facilities that exist. Congress is not going to do that.
I really appreciate the efforts of the colleagues who have attempted
to reform the Concessions Policy Act. I do not charge them with acting
in bad faith. Far from it. I honestly believe that they think that this
is going to be better than the system that exists. I thoroughly and I
completely disagree. I have grown up in national parks. I have had
friends and family who have worked in the national parks. I know what
these things are about.
If enacted, this legislation will produce practically no additional
revenue if it works perfectly. And guess what? The revenue is not going
to go to the national parks. The revenue, whatever little there is, is
going to go to the Treasury. We tried. Senator Johnston and I and
others worked very hard to get the entrance fees raised so that: First,
they were worth collecting; and, second, that they could stay in the
parks, but they were raised. It was no sooner passed and all that
Americans got out of it was higher entrance fees. They sure did not get
an improvement in trails or improvement in visitor facilities or sure
did not get an increased number of America's acres that have been
confiscated and paid for. Nothing happened good to the parks out of
raising the fees, and we all tried very hard to see to it that that was
the specific result of it.
I have long advocated that concessions should be paying higher
franchise fees. Madam President, that is not the fault of the system.
That is the fault of the business managers of the National Park
Service, and that can be changed. If people really want to put these
things on a more business-like basis, all they have to do is write a
better contract.
Some of the contracts that have been written by the system are a
joke, but that is not the fault of the act. That is the fault of
incompetence in governing, and incompetence in governing is not a
franchise of either party. It is the mark of both parties. It is the
mark of Government. But you can do better, and there is no reason to
tear down a system that has provided excellence from one end to the
other in order to do better.
To think differently is basically to think and to subscribe to the
administration's views that this great national park system is for
amusements to be run for money and not for the purpose of setting them
aside to preserve them and protect them for the future and provide for
the current enjoyment of Americans. That is why they were put together.
They are not to be a coin machine for the Treasury, especially when the
Treasury refuses through the offices of the Congress to provide the
money to run those parks well, and now we are going to take on the
additional load of buying concessions and operating them until we get
new concessionaires?
It is a joke, Madam President. The current system is the best example
I know of how a private/public partnership should work. It provided
millions and millions and millions of dollars in vital infrastructure
and services to the visitors to the parks all at no cost to the
taxpayers and all with the result of good, solid facilities for
America's parks visitors to enjoy when they are in the parks.
The committee chose to change the conditions of the right to
possessory interest and in so doing, in my judgment, will initiate the
biggest buyout that the Park Service has ever had. Existing concession
operators will have no alternative but to leave their businesses on
termination date unless they are very, very big and they can write
these things off in other ways.
What you may see is just a swap of ownership; that which TW Services
now owns will go to the market and ARA will buy it, and that which ARA
now owns TW Services will buy, all of them trying to recoup a capital
situation which they now understand and which they entered into with
good faith. And their new judgment is going to be, I trust, the
Congress not to change it again when they go to the bank for more
capital.
In my judgment, existing concession operators have no alternative but
to leave their businesses on the termination date, and in my judgment
that will result in a Government buyout because successor interests
will have the same problem--unless, of course, it can be acquired more
cheaply, and the only way you can acquire it more cheaply is to buy it
from the Park Service, which will be forced to buy them out.
Now, unfortunately, not all the concessions are small in size. This
legislation will be an extraordinarily expensive piece of business.
There is no accurate record of how much the total possessory interests
held by concessionaires is worth in today's dollars, but one has only
to look at the hotels and the lodges and the restaurants and marinas
and other facilities around the service to realize that as concession
operators opt out for more lucrative pastures, the cost to the
Government could run into billions.
In all fairness, there will be some concessionaires who do elect to
stay in business, but they will be few and they will be corporate
interests, certainly not family interests--corporate interests that can
move these kinds of investments.
Sheer economics will dictate others to leave. It just does not make
any sense. They can simply leave their present contract, pocket
taxpayer funds which the legislation so graciously gives them and then
go right back in and bid. They will be richer, the Federal Government
poorer, but we will have satisfied the need to look very fine in front
of those who say that we do not have enough competition in the current
system. They will never judge us. We will not be around to be seen when
this turns out to be as I predict.
I will have a couple of amendments to offer today, one which will
provide a standby option to deal with possessory interest, which would
leave the Secretary with his current discretion to continue it on
renewal or negotiate a different arrangement should my views prove to
be correct.
My second amendment is, lest we lose track of all of this and become
anonymous, as we so often do, will mandate certain reports to Congress
so that our successors may judge if we were right or wrong in our
actions today.
I hope I am wrong. It will be good for the park system. It would be
very good for the park system if I am wrong. But I do not think I am.
We have not gotten around to figuring out how to try this. We are just
going to go do it even though we have in hand a system which has worked
and we know it to have worked. But there is something that bothers
people about people being successful when they have franchises from the
Government. There is something that makes us as legislators feel very
uncomfortable that somebody is making money without ever realizing what
the somebody making money is providing for the citizen. He is providing
the best visitor facilities of any national park system that exists
anywhere in the world.
I have been all over the world, Madam President. I have been on the
African Continent, been in China, been in Japan, been in Europe, been
in Britain, been in South America. I have been to parks in all of these
places. They do not hold a candle to what we have done, and I tell you
we deal with it carefully or we abandon it.
The intent of the amendment is to allow the Secretary the discretion
to allow any concessioner the right to retain his possessory interest,
and only to the extent that the continuation of such interest advances
the policy objectives of the act. By passing this amendment we can
possibly avoid a cost to the Government that will be in the billions of
dollars.
Possessory interest is a right under current law and in many cases
worth a substantial amount of money. If Congress chooses to eliminate
the right of possessory interest the owner of the right is entitled to
just compensation.
By maintaining possessory interest in a facility a concessioner will
be expected to continue to invest their own money in capital
improvements. If the existing concessioner changes he or she would be
reimbursed for their possessory interest and the new concessioner would
have the possessory interest if the Secretary has determined that
continuation would advance the policy set forth in the committee
amendment. Voting for this amendment gives us a way out of coming up
with money we do not have, and in addition our counties will not be
impacted quite as soon.
For example, the Park Service eliminated possessory interest at
Yosemite National Park. This means that Mariposa County will have a
$700,000 short fall--1993 dollars--to its tax base. This is something
that the residents of Mariposa will have to make up from other sources.
Madam President, another point that I must make is to describe the
situation facing an existing concessioner. If for a moment we assume
that at a park in your State there is a concessioner we will call ``A''
with a possessory interest of $1 million in real property. ``A'' faces
a renewal of a 10-year contract with an assumed 20-year schedule for
reducing the value of the possessory interest. At the present time, A's
possessory interest is worth $1 million and can be used as collateral.
The real property's value as collateral is devalued upon enactment of
the legislation because the legislation would reduce the value over
time. The value is also minimal for any new concessioner upon enactment
of this legislation.
For A, however, the cost of renewal is not simply the decrease in
value over the 10-year contract period of $500,000--$1 million times
length of contract divided by reduction schedule. Instead, the cost of
renewal to ``A'' is the difference between that value--$500,000--and
the time value of the $1 million over the same period. $1 million
invested at 7 percent compound interest would be worth $2 million at
the end of 10 years, so the actual cost of renewal to ``A'' is $1.5
million at the end of 10 years. Coupled with the loss of the interest
as further collateral, this legislation should discourage present
concessionaires from continuing, unless the Park Service buys them out.
And it discourages a new concessioner from coming in, until the Park
Service buys out the current concessioner. Either way, business
decisions dictate that the Federal Government must buy out the current
possessory interest.
My amendment simply allows the Secretary the discretion to avoid the
problems presented in this scenario. If he so chooses, he can continue
possessory interest for the purposes of fiscal responsibility and
integrity. In addition to the cost of concessionaires leaving and
taking the value of their real property with them, we must consider the
potential cost of the concession bill on appropriations. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that within the next 5 years, 90
percent of all franchise fees will be going into the new fund
established by this legislation. Assuming that perhaps 90 percent of
the contracts will have been renewed, I present this plausible
scenario--Concessioner ``A'' has a possessory interest. If ``A''
chooses to renew, which is not likely based on what I just told you,
``A'' knows that the value of the possessory interest will be reduced
over a period of years.
If ``A'' does not renew, either the Park Service or a new
concessioner would have to pay ``A'' the full value of the real
property in the possessory interest. A likely scenario is that existing
concessionaires will decide to capture their possessory interest and
reinvest it elsewhere. This scenario is particularly likely where the
possessory interest is significant, or represents the major assets of a
firm or family. For a family, that possessory interest may represent
funds for children's education, retirement, or inheritance.
If the existing concessioner walks, other potential concessionaires
may very well wait until the Park Service pays concessioner ``A'' so
they do not have to absorb the cost. Only then will all future bids on
the concession be free of the expense of the value of the possessory
interest.
We do not have a firm estimate on the total amount of possessory
interests outstanding in the hands of current concessionaires. However,
a brief survey of some of the existing concessionaires has yielded
figures of over $500 million, with individual figures ranging from
$100,000 to almost $150 million. And, this is only a partial inventory
with the value of some major concessions unknown. If the final figure
winds up around $1 billion, and one assumes that 90 percent of the
contracts will come up over the next 5 years, as CBO did, then Interior
and related agencies will assume a potential indebtedness of about $180
million each year. That $180 million will come at the expense of
National Park maintenance and other programs funded by Interior and
related agencies. The other alternative is that the Secretary will
reduce fees to enable the concessionaires to recapture his investment.
That would reduce Federal revenues and increase the deficit.
The easy way to avoid the possibility of present concessionaires
leaving, and taking the value of their assets with them is to provide
the Secretary with some discretion on all current possessory interests.
Over time, the Park Service may be able to buy out existing interests,
but that is something that can be controlled in appropriations.
