[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 101 (Thursday, July 28, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
      NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CONCESSIONS POLICY REFORM ACT OF 1994

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 492, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 492

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (S. 208) to reform the concessions policies of the 
     National Park Service, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order 
     against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with 
     section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are 
     waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee on 
     Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Natural Resources now printed in the bill, modified by the 
     amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each section of the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, shall 
     be considered as read. Points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, for 
     failure to comply with clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], pending which I yield myself such 
time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all 
time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 492 is the rule providing for the 
consideration of S. 208, the National Park Service Concessions Policy 
Reform Act of 1994.
  This is an open rule. It provides 1 hour of general debate, equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Natural Resources.
  Section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act is waived against 
consideration of the bill. That section of the Budget Act prohibits 
consideration of measures that would cause the appropriate subcommittee 
level or program-level ceiling to be exceeded.
  This is in this case a technical waiver since the rule itself 
includes an amendment that modifies the base text to correct the budget 
problem caused by the bill.
  The rule makes in order the Natural Resources Committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill--as modified by the 
amendment correcting the budget problem and printed in the report 
accompanying the rule--as original text for the purpose of amendment. 
The substitute shall be considered as read.
  The rule also waives clause 5(a) of rule XXI, prohibiting 
appropriations in a legislative bill, against the committee substitute.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit with 
or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, S. 208 would improve the way the National Park Service 
awards and manages concession contracts for the provision of goods and 
services to park visitors. The main purpose of the bill is to open up 
the concessions industry by instituting a new set of regulations that 
are designed to spur competition.
  As one who believes strongly in the need to support the National Park 
Service and improve its operations, I commend the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento] for his work on updating the 30-year-old statute 
governing concession contracts. He has made changes in a way that will 
benefit park visitors and the taxpayers who are the owners of the 
parks, as well as the businesses that wish to bid on the contracts.
  Mr. Speaker, to repeat, this is an open rule. The waivers contained 
in the rule are technical in nature and have been accepted by the 
minority on the Rules Committee and have also been approved by the 
Appropriations and Budget Committees.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this bill raises many legitimate issues--and I 
expect my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to engage in vigorous 
debate as discussion of S. 208 proceeds. In reviewing the commentary 
from the bill's proponents and opponents, it is clear that there remain 
significant differences of opinion among Members about the trade-off 
between competition among park concession contracts and the important 
issues of continuity of service and possessory interest. Clearly, our 
national parks require the most careful oversight we can afford them--
but we must also continue to ensure that they are available and 
accessible for all Americans to enjoy.
  That is why I am pleased that we have an open rule for consideration 
of S. 208, allowing Members with an interest in this bill unfettered 
opportunity to discuss their concerns and propose ways to improve this 
legislation. I commend Chairman Miller and ranking member Young--as 
well as my Rules Committee colleagues--for granting this open rule. I 
am aware the rule now provides a technical fix to the Budget Act 
problems we found in the original text of the bill. I understand there 
is some controversy about the fix. Otherwise, I have no opposition to 
this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record data on open rules versus 
restrictive rules in the 95th Congress, as follows:

                                  OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Open rules       Restrictive rules
                      Congress (years)