I need to stress again that my amendment cures the problems presented
in this scenario by allowing the Secretary the discretion to continue
possessory interest if it meets the policy objectives of the act.
In this manner the Secretary has some control over the maintenance of
fiscal responsibility during the appropriations process. We have
discussed the likely scenario that existing concessionaires may decide
to capture their possessory interest and reinvest it elsewhere. And, we
have discussed the undesirable effect to this legislation on the
appropriations process. If passed as currently written, there is the
potential that the need for appropriated funds will be totally
unpredictable, and possibly overwhelming.
My amendment reserves the options of the Secretary to meet the policy
objectives of the act without further direction from Congress.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I share in some of the concerns that my
good friend from Wyoming voiced when he began his presentation. I am
uncomfortable opposing the Senator from Wyoming on a business or
political matter, and I have great respect for his judgment and his
predictive powers. I think his analysis of what is going to happen is
right on most of the time.
At the same time, I must rise to disagree with him on this occasion.
He says he hopes he is wrong about his predictive powers. Obviously, so
do I. But I would like to respond to some of the issues that he has
raised and make it clear why I am supporting this particular
legislation.
First, I must agree completely with the Senator from Wyoming in his
discussion about the wisdom of the past with respect to national parks.
I agree that our decision--ours, that is, the Congress--was a wise one
in setting up the system that we have at the moment. I agree that the
Federal Government would undoubtedly not have put the amount of
investment into the national park concessions that has been put there.
And I applaud the past Congresses for the action that they have taken.
The one thing with which I disagree with the Senator from Wyoming is
his statement that the situation has not changed. As I look at it, I
think there has been significant change that requires some kind of
change in the underlying statute. The change has been in the number of
visitors going to the national parks and the demand that has been made
on the concessions and, as a consequence, in the attractiveness of a
concession to an investor.
I can understand that where there are a limited number of visitors to
a national park and where there is a limited season in the national
park, unusual inducements are going to have to be offered to a
businessman or business woman to get him or her to go in and take the
risk involved in that circumstance. But let 10 years pass and the
number of visitors double, triple, or quadruple, and all of a sudden
you have a situation where the concession is an extremely valuable
economic asset.
And we are saying, ``Well, if you happened to have been lucky enough
15 years ago to be the one to get the concession, you now have a
lifetime right, an eternal right, to hang onto that and reap the
benefits from it regardless of what may have changed in the
marketplace.'' Then we would protect that eternal right to the point of
freezing out any competitor that might be able to service the park
visitor better than the person who was there 15 years ago.
I agree with the Senator from Wyoming in his statement that the
primary purpose of these concessions is to service the park visitor.
There is no question in my mind but that the driving consideration in
all of the decisions was what is best for the park visitor and not what
is best for the concessionaire and not what is best for the Park
Service--indeed, not what is best for the Park Service and its view of
how the park should be administered--but what is best for the park
visitor. Ultimately, that is why we have national parks. If we did not
have national parks for the purpose of helping the visitor, we might as
well turn them off to the visitors, keep them out except for the
backpackers.
However, we have decided, wisely, to open them, ask people to come,
and make them available to the widest possible group of visitors, and
while the visitor is there we will provide services --food and other
amenities--that make the visit a worthwhile experience.
I submit that the present system is not the best for the park visitor
however well it may have served us in the past.
I offer as an example of how many people would be interested in
providing the very best possible services in a competitive situation.
There was a statistic given by a present concessionaire who was arguing
in favor of the present system and unwittingly, I think, undercut that
argument himself. He said, ``Senator, it is not true that the present
system discourages bidding. The last time our contract came up for
renewal, there were 15 bidders against us. Naturally, we kept them all
out as our right of refusal.'' I asked how long ago it was, and he
said, ``About 90 days.'' This is not ancient history. This is current
history.
I submit, given the size of this particular proposal, the 15 bidders
were very much aware of potential changes on this floor in this
legislation and were prepared to accept the risks contained in the
current version of S. 208 because they were very, very much in the
marketplace of ideas at the time the bids were made. They were all
frozen out under the present circumstance, and if we continue in the
present circumstance, we guarantee that there will be no competition on
the part of new operators who might have better concepts as to how to
service the park visitor.
I must address the issue raised by my friend from Wyoming with
respect to bankers willing to loan on these kinds of investments. I
have had some experience going to bankers trying to get money from
them. I discovered, as one banker told me very early in my career, the
bank does not care about your collateral. The bank wants to know how
you are going to pay the loan back.
I said, ``I have a house. It is a wonderful house. Come see it.'' He
said ``No. I don't want to come see it.'' I said, ``It is worth more
than the amount I am asking here in loan. Let me pledge my house so
that I can have this loan so that I can go into this wonderful business
that I will be glad to tell you all about.''
The banker gave me some of the best advice I have ever had. He said,
``The bank does not want your house. The bank does not want to be in
the real estate business. If we wanted to be in the real estate
business, we would have organized a subsidiary to be in the real estate
business. We want to know how you are going to pay it back, not what we
are going to get when you don't pay it back. We are interested in the
cash flow from your business.''
Well, then I had to start dancing pretty nicely by the banker's desk
because my business plan was based on a lot of hope and no real
indication as to how I was going to be able to pay the bank back.
Fortunately for both the bank and myself, the bank turned down my
application for a loan, and I never got into that business and never
had the opportunity to lose all of the money that I would have lost
because it was not the right business for me to have been in. The
banker was smart enough to see that. I was not.
As someone goes to the bank to say, ``I want to finance the purchase
of facilities at a national park in order to get into the park
concession business,'' the banker, like my old friend, will say, ``How
are you going to pay this back?'' Not, ``How much is it going to be
worth on the back end?'' The banker will look at cash flow, not
collateral, in order to make the loan unless it is a different kind of
banker than any of those that I have dealt with.
Well, we are told, without anything on the back end, the cash flow
will not sustain any kind of investment. You have to have a promise
that you can cash out at the end of the contract or you will not take
the risk. At least no reasonable businessman will.
I hesitated whether or not to share this example with the Members of
the Senate. But I decided that like any concrete example from the
concessionaires--I will talk about that in a moment--I might as well,
because this is the best example I can find, and it strikes a little
bit at the heart of the argument of the Senator from Wyoming because it
has to do with a piece of property in Wyoming.
Since I came to the Senate, I was informed by the Ethics Committee
that I could no longer be involved in any of the businesses in which I
have my investments except as an investor. And under the advice of the
Ethics Committee, I have created a managed asset trust. I have turned
all of my assets over to that trust, and the trustees are making all
the business decisions.
One of the investments that was offered to our trust has to do with a
piece of property in Wyoming. I looked at it and said to my trustees,
``You are going to make the decisions under the terms of the trust. But
under the terms of this lease, once the lease is over, all of the
leasehold improvements that we have put into this property will revert
to the landowner, and, to use the language of this debate, possessory
interests will be zero. And I do not think we can make enough money in
order for this to work. I do not think it is going to work.''
The trustees said, ``Well, thank you very much, Senator. Now we are
running the trust, and we will run the numbers and tell you whether or
not the cash flow over the life of the contract is sufficient to
service the contract.'' They came back to me and said, ``Guess what?''
I said ``What?'' They said, ``We ran the numbers. We have done the
analysis. We are going to go ahead with the purchase of the lease even
though there is no interest at all at the end of the lease. We think we
can make enough money on the cash flow that will not only justify the
investment but make you some reasonable return along the way.''
They have gone to a bank in Wyoming and presented the lease, and the
bank said, ``We would be delighted to fund that lease because we can
see from the cash flow how you are going to be able to pay us back.''
So I accept the judgment of the trustees of my managed asset trust.
They may be wrong. I may end up seeing that asset lose money, seeing
that go down the drain, but at least the very hard-nosed trustees who
are looking after my assets, as well as the Wyoming bank that has
examined the lease, have said it is worth making the investment even
though the possessory interest at the back end will be under the terms
of the contract.
Again, Madam President, this is an illustration of the fact that the
bank is not interested in collateral. They are interested in cash flow,
and as an investor so am I.
I said I hesitated to use that example. I would have much preferred
to have some real numbers out of the concession world to deal with in
making this analysis.
Indeed, as we were formulating the legislation in the committee, I
said to the representatives and concessionaires who came to see me from
time to time: Can you give me some numbers? You are giving me
philosophy, you are giving me for instances, you are giving me
hypotheticals. Can you give me some firm numbers, actual numbers out of
the concessionaire's world in which you live? As a businessman, I am
always interested in real numbers. They said: Yes, we can give you some
real numbers. But somehow the real numbers never materialized.
Finally, after the bill passed the committee, one of the
concessionaires came in and said, ``Here are the numbers.'' They had
some very interesting numbers about the size of their operation, in
terms of total volume, about the number of taxes they were paying in my
State of Utah, property taxes, sales taxes, and franchise taxes. That
was all very interesting. But there was one number that was missing.
They never told me about return on investment. They never told me how
much money they were making under the present circumstance, which, if I
were to be a bidder against them, I would want to know. If I were to be
a bidder against them, I obviously would not want any confidential
information out of their files. I would construct these numbers myself
if I were to be a bidder against them. They would be closely guarded.
I promised these people I would not disclose their return on
investment here or anyplace else. I just wanted to know how badly they
were going to be hurt in terms of cash flow. And they would not tell
me.
Again, as a businessman, I have to have that kind of data before I
can say with certainty that the dire consequences they are predicting
are going to come forth. Their failure to provide that kind of data,
Madam President, leads me to believe that they are not confident that
that data would convince me that the dire consequences predicted would
come to pass. So, as I say, I have gone to the example out of my own
circumstance to show that it is entirely possible to have an investment
where the possessor goes back to zero and still does quite well.
Let us talk about the issue raised by the Senator from Wyoming with
respect to the best franchisee versus the cheapest franchisee. We have
heard that argument a great deal. Once again, in the context that I
have approached this, it is a persuasive argument. All of our
consideration must be based on the question: What is best for the park
visitor? Obviously, the best franchisee would be best for the park
visitor.
Who is the best franchisee? The best franchisee, by definition, is
the one who knows the most about the business--the one who brings the
greatest expertise and background to the table at the time of the
bidding. Who will that be when these contracts come up for renewal?
Obviously, the prejudice is that it will be the existing
concessionaire, as the existing concessionaire will bring to the table
years and years of experience, years and years of understanding, not
only in the top management, but all the way down through the middle
management and the people who meet the public directly. That kind of
experience, in any kind of competitive bidding, will be enormously
valuable to the existing concessionaire.
As I have said to many of them who had said, ``We are afraid we are
going to lose our contract to somebody else'': ``You must not have very
much confidence in the expertise that you have built up over the years
while you have been running this operation, if you think somebody else
can come in and knock you out of the box with a complete start-up
operation.''
I have had the experience--as every businessman has--of having
existing suppliers come to bid on a renewal of their contract. In
almost every case, I go with the existing supplier because of that
expertise. But I want the right to pick a new one just in case the
existing one is falling down. That is what competition is all about.
And it is the existence of that right, created by this bill, S. 208,
that will sharpen the performance of the existing concessionaires and
thereby improve the experience of the park visitor.
Back to the reference I made earlier, an existing concessionaire with
15 bidders against him, under the present circumstance, can turn those
15 aside with the wave of his hand and ignore the competitive pressure
of those bids. Under our bill, the existing concessionaire, faced with
15 bidders, probably will still get the contract, but he will sharpen
his performance to make sure he gets the contract against those others.
There are a few other items that I think need to be referred to in
the Record. The Senator from Wyoming talked about most of these being
``mom and pop'' operations that have been in the family for
generations, and that is true. He indicated that it would be unfair, in
many of these circumstances, to take away that which has been the sole
livelihood of these families over several generations; and I agree,
which is why I prevailed upon the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers,
to raise the cutoff point from $250,000 a year to $500,000 a year, and
to exempt river runners and trail guides from the provisions of S. 208,
so that those people who are not in the kinds of circumstances that we
have been talking about with respect to huge investments, have the kind
of protection that the present legislation gives them.
I agree with the Senator from Wyoming entirely about the success of
the present legislation in those areas, and I do not want to upset it.
We are talking only about activities in excess of $500,000 a year. We
are talking about a relatively small percentage of the concessionaires
that will be affected by this circumstance of S. 208 regarding
possessory interest. We are talking about those that will attract the
highest number of bidders and competitors and produce the increased or
the best result for the park visitor by virtue of the power of
competition.
So, Madam President, in spite of reluctance to disagree with my good
friend from Wyoming, I stand here in support of S. 208, as it has been
reported by the committee. I believe that it is the best business-
oriented approach to this particular challenge. I conclude, as I began,
by saying to the Senate and to my friend from Wyoming that I agree with
his analysis of the past. My only disagreement comes with his statement
that the situation has not changed. I believe it has. I believe the
legislation must be updated to reflect that change. I agree with him
that we will both have to wait now and see whether his predictive
powers are better than mine, and if it turns out he was right and I was
wrong, I stand prepared to make whatever changes we might have to make
and whatever apologies we might have to make. But there comes a time in
every argument within a corporation as to the next business step to
take, when somebody must say: All right, I have heard all of the
arguments on both sides, and both seem to have merit, but a decision
must be made, and we must proceed in one direction or the other. I am
one, having heard all of those arguments, who has decided to proceed in
the direction outlined in S. 208.
Parenthetically, or as an aftercomment, Madam President, I indicate
that I have great interest in the amendments that the Senator from
Wyoming has outlined here and would like to go over them carefully. At
first blush, I see no reason why I could not accept and support them. I
would like to confer with the chairman of the committee and get his
reaction to them before making any final commitment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). The Senator from Arkansas is
recognized.
Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I think I would be remiss if I did not
spend a minute to laud my distinguished colleague from Utah, Senator
Bennett. He came here last year and, I think in perhaps the shortest
period of time I have ever seen, has established his credibility with
virtually every Member of this body. I know this is an accolade that he
would not care to hear and would just as soon I omit in my opening
statement, but the truth of the matter is, after 16 long years that I
have labored on this legislation, we would not be where we are today
without Senator Bennett.
I would not presume to say anything in addition to what he has
already said, but he has obviously been successful in business. He is a
man of unquestioned integrity, and that goes to intellectual integrity
as well as all other kinds that you can conjure up.
But when we were debating this bill in the Energy Committee, without
repeating it, he made one of the most eloquent statements I ever heard
in the 19 years I have been in the Senate. We come from opposite sides
of the aisle, but I can tell you, when people like Senator Bennett and
I can sit down and reason together, as we did on a number of occasions,
trying to hammer out a bill that he thought was reasonable and that I
thought was reasonable, when we do that, the people's interests are
best served.
I think that while Whitewater rages across this city--not so much
across the country, but across this city--there are a lot of
hardworking Senators who continue to sit down and reason together and
do the people's business.
This was not, in my opinion, all that easy for Senator Bennett. But
even though I put in 16 years of hard work on this bill, he deserves,
after being here a year, equally as much credit for crafting this bill
and its passage out of committee, on a vote of 16 to 4, as I do.
Madam President, I will talk more about this bill in just a moment.
But I say that another reason Senator Bennett's membership in this body
has alleviated the frustration level somewhat for me is because it
seems as though every single thing I get involved in either is never
going to pass, or it takes forever to pass. I probably speak for every
other Senator, perhaps every Senator, that has this absolutely
unbelievable skyrocketing level of frustration. It is not a very happy
place; let us face it. You go to the Cloakrooms; you talk to Senators
in private; it is not a happy place because of the frustration level
and the ``inability to get anything done.''
I know that my friend from Wyoming and other western Senators
sometimes think I am a Johny-one-note: If it does not hurt the West, I
am not interested in it. I see the Senator nodding his head in
agreement. But I remember when I went to work trying to make the
Federal Government lease oil and gas lands belonging to the Federal
Government on a competitive basis, and I was considered a pariah for
having done that. That only took 8 years, Madam President; 8 years to
change a fraudulent lottery system for awarding oil and gas leases on
Federal lands that were worth millions. We were letting them go for $1
an acre because that was the way we did it in 1920.
I am going to save my mining reform speech until later, because
everybody has heard that so many times, and that is a place where
Senator Bennett and I will differ. But I can tell you that we honestly
differ.
In any event, when it takes 16 years to do something as patently
correct as S. 208, you can see why the frustration level is maddening.
I do not want to denigrate any Senator, because I have indulged in it
myself, but we sometimes make the most arcane arguments in this body
because we have--not a hidden agenda, but we have perhaps a constituent
back home that has 100 employees and he has written saying he is going
to have to shut the plant down; he is going to have to lay people off.
And we come over here and we do not say an employer in my State with
100 employees is going to have to lay half of them off. We use all
these little arcane nuances, trying to give people who either want to
vote no or yes against their better judgment, something to hang their
hats on.
I have just recently introduced a bill which allows the States to
levy use taxes or sales taxes on merchandise coming into their State
from mail-order houses. It is a business which is mushrooming in the
country. We could never do anything about it because of the Supreme
Court decision until 1992. Now the ball is in Congress' court. But you
cannot get a vote from any Senator who has a fairly sizable mail-order
house in his State. I will have a very, very tough time with this
legislation.
But I just make this point, and I am not here to debate that bill.
People should ask themselves a simple question: What if everyone in the
country bought merchandise from the mail-order houses? Incidentally,
they are heading in that direction. What would the State do? Or imagine
other State services. The sales tax is their No. 1 tax. They pay for
it. L.L. Bean pays the sales tax in Maine because that is where they
are located, and they have no problem in doing it. But they and others
similarly situated will say: If you make us pay taxes to the State of
Arkansas, we will have to lay off 500 people, or shut down; or we will
do something else.
In this particular case--and I am not applying this to the Senator
from Wyoming, because I think the Senator from Wyoming genuinely
resisted the passage of this bill because of a strong belief that the
present system was working fine. But here is the way I look at it: When
I go home and talk to the Chamber of Commerce, and more especially when
I went to the people of my State when I ran for Governor and later
Senator, do you know what I said? ``I will run the State of Arkansas
like you run your business. We will husband the money; we will not
squander your tax money.''
When I came to the Senate, I felt that I had performed sufficiently
well on that commitment as Governor of my State. I said, ``I promise
you these things,'' and then I did them. ``When I go to the Senate, if
you will send me there, I will do my very best to see to it that the
U.S. Government is operated in a more businesslike way. We will stop
unnecessary spending, if I have anything to do with it, and we will
stop giveaway deals to protect this group or that group, and try to
treat everybody fairly.''
So shortly--to be precise, in March of 1979, 4 years after I came to
the Senate--I became chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Lands,
National Parks and Forests. And the first thing I did was to hold a
hearing on why park concessioners in this country, people who run all
the concessions were paying such an infinitesimally small amount for
the privilege of operating a concession on lands belonging to the
taxpayers of the United States.
The first hearing was held in March 1979. And we are here almost 16
years to the day after that, 15 years, getting ready to pass a bill.
Madam President, in 1992 658 park concessioners--those who operate
everything from canoes on national rivers to the operation of hotels
and restaurants in Yosemite National Park and Yellowstone National Park
and Grand Canyon--took in $650 million. That was in gross revenue. From
that $650 million, the taxpayers of America got the princely sum of $18
million, or 2.7 percent.
And the opponents would say, ``Yes, but you don't understand. They
built this hotel. They built this lodge. They built this new
restaurant.''
And that is true. That is inarguable. They had built facilities
inside the parks at the insistence of the National Park Service and
they are entitled to compensation for that.
But one of the problems with that was, those possessory interests--
that is what we call them--once they build a hotel at Yosemite or some
other national park, when their contract expired, they could do either
of two things: they could bid to renew their contract, in which case
they had what is called a preferential right; and, second, if they
chose not to bid to renew the contract, they were entitled to what was
called sound value for that improvement they had built in that park--
like a hotel.
For example, if the concessioner at Yosemite spent $10 million on a
new hotel and 15 years later, when his contract expired, he chose not
to bid again--I cannot think of an instance where that ever occurred,
because they love these contracts; they always bid for them and they
had a bird nest on the ground because nobody could take it away from
them--but he was entitled to what was called sound value. So for that
$10 million hotel that he had built 15 years before, he was entitled,
not to its depreciated value, but essentially to its fair market value,
and the fair market value of that possessory interest could very well
be $15 million, or $5 million more than he paid for it, even though,
for tax purposes, he had depreciated about half the cost.
So when they argue possessory interest, almost without exception,
that possessory interest is worth more when his contract expired than
it was when he built it.
Madam President, in 1990, the Interior Department's Inspector General
did an audit on 29 concession contracts. Of the 29, 28 were awarded
without any competition. Why? Because the law provided that if you had
a contract, the only way it could be taken away from you was to refuse
to match a competing bid.
Witness this: Let us assume that you are bidding on a contract and
you bid $100,000 a year. You have the contract now and it is expiring
and it is coming up for renewal.
Let us assume you want to pay $100,000 a year and the Park Service
says, ``That doesn't sound quite reasonable to us.'' So they go out and
find other bidders. And somebody comes in, after doing a lot of work,
trying to decide for themselves what this contract is really worth. Let
us assume an outsider comes in and says, ``I'll give you twice that,
$200,000.'' Under existing law, do you think the Park Service gives
that to him because he offered twice as much as the existing
concessioner? Why, no. They go back to the original contractor and say,
``Look. We have a bid for $200,000. Do you want to match it?'' He says,
``Yeah, I'll match it.'' Do you know where that leaves the guy that
made the first offer of $200,000? Out in the cold.
TW Services, one of the biggest operators in the United States--I
believe it may be a subsidiary or parent company of TWA--testified
before our committee on two separate occasions and said:
Why would I spend a half million developing a bid on a
contract, knowing that all the guy who has the contract now
has to do to keep it is to match my bid? So why would I go
out and spend money bidding on a contract, knowing that all
the guy that has it has to do is match my bid and I am out in
the cold?
Madam President, you cannot go home and tell the Chamber of Commerce
how eager you are to spend their money as though it were their own, or
that you are going to spend their money as if it were your own, or that
you are going to conduct business at the Federal level like a business,
you cannot make those speeches and champion that kind of a situation.
I told you about the inspector general auditing 29 concession
contracts; 28 of the 29 were awarded without competition. And the Park
Service says that competitors do not even bother to bid. And why would
they? Out of 1,900 contracts awarded, only in 100 cases out of 1,900
were competing bids offered.
Madam President, I am chairman of the Small Business Committee and a
former small businessman. That does not say a lot. I was a lawyer. I
was a small businessman. I had a farm. I had three kids. I would do
anything. I even owned a cemetery at one time to keep bread on the
table and make some arrangements for my children's education.
But the small business community came to see me and said, ``Senator,
we just take in $100,000 a year or $300,000 a year. We have 75 canoes
on the Buffalo River in Arkansas. And, you know, nobody is going to
make any money out of this thing.''
In order to accommodate what I considered to be fairly legitimate
concerns of small business, we have exempted five-sixths of all the
concessioners in this country. Of all 658 of them, we have exempted
five-sixths of them from the elimination of preferential right and we
left them with a preferential right.
But, we also give the Secretary some discretion in determining
whether they are entitled to a renewed contract or not. They have to
perform and perform satisfactorily and the Park Service has to believe
that they have been performing very well before they are entitled to
the so-called preferential right of renewal.
Madam President, my notes here take me through some of the
fundamentals of the provisions of S. 208.
For example, S. 208 establishes a competitive selection process for
the awarding of contracts, directs the Secretary of Interior to prepare
a prospectus identifying the minimum contract requirements and to
select the best proposal.
In determining what the best proposal is, he still does not have
carte blanche. He has to decide that the proposal is responsive to the
minimum requirements, that the proposal protects and preserves park
resources and provides necessary and appropriate facilities and
services at reasonable rates. That is the first thing he has to
do. Then he has to determine that this person is experienced, has a
background for it. And, finally, he must consider the franchise fee
offer--although the bill makes crystal clear that the consideration of
how much money you are going to get out of the contract is subordinate
to the objectives of preserving the park and the park's esthetics and
the park values.
Really, about the only place the Senator from Utah and I had to sit
down and really work this thing out was on how long should a contract
be. My bill provided you could get a 10-year contract, and at the
discretion of the Secretary it could be extended for 5 years. Senator
Bennett said--and I really had no objection to this--the Secretary
should have the right to extend it to 20 years. The Secretary,
depending on all the considerations that he would use, may extend it
for 5 years or he may extend it for 10 years. But to give him that
authority, where somebody has a major investment and is doing very well
and the Government is doing well too, I had no real quarrel with that.
In addition to all this, the Secretary is required to grant a
preferential right of renewal to any concessioner with a contract,
where the Secretary estimates that the annual gross revenue will be
less than $500,000. The Secretary would have to find the concessioner
was operating satisfactorily during the previous contract and that the
proposal for the new contract satisfied the minimum requirements
established by the Secretary.
I think that pretty well sums up what we have done. I take a great
deal of pride in the fact we are finally standing here, after 16 years,
doing something important. You will not read about it in the Times or
the Post. You will not read about it in very many publications.
Unhappily, that is one of the problems in this country, people have a
difficult time determining what is chaff and what is wheat. But I can
tell you, this is a very important bill. It is not single-handedly
going to restore people's confidence in Congress, but for the people
who watched this bill all these years, they are going to applaud. They
are going to say those guys are finally getting their act together. I
again want to applaud my distinguished friend from Utah.
I say to my good friend from Wyoming, he offered some amendments in
the committee. He has a couple here I think are acceptable. He has been
very helpful in trying to work out getting to the time when we could
get on the floor with this bill, and I want to thank him very sincerely
for his cooperation also.
When I became chairman of the Public Lands Subcommittee in 1979, the
very first oversight hearing I held was on concessions reform.
Since that time, numerous congressional oversight hearings have been
conducted, including hearings last Congress and this Congress. In
addition, this issue has been the subject of numerous studies, reports
and analyses prepared by the Congress, the General Accounting Office,
the Department of the Interior inspector general, the National Park
Service, and a variety of private research organizations. All of these
studies have identified problems with the current Concessions Policy
Act which need to be addressed.
Even more troubling than the low franchise fees are provisions in the
existing law which effectively eliminate any competition for
concessions contracts in National Parks. For example, one provision of
the existing law grants existing concessions a preferential right to
renew their contracts. Because an incumbent concessioner can simply
match any higher bid, there is little incentive for a potential
competitor to spend time and the money required to submit a serious
bid.
According to the National Park Service, since the passage of the
Concessions Policy Act in 1965, only seven of the approximately 1,900
contrasts entered into have been awarded to a competitor where the
incumbent concessioner bid to retain the contract, and none of the
seven cases involved a contract in excess of $1 million annual gross
revenues.
A 1990 audit report prepared by the Department of the Interior's
inspector general audited 29 concessions contracts; of those, 28 were
awarded without competing offers. The Park Service indicates that
competitors have submitted offers in only about 100 of the 1,900
contracts awarded.
This year, following the subcommittee hearing, my colleague from
Utah, Senator Bennett, and I worked out what I believe is a very good
compromise agreement. That agreement, which is reflected in this bill,
eliminates provisions in the existing law which have proven to be so
anticompetitive, while ensuring that the Park Service will select the
best concessioner, and recognizing the different needs of outfitters
and other smaller operators. The bill allows five-sixths of the
concessioners to keep a preferential right of renewal, yet ensures that
the large contracts, which account for 93 percent of all concessions
revenues, are opened to competition.
Over the years, the issue of concessions reform has been extremely
controversial. Yet last month, the Energy Committee reported S. 208 by
a vote of 16 to 4. Much of the credit for this margin goes to Senator
Bennett, the coauthor of the substitute amendment.
I am also pleased that the administration strongly supports enactment
of this bill. Last year, the Department of the Interior adopted new
regulations and standard contract language that contain many of the
elements included in S. 208.
I believe that members of the Senate will agree that this legislation
is a balanced, bipartisan measure that will ensure that both the
American public and our National Parks benefit from this increased
competition.
Madam President, I would like to briefly summarize the major
provisions of S. 208, as reported by the Energy Committee.
repeal of concessions policy act of 1965
As reported, S. 208 repeals the 1965 Concessions Policy Act while
providing that the validity of contracts entered into under the 1965
act will not be affected.
competitive selection process
S. 208 establishes a competitive selection process for the awarding
of concessions contracts and directs the Secretary of the Interior to
prepare a prospectus identifying the minimum contract requirements, and
to select the best proposal. In determining the best proposal, the
principal factors to be considered include the responsiveness of the
proposal to protecting and preserving park resources and providing
necessary and appropriate facilities and services at reasonable rates.
In addition, the Secretary would be required to grant a preferential
right of renewal to any concessioner with a contract that the Secretary
estimates will have annual gross revenues of no more than $500,000,
regardless of whether the concessioner had a possessory interest or
not. In both cases, the Secretary would be required to find that the
concessioner had operated satisfactorily during the previous contract
term and that the concessioner's proposal for the new contract
satisfied the minimum requirements established by the Secretary, before
granting a preferential right of renewal.
In addition, the bill includes language directing the Secretary, in
selecting the best proposal, to take into consideration the experience,
expertise, and related background of the applicant in providing the
same or similar services as required by the prospectus.
preferential right to provide additional services
S. 208 prohibits the granting of a preferential right to a
concessioner to provide new or additional services at a park.
possessory interest
S. 208 states that any concessioner who currently has a possessory
interest will retain that interest, as defined under the 1965 act--
either as provided in the concessions contract or sound value--for the
duration of the current contract.
A concessioner who is covered by the 1965 act, and who does not renew
the contract, would be entitled to receive the value of the possessory
interest, in most cases sound value as defined in the 1965 act.
A concessioner who is covered by the 1965 act and renews the contract
under this act, would be required, as a condition of entering into the
new contract, to begin reducing the value of the possessory interest--
as of the termination of the previous contract--using straight line
depreciation over the useful life of the asset. Such depreciation
period may not exceed the depreciation period used for Federal income
tax purposes for such asset--which is currently 39 years.
A concessioner who enters into a contract under this act and builds a
structure would have an interest in such structure equal to the actual
original cost of construction, with the value to be depreciated over
the useful life of the structure, not to exceed the depreciation period
used for Federal income tax purposes for such asset.
A concessioner who is not awarded the subsequent contract would be
entitled to receive from the United States or a successor concessioner
the depreciated, or book value, of the structure.
franchise fees for similar services
If multiple contracts are to be awarded to provide the same or
similar outfitting, guide, river running, or other similar service at
the same approximate resource or location within a park, the bill
requires the Secretary to establish an identical franchise fee for all
such contracts, based on fair market value, as determined by the
Secretary.
use of franchise fees
S. 208 provides that franchise fees are to be used for resource
management and protection, maintenance activities, interpretation, and
research. Fifty percent of the fees are to be allocated among the parks
on the basis of need, as determined by the Secretary, and 50 percent
are to be made available to parks in the same proportion as the
percentage of total franchise fees collected by the park.
park improvement fund
The Secretary would be directed, where practicable, to require a
concessioner to establish a park improvement fund in lieu of receiving
all or a portion of the franchise fees. The fund would be used to
finance activities and projects within the park consistent with the
park's general management plan, and other applicable plans.
congressional findings
As introduced, S. 208 contained congressional findings which stated
that facilities should be provided within a park only when the private
sector or other public agencies could not adequately provide such
facilities within the vicinity of the park. The committee reported bill
deletes this provision, restates provisions from the 1965 act, and adds
language making clear that concessions facilities should be provided by
the private sector, if possible.
duties of the Secretary
S. 208 requires the Secretary to set forth in any prospectus the
facilities or services to be provided by the Secretary for the
concessioner. In addition, the Secretary is directed to promulgate
regulations to establish a method or procedure for the resolution of
disputes between the Secretary and a concessioner in those instances
where the Secretary has been unable to meet the conditions or
requirements, or is unable to provide the services contained in the
prospectus.
congressional notification
S. 208 provides for congressional review of any concessions contract
with anticipated gross receipts of excess of $5 million or a duration
of 10 years or more, indexed to 1993 constant dollars.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, certainly I will send the two amendments
to the desk of which I spoke and about which the Senator from Arkansas
spoke. I think it is important for the purposes of concluding the
debate to respond to a couple of things I have heard.
The Senator from Utah says, quite correctly: The situation has
changed, the national parks are enormously popular--and indeed they
are. One of the reasons they are enormously popular is because of the
visitor facilities that have been provided under the Concessions Act.
The type of concession, of which the Senator spoke, is generally
speaking the largest hotels, the largest kinds of operations, which
have the ability to absorb some of the increased visitorship. The
average concession is not such a thing. They work, indeed, under the
control of and direction of the park superintendent and the National
Park Service. So they cannot, if visitorship quadruples, they cannot
put an extra 40 boats on the river if they are now running 10. They are
limited in the responses they can have.
I have to say I am going to go to Utah and do my banking where I can
find bankers who do not insist on collateral. Every time I go to the
bank for a loan, notwithstanding the business plan, they tie up my
ranch, they tie up my house, they tie up my family cars, they tie up
anything they can get their hands on. And I have been in the habit of
being successful in the businesses--not always, but generally--in the
businesses I have undertaken.
Again, we have the ability in Congress to think of everything in the
abstract, as though all of these little concessionaires are lined up
and up here is a National Park Service and the National Park Service
somehow or another is getting ripped off by all these people. We have
to do something. All these people are little pigs at the bosom of the
great Federal sow, in line sucking away at money that is made by the
Federal Government for them.
That simply is not the case. It is not like doing business outside
the National Park Service. You have to do what they tell you to do.
Indeed, one of the things the Senator from Arkansas was talking about
is these concessionaires have to perform and perform satisfactorily in
current law. A concessionaire can be driven out of his concession by
malfeasance or lack of performance. It happens, and it happens rather
regularly. But what is missing here is the idea somehow what it is like
to do business in a park.
My concessionaires in Yellowstone--not just TW Services, but the
others--all had to shut down for the entire summer of 1988. It does not
matter if there are four times as many visitors going to the rest of
the national parks, that park was shut down by the fires. Business
plans go awry, and that is OK if you have an interest that can continue
on. But that is not so OK if you have a 10-year contract and 1 year is
taken out of it. All the plans of which the Senator from Utah spoke
about--cash flow and other things about how you are going to pay for
it--get ripped. They get ripped right away. And that is part of it.
Because in fact in the National Park Service you are not allowed to
defend your properties the way you can if you are in Canyon Ranch, Big
Horn, WY, or Salt Lake City. You can do things fighting fires that you
are not allowed to do in the parks. It is a different way of doing
business. It is not all these little piglets at the breast of the great
Federal sow.
I have another example: Callville Bay, Lake Mead. An enormous storm
blew it away with 3 years to go on their current contract, and the only
reason they were able to raise money from the bankers was because they
had a possessory interest; they had a preferential right of renewal;
and a long-term contract. They got money and they rebuilt the marina.
But it would not be there today had those things not been existence.
They could not have gotten the money to refinance that from any bank, I
do not care whether they wanted collateral or not.
The only complaint about this is coming from Congress. It is not
coming from the users of the system. The users of America's parks like
the concessions that exist there. I will say to my friend from Utah,
people without expertise will still more often than not be the lowest
bidder. No matter how many skills the local concessionaire brings to
the table, that according to the terms of this bill is not something
that the Secretary is going to take into account. Indeed, if he does he
will be criticized by--guess who? The people sitting in this room, at
an oversight hearing. I understand that so-and-so bid X for this
contract and yet you awarded it to Y. ``Oh, my goodness, Mr. Secretary,
Mr. Director of the National Park Service, why would you possibly have
done that to the taxpayer?''
Well, just think about a few of the things. Supposing you are in
Indiana Dunes. That is one of the parks I have not been in, so I speak
of it in the total abstract. Supposing you have a spa up there of some
kind where people go to enjoy, can exercise, have massages, go out to
the dunes and look at the lake, come back and do all those other kinds
of things. Supposing your contract is coming up for renewal, and
supposing there is a corporation in America called ``Spas R Us.'' Does
anybody doubt that Spas R Us can, for the life of a given 10-year
contract, outbid a single small businessman and operate that at a loss
merely to get in the door, and then, thereafter, be able to keep at
bay, merely because of size, all other competitors, not because of
preferential rights of renewal or possessory interest?
I do not know. I can see where this bill is going. I think the vote
in the committee was there. It does not necessarily mean that it was
the right vote, and it does not necessarily mean that it was the wise
thing to do, but it does mean that we have generally conceded to the
desire to do something.
We, as a Congress, do not like people making money off Federal
facilities. It is as simple as that. The Senator from Arkansas spoke
about how long it has taken to get rid of the bidding process that used
to exist for the right to drill for oil and gas. We were giving that
stuff away for a buck an acre, says he. And it is true. What was not
spoken is that several thousand people were bidding for the chance to
get it at a buck an acre in the lottery. So we got more per acre then
than we do now.
The State of Wyoming had lack of wisdom to follow the Federal
Government on that, and we are making considerable less on our oil and
gas leases than we did when we had the lottery. But we get more per
acre and the statistic looks better, and somebody did not get rich as
quickly as they might have had they been able to get this little
concession for a buck an acre.
I believe, Madam President, with all my heart that is what we are
doing here. I know it sounds better. I know it sounds especially good
to say that we are going to have competition where none now exists. I
know it sounds very good that this will bring us expert
concessionaires. I do not for a minute believe that we are going to get
as much money as we do now. I do not for a minute believe that we are
going to have the best concessionaires merely because we have the
cheapest. But that is going to be the direction in which the Congress
seeks to go.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, no program of true Federal-private
partnership has been more successful than the National Park Service
Concession Program. Needed visitor facilities and services have been
placed in national parks at a minimum of cost to the taxpayer. The
private sector has willingly borne the burden of development.
Over the years, the Concession Program has addressed the needs of
park operations, complete building improvement programs, and has
consistently contributed to infrastructure improvements that were
required to ensure that the needs of the park visitor were met.
S. 208 will change all this.
Let me present two examples of the potential impact of changing the
Concessions Program.
The concession operator of a small marina at Lake Mead had only 2
years left on his contract when a storm destroyed the marina. Because
his concession contract had possessory interest, right of renewal, and
a long term, he was able to obtain financing to rebuild the marina.
According to his banker, the bank would never have lent the money for a
complete replacement if there had not been a more than reasonable
expectation that the concessioner would be able to obtain the next 25-
year contract and retain his possessory interest. Under S. 208, the
marina would be no more than a patchwork of boards and pontoons.
A second example is the experience of the operation of the two grand
hotels in Yosemite National Park, the Ahwahnee Hotel and the Wawona
Hotel. The concessioner operating the Ahwahnee has possessory interest
and the hotel is in great shape. The Grand Old Historic Wawona Hotel,
on the other hand, has been in decay and disrepair for years. The
difference is because the Wawona contract does not have the same
possessory interest provision in the contract. The Government cannot
even pay for repairs and the minimum upkeep. The Federal Government
simply cannot run a service business as well as the private sector.
I could list many more successful concession operations. In fact, the
effort to reform the Concession Program is overlooking one very
important element. Overall, the concessions in our national parks are
doing a good job of serving the visiting public. I do not hear
complaints from park visitors. Visitors are offered a variety of
concession services at a fair price. So why is there a move to reform
the Concessions Program?
We do not need to pass wholesale changes to the program.
Concessioners are accused of making vast sums of money from monopolies
within the national parks. This administration wants more returned to
the Treasury. Let me assure my colleagues that this is not necessarily
the case. Successfully operating a concession in a park can be a very
difficult business. In Alaska, the tourist season is only 3 months
long. There is no time for mistakes. The Park Service very carefully
regulates all prices. It usually takes several years for a new
concessioner to make any profit at all.
Having said this, I believe there is room for a reasonable increase
in concession fees. However, fees should not be so high as to drive the
concessioner out of business. And I would remind my colleagues that the
Secretary has the ability to negotiate higher concession fees under
current law.
I have serious concerns about S. 208. I am convinced that if S. 208
passes as reported out of committee, the overall value each and every
contract will be decreased. Many operators will simply opt to be bought
out by the Federal Government. Where will the money come from?
Financing will be impossible to obtain. Why would a bank lend money
with shorter contract length, devalued possessory interest, and no
preferential right of renewal?
Where does it leave the visitor?
Fewer services, offered at lower standards, and at a higher cost.
This may well be the goal of some who would like to see our national
parks placed off limits; effectively closed to the majority of those
who would like to visit a national park. Fewer people will be able to
enjoy our parks. The elite will truly have the parks as their private
playground. In Alaska, this will be a disaster. Our parks are remote
and underdeveloped. This bill will make it even harder to provide much
needed visitor services.
Concessions are important to the experience the visitors have in the
national parks in my State. S. 208 threatens to destroy an effective
and efficient program that has faithfully served millions of park
visitors. I will not support a bill that replaces private sector
investment and efficiency with Government bureaucracy.
I urge my colleagues to oppose S. 208.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the pending
legislation to inject competition into the awarding of concessions
contracts in our national parks.
This reform is good both for taxpayers and for the parks. It would
replace a protective Government subsidy with the guiding forces of the
marketplace.
Let me make clear that, in my view, this legislation is not an attack
on those concessioners now operating in our parks. Rather, it is an
effort to eliminate a wasteful Government subsidy. Businesses in our
parks play by the Federal Government's rules. Our job today is to
ensure that those rules are fair to everyone involved--including the
taxpayers.
Business profits should be controlled by market forces, not by
market-skewing Government regulations. Under current law, concessioners
in our parks are shielded from certain market forces and enjoy certain
preferential rights. The result is that they pay the Federal
Government--their landlord--less in fees than the market dictates for
franchises in our parks. In essence, they are subsidized by the
taxpayers. The numbers tell the story.
In 1992, concessioners grossed $650 million and paid about 2.6
percent of that--$17.2 million--in fees. The automatic granting of a
preferential right to incumbent concessioners to renew their contracts
has virtually eliminated competition among eligible businesses for
concessions contracts. Companies that would like to bid for a franchise
in the parks frequently decline to do so because the deck is stacked
against them.
As a result of the market-driven competition that this legislation
will create, it is estimated that concessioners will return to the
Government about 10 percent of their revenues in fees, or about $65
million. Let me emphasize that point--if this measure becomes law, the
resulting competition is expected to increase annual payments to the
Treasury from $17.2 million to $65 million, which is the level the free
market would dictate. These added funds will be used to maintain our
parks, reducing the need for tax dollars from general revenues.
This is precisely the sort of good-government reform we should
encourage by eliminating an unnecessary and wasteful subsidy. I applaud
those Senators of both parties who worked hard to fashion the
reasonable compromise that today is before the Senate. I was
particularly pleased with the provisions designed to assist small
vendors, and I urge my colleagues to support this reform.
Amendment No. 1552
Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] proposes an amendment
numbered 1552.
Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 32, on lines 14 through 21, strike paragraph 3 in
its entirety and insert in lieu thereof the following:
``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), with
respect to a concessions contract entered into on or after
the date of enactment of this Act, the provisions of
subsection (b) shall apply to any existing structure,
fixture, or improvement as defined in paragraph (a)(1),
except that the value of the possessory interest as of the
termination date of the first contract expiring after the
date of enactment of this Act shall be used as the basis for
depreciation, in lieu of the actual original cost of such
structure, fixture, or improvement.
``(B) If the Secretary determines during the competitive
selection process that all proposals submitted either fail to
meet the minimum requirements or are rejected (as provided in
section 6), the Secretary may, solely with respect to a
structure, fixture, or improvement covered under this
paragraph, suspend the depreciation provisions of subsection
(b)(1) for the duration of the contract: Provided, That the
Secretary may suspend such depreciation provisions only if
the Secretary determines that the establishment of other new
minimum contract requirements is not likely to result in the
submission of satisfactory proposals, and that the suspension
of the depreciation provisions is likely to result in the
submission of satisfactory proposals.
Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, the intent of this amendment is to allow
the Secretary some discretion to allow a concessionaire the right to
retain his possessory interest and only to the extent that the
continuation of that interest advances the policy objectives of this
act. By adopting it, we can possibly avoid the cost of which I have
been here warning.
It is not meant in any way to be devious, but to give us one small
look backward should it be that this does not work.
I have shown it to the distinguished chairman and the Senator from
Utah and the Senator from Arkansas. It is my belief that it is
acceptable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, the amendment is acceptable. It has
been worked out with the Senator from Utah and the Senator from
Arkansas. We do not think the amendment will be necessary, because we
believe that there will be bidders out there for these contracts, and
the situation where a possessory interest goes without a bid will not
occur.
Nevertheless, Madam President, this is a sound amendment in that it
gives insurance that, if the proponents are not right, then this
amendment will offer protection to avoid such a situation.
So we are glad to accept the amendment, and I congratulate the
Senator from Wyoming for having worked this out.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
There being none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1552) was agreed to.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1553
Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I send another amendment to the desk and
ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] proposes an amendment
numbered 1553.
Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place insert the following new section:
Sec. . Beginning on June 1, 1997 and bi-annually
thereafter the Inspector General of the Department of the
Interior shall submit a report to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources of the United States Senate and the
appropriate Committees of the House of Representatives on the
implementation of this Act and the effect of such
implementation on facilities operated pursuant to concession
contracts and on visitor services. Each report shall
(a) identify any concession contracts which have been
renewed, renegotiated, terminated, or transferred during the
year prior to the submission of the report and identify any
significant changes in the terms of the new contract;
(b) state the amount of franchise fees the rates which
would be charged for services, and the level other of
services required to be provided by the concessioner in
comparison to that required in the previous contract;
(c) assess the degree to which concession facilities are
being maintained using the condition of such facilities on
the date of enactment of this Act as a baseline;
(d) determine whether competition has been increased or
decreased with respect to the awarding of each contract;
(e) set forth the amount of revenues received and financial
obligations incurred or reduced by the Federal Government as
a result of the comparison of the Act for the reporting
period and in comparison with previous reporting periods and
the baseline year of 1993, including the costs, if any,
associated with the acquisition of possessory interests.
Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, this amendment will require the
inspector general of the Department of the Interior to report to the
appropriate committees on the implementation of this act and the effect
of such implementation on facilities operated pursuant to concession
contracts and on visitor services.
This is a biannual report, and it will allow us some oversight
capability to chart the progress of the concession program to ensure
that the objectives of this legislation are being met.
I think it is important. It is clear, I hope, to people that I
passionately do not believe that this bill will accomplish what its
proponents suggest it will. They believe, as passionately, that it
will, and that is what we gather on the floor of the Senate for. It is
theoretically an arena and not a stage. But this will give us the
ability to look back and see.
Too often what the Senate does, what the Congress does is toss off a
proposal that seems to have public popularity, and then we never look
back until way down the road and it is too late.
We have seen what happens when concessions fail, and we have seen
that it is not possible to get that kind of money out of this Congress,
and it is going to be worse in the future than it has ever been in the
past.
This will do nothing more than give us a report that could give us a
possible headline that there are rough roads ahead. We may be able to
see that road and may be able to react. I will not be here, but I hope
that those who see these reports will read them carefully. If I am
wrong, they will have the privilege of asking that they do not need to
be made anymore. If I am right, maybe, Madam President, they will be
willing to take some action and say that the Park System is more
important than the reputation of the people who passed the legislation.
I also will say that it is my understanding that this amendment has
been accepted by the proponents of the legislation.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I agree completely with the
description of the amendment by the Senator from Wyoming and commend
him on not only the amendment but the spirit with which it is offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1553) was agreed to.
Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I have spoken my piece. I have the
belief, as I have stated, that the legislation is ill-founded and
unwise. It has passed the committee. It will most certainly probably
pass the Senate. But my opinion on it is now recorded.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I have nothing further except to,
again, commend the Senator from Arkansas for his long and finally
successful quest to reform something that I think not only needed
reforming but has been, in this bill, reformed in a very constructive
way.
I want to echo the words of the Senator from Arkansas and
congratulate the Senator from Utah, who, in a 1-year period of time,
has come with a businessman's touch and has helped us reform something
that has defied reformation for, I think, something like 17 years. I
hope he is equally successful in helping us resolve some of the other
difficult issues before our committee. We welcome his constructive hand
in mining law reform, grazing, and some of our other difficult issues.
So I wish to thank him and commend him and congratulate him for
excellent work. Both he and the Senator from Arkansas have really done
very well.
I must say, Madam President, that the Senator from Wyoming, although
he will not be voting for the bill, has been a guiding force in molding
the bill. To be sure, not all of his amendments were accepted, not all
of his suggestions were accepted, but the shape of the bill now
reflects the direction in which he helped move this bill and move the
committee. So I congratulate him for helping make this bill a better
one.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further discussion on the committee
substitute?
Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the chairman and the Senator from Arkansas for
their kind words. I am very appreciative of the spirit behind them. I
hope it does not hurt me too much in Utah to have some of these people
saying nice things about me on the floor of the Senate, given the kinds
of clashes that we have had in the past. But I am grateful for the
spirit of cooperation that is behind these expressions and want
Senators to know how grateful I am.
I say to the chairman, I would be happy to work on mining reform and,
indeed, will be involved in that as well as grazing. I think it is safe
to predict that I will be more closely allied with the Senator from
Wyoming on both of those issues than I have been on this one. But to
the degree any expertise I might bring will be listened to, I certainly
will be involved.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the committee
substitute, as amended?
There being no further debate, all those----
Mr. WALLOP addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, it is my understanding the Senator from
Arizona, [Mr. McCain], has some amendments, of which I have no
knowledge. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, if the Senator will withhold, as I
understand it, aside from those amendments, is there a unanimous
consent agreement covering this bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a unanimous-consent agreement
covering the bill.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Reserving of the Cohen amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a requirement that all amendments be
relevant to either the subject matter of the bill or the committee
substitute.
Mr. JOHNSTON. And when those amendments are offered, when will the
bill be ripe for passage?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No votes occur in relation to the bill prior
to Tuesday.
When no Senator wishes to offer further amendments or debate, the
bill will be put to a vote.
Mr. JOHNSTON. And so we could pass the bill today without a rollcall
vote once all the amendments are considered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I will suggest the absence of a quorum
in a moment, but we invite Senators who have amendments to please
contact us, and we will consider those at some time this afternoon. I
hope we would be able to pass the bill without a rollcall vote later
today. So we invite those Senators to please contact us, and we will
consider their amendments.
Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I will insist on a rollcall on the bill,
I say to my friend. But more to the case, I think those Senators who
have amendments owe it to the managers of the bill to show up shortly
if they wish to have the opportunity to amend. I am perfectly willing
to go to third reading on it. There is no reason for us to sit here and
wait for people who have not the courtesy to come down when the floor
is open and nothing else to do.
So I say to my friend that I will cooperate with him in moving the
bill to third reading and putting the vote to tomorrow as it was
suggested by the majority leader.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 1554
(Purpose: To improve concessions policy affecting the National Park
Service)
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Arizona [Mr.
McCain], I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] for Mr. McCain
proposes an amendment numbered 1554.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 34, lines 24 and 25, between ``Federal State and
Local regulatory agencies'', and ``If the Secretary's
performance'', insert the following, ``, and shall seek and
consider the applicable views of park visitors and concession
customers.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, this has been cleared with both managers.
It is a relatively simple requirement that the Secretary use the
visitor reports in assessing the quality of the concession.
Mr. BUMPERS. We have no objection to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1554) was agreed to.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1555
(Purpose: To improve the concessions policy of the National Park
Service)
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk and
ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] for Mr. McCain
proposes an amendment numbered 1555.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 21, line 25, after ``to the public at a park'',
insert the following, ``except that the Secretary shall take
all reasonable and appropriate steps to consider competing
alternatives for such contract.''.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, this has also been cleared with managers
on both sides, and it is a helpful and relatively simple amendment.
Mr. BUMPERS. We have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1555) was agreed to.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, but for an amendment that we understand is
coming from the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen], and the possibility of
a budget point of order, that wraps up the known amendments to this
bill.
I would, therefore, ask unanimous consent that they be the only
amendments in order, those by the Senator from Maine and the budget
point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WALLOP. I would also ask that the staffs of those Senators to ask
those Senators to come down here as a matter of courtesy and as a
matter of convenience of the Senate. There is no reason for them to be
carrying on.
And at some moment in time--I have talked with the committee chairman
and the subcommittee chairman--we will move to third reading,
notwithstanding that those amendments have not been offered. There is a
limit to the patience that can be expected of the managers.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Order to Vitiate Unanimous-Consent Agreement
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
unanimous-consent agreement entered into with regard to the amendment
of the Senator from Maine and the budget point of order be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, let me try to restate the agreement, with
the Senator from Arkansas paying heed. It is that should the budget
point of order to be offered by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown]
be sustained, necessarily a perfecting amendment to get rid of the
budget point of order would be required, and, therefore, it should be
included as part of the unanimous-consent agreement.
So, therefore, I ask unanimous consent that among the items to be in
order is a budget point of order to be raised by the Senator from
Colorado and a subsequent amendment to correct the deficiency should
that point of order be sustained.
Mr. BUMPERS. And if I may add to the Senator's request, that a motion
to waive the point of order would also be in order.
Mr. WALLOP. Would also be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will request of the Senator from
Wyoming whether he is including in his unanimous-consent request
second-degree amendments which are relevant.
Mr. WALLOP. In the instance of the budget point of order and
perfecting amendment, second-degree amendments germane and directly
related would be, and that the amendment from the Senator from Maine
[Mr. Cohen] be the only other amendment in order and that that would be
required to abide by the requirements of the consent order under which
we are operating now, in other words, that it be relevant and germane.
There are two amendments, and that they be able to sustain second-
degree amendments that are relevant and germane but that each of those
be subject to the requirement established by this majority leader under
the unanimous-consent agreement that those amendments be relevant and
germane to the issue at hand.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator's unanimous-
consent request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in
morning business for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Ford pertaining to the introduction of S. 1953
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1556
(Purpose: To provide for review of concessions operations by the
Comptroller General of the United States)
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Maine [Mr.
Cohen], I send an amendment to the desk regarding recordkeeping
requirements and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop], for Mr. Cohen,
proposes an amendment numbered 1556.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 35, line 21, through page 36, line 5, strike
section 14 in its entirety and insert in lieu thereof the
following:
SEC. 14. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Each concessioner shall keep such records
as the Secretary may prescribe to enable the Secretary to
determine that all terms of the concessioner's contract have
been, and are being faithfully performed, and the Secretary
or any of the Secretary's duly authorized representatives
shall, for the purpose of audit and examination, have access
to such records and to other books, documents and papers of
the concessioner pertinent to the contract and all the terms
and conditions thereof as the Secretary deems necessary.
(b) General Accounting Office Review.--The Comptroller
General of the United States or any of his or her duly
authorized representatives shall, until the expiration of
five calendar years after the close of the business year for
each concessioner, have access to and the right to examine
any pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of the
concessioner related to the contracts or contracts involved.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, at a time when the public's confidence in
the Government's ability to manage its financial affairs on behalf of
the taxpayer is dismally low, Congress continues to fuel the public's
cynicism by failing to make even the most simple common sense reforms
that would enable the Government to act in a more business-like manner.
Moreover, taxpayers have said they are willing to make sacrifices as
long as the Government lives up to its end of the bargain and sends the
message that Washington is serious about changing the way it does
business.
Taxpayers have a reasonable expectation that, before we ask them to
send another nickel to Washington, the Government demonstrate its
ability to maximize revenue from Federal assets like public lands.
Today, the public correctly observes that the Government too often
fails to operate in a business-like manner.
As proof that the Federal Government is failing to operate
efficiently, one only needs to examine how the Federal Government
manages concessionaires operating on Federal land. From the parking
deck at Arlington National Cemetery, to the elaborate Ahwahnee Hotel at
Yosemite National Park, to the picturesque Scottsdale Tournament
Players Club Golf Course in Arizona, the Government collects absurdly
low rents and franchise fees from the operators of these facilities--
who in turn have the exclusive right to promote goods and services on
Federal property.
In some cases, the Government collects nothing. For example, at the
Scottsdale golf course, the Federal Government leased property to the
city of Scottsdale for 75 years. The city in turn subleased the land to
a developer who built the golf course and an equestrain center. These
facilities generated some $24 million in revenue over a 3-year period
out of which the city of Scottsdale received 6.25 percent of the gross
receipts or about $1.5 million. But for the next three quarters of a
century, Uncle Sam will not see a dime.
There are literally hundreds of examples where concessionaires,
thanks to the Government's poor management practices, are not paying
fair market value for the use of Federal land and facilities, resulting
in the Government's failure to collect $200 million in annual revenue.
Although the legislation we are considering today, S. 208, the National
Parks Concession Policy Reform Act, does not address the management of
all Federal concessions, it is a good first step on the road to
reforming Federal concession policy.
There is a clear need to reform the concession policy at our national
parks. Current law almost always results in deals which are exceedingly
good for the concessionaire operators, but are exceedingly bad for the
taxpayer. These concessionaires should be made to compete for the
exclusive right to offer goods and services to park visitors.
Specifically, competition should be based on: which goods and
services the concessionaire is willing to provide; the prices charged
for the goods and services offered; the concessionaire's ability
and track record; and what the concessionaire is willing to pay the
Government for what is, in effect, a monopoly over a ready-made
customer base. By competing on this basis, I believe that the visitors
to our national parks will benefit, service will improve, and the
taxpayers will realize a better return on their investment in our
National Parks.
While visitors to National Parks are paying high prices to
concessionaires for their hotdogs, sodas, and parking, the Federal
Government often gets little or nothing. For example, visitors to
Alaska's Denali National Park spent on average about $17 per person on
concessions--$16.72. At the same time the Government collected less
than 14 cents from that $17 sale for the concessionaire's use of
Federal buildings and the exclusive right to peddle its goods and
services to the 504,000 people who visit Denali every year.
At the Grand Canyon, the concessionaire who runs the luxury hotel,
charging between $102 and $252 a night, took in more than $63 million
but paid the Government a mere $1,250 a month in rent and a $1.7
million franchise fee. The same concessionaire took in almost $5.3
million in sales from its operations at California's Death Valley
National Monument and Arizona's Petrified Forest National Park.
However, the Government's share was less than $125,000 or 2.3 percent.
While, I do not find fault with the concessionaire for seizing a
business opportunity, the Federal Government should not be in the
business of enriching companies on the backs of the taxpayers.
There are many other examples. At California's Sequoia National Park,
a concessionaire collected more than $11 million and paid the
Government only about $82,000. At Montana's Glacier National Park one
concessionaire took in more than $9 million, but paid the Government
only about $133,000. The Lake Mead Resort in Nevada annually took in
$4.3 million but paid the Government less than $135,000. Willow Beach
Resort also at Lake Mead brought in more than $1.8 million but paid the
Government just over $18,000. At Crater Lake National Park in Oregon,
the Crater Lake Lodge collected about $3.6 million from park visitors
and paid the Government a total of $695 in annual rent for the building
and another $65,793 in franchise fees. Unfortunately, examples of these
types of arrangements within the National Park Service are the rule
rather than the exception.
In many cases, the States make out better than the Federal
Government. State tax revenues often exceed revenues generated to the
Federal Government in the form of rent and franchise fees. For example
the concession operation at the Mount Vernon Inn generates more than
$20,000 more for the State of Virginia in sales tax than it makes for
the Federal Government.
Compared to the management of concessionaires at state parks, the
Federal Government is literally giving the store away. According to a
1988 GAO report States receive an average concession fee of 12 percent
of gross sales. This is in sharp contrast to the 2.6 percent the
Federal Government received from its concessions 1992. Even if the
Federal Government were simply to collect from concessionaires what
States collect on average, we could collect an additional $60 million--
or about 3\1/2\ times what the Park Service is currently receiving from
its concession operations.
Yet the argument continues to be made that the taxpayer must
subsidize Federal concession operations to ensure that reasonably
priced concessions are available to visitors at our national parks.
This argument holds little water. Low franchise fees do not necessarily
translate into low prices for visitors to our national parks. More
often, they simply mean higher profits for concessionaires. In fact,
the concessionaire at Mount Vernon charges about 20 percent more than
an ice cream store in nearby Alexandria for a 16-ounce coke. This 20
percent difference is significantly more than the 4 percent franchise
fee the concessionaire pays to Government for the exclusive right to
sell cokes to the 5.7 million annual visitors to Mount Vernon.
For the last several months, my staff on the subcommittee on
oversight of Government Management has been investigating the
Government's mismanagement of the concessions which operate on Federal
land. Although we will be releasing the results of our investigation
shortly, consideration of S. 208, the National Parks Concessions Policy
Reform Act, provides an opportunity to share some of the subcommittee's
findings and is a good first step in the effort to reform the
Government's management of concessions.
Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Bumpers, Senator
Bennett and Senator Johnston for their hard work in crafting a balanced
proposal for reforming concessions policy at the National Park Service.
This legislation is a good first step toward changing the management
culture which for too long has resulted in the Government's failure to
charge fair market rents to these concessionaires.
However, I am concerned that, to some degree, this legislation
reinvents the wheel by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to
develop separate competitive procedures for soliciting proposals from
concessionaires. For this reason, I considered offering an amendment to
S. 208 which--consistent with the intent and substance of the bill--
would have ensured that the competitive process for selecting
concessionaires parallel existing law governing competition in all
executive branch agencies. My amendment would have ensured that the
Park Service competes its concessions contracts in the same manner as
other Federal agencies competitively procure goods and services.
Mr. President, my amendment would have required the Secretary of the
Interior to promulgate regulations for competing concessions contracts
consistent with the principles of full and open competition as outlined
in existing law. The adoption of the existing process would in no way
preclude the Secretary from determining the source selection criteria
used by the Department.
The existing process is in fact flexible. The existing competitive
process as outlined in title III, section 303A.(a)(1)(C) of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, specifically states
that the agency shall ``develop specifications in such a manner as is
necessary to obtain full and open competition with due regard to the
nature of the property or services to be acquired.'' It also requires
at section 303A(b)(1), that, ``each solicitation for sealed bids or
competitive proposals * * * shall at a minimum include * * * a
statement of (A) all significant factors * * * which the executive
agency reasonably expects to consider in evaluating sealed bids of
competitive proposals; and (B) the relative importance assigned to each
of those factors.'' The current process as outlined in section
303B(d)(4) 41 U.S.C. 253b, goes on to say that when selecting the best
proposal that the award shall be made to the responsible source whose
proposal is most advantageous to the United States considering only
price and other factors included in the solicitation. Clearly, the
existing process provides sufficient flexibility to ensure that the
intent of the bill is retained. Specifically, the Secretary, when
writing the implementing regulations will have sufficient flexibility
to ensure, citing language from S. 208, that ``the consideration of
revenue generated is subordinate to the objectives of protecting and
preserving park resources and of providing necessary and appropriate
facilities or services to the public at reasonable rates.''
As the Senate author of the Competition in Contracting Act which
became law in 1984, I have a keen interest in furthering a competitive
environment for government contracting. This interest extends not only
to the Government's acquisition of goods and services, but to the
Government's contracts with concessionaires who bid for the right to
provide goods and services to the millions of people who visit our
national parks every year. The Competition in Contracting Act
established statutory guidance for the process and procedures that
agencies should adopt to ensure full and open competition. that is what
this bill before us is about--competition.
However, I have decided not to offer my amendment because of concerns
that its provisions will result in multiple referrals which would
effectively kill S. 208. The effort to reform the Government's
management of its concessions is far too important to have the effort
thwarted although I do believe this amendment should be adopted.
Nevertheless, in the interest in achieving meaningful reform, I have
agreed to withhold my amendment.
Mr. President, I am pleased that my second amendment, which was
adopted by the Senate, will increase the accountability of the Park
Improvement Funds created by this legislation. Specifically, the
amendment grants the General Accounting Office an explicit right to
access all books and records associated with the management of these
funds. Under current law, GAO has access to all books and records of
any fund generated or created from money generated by concession
operations. S. 208, would remove GAO's explicit right to access these
books and records. My amendment explicitly grants GAO access to all
pertinent books and records by including the language of the existing
law to S. 208.
Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate passed my amendment to
maintain the accountability of concessionaire funds. And although I am
not offering my amendment to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
comply with the provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act, I
urge my colleagues to support S. 208 so we may begin to reform
concessions at the National Park Service and rethink in general, how
the Government manages and oversees its concessionaires.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas and I have
looked at this amendment of the Senator from Maine with regard to
reinstating the policy of the 1965 act and find it very useful. The
minority is at least prepared to accept it.
Mr. BUMPERS. We have no objection to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1556) was agreed to.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ford). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, members of Ansel Adams family operate
the Best Studio/Ansel Adams Gallery at Yosemite National Park. It is my
understanding this is the oldest family-owned business in the National
Park System, operating since 1902. The family understands the
preferential right of renewal is being eliminated, and is concerned
about how the new selection criteria will affect them.
All of us are familiar with Ansel Adams' magnificent photographs of
Yosemite. His name is nearly synonymous with the park. Given the
family's long association and history with the park, it seems to me
that all things being equal the National Park Service would want to
keep the Ansel Adams Gallery even if the preferential right of renewal
is eliminated.
Is it not the case that under this bill the Secretary of the Interior
will consider the experience and related background of the person
submitting a concession proposal, including past performance, and that
the franchise fee will be subordinate to the objectives of protecting
park resources and providing appropriate services?
Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator from California is correct. Additionally,
the bill allows the Secretary to consider secondary factors as he deems
appropriate.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I think we are ready to go to one final
unanimous-consent agreement and third reading.
Does the Senator from Wyoming agree with that?
Mr. WALLOP. The Senator does.
Mr. BUMPERS. With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the Senate vote on final passage of S. 208, the national park
concessions reform bill, occur without any intervening action or debate
at 2:30 p.m., on Tuesday, March 22, and that paragraph 4 of rule XII be
waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final
passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS. Third reading, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the committee substitute is
agreed to.
So the committee substitute was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
Mr. WALLOP addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I am glad we got to the point of third
reading. I reiterate my unhappiness with the bill and my understanding
of where it is going. I have spoken my piece on it.
I would just say that the Senator from Arkansas and I, and the
Senator from Utah, have been here for 1 hour and 45 minutes, while our
colleague was downstairs having lunch and who decided, at the end of
having lunch, not to offer an amendment that kept us waiting here for 1
hour and 45 minutes.
The Senator from Arkansas, in his opening remarks on the bill, talked
about what an unhappy place the Senate has become. There are many
reasons for that. But the lack of consideration becomes one that raises
the level of unhappiness unnecessarily.
I am sorry that my colleagues had to sit and wait. I am sorry that it
turned out that way. I am glad that we are to the point where we are on
the bill.
But, for future reference, I think all of our colleagues would do
well to try to remember the sensibilities of the rest of those serving
with them during the course of the days. It is contentious enough
around here, with partisanship and other kinds of things. A little
consideration would go a long way toward making the Senate a less
unhappy place than it currently is. I regret having said that, but I
did feel compelled to take note of it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
____________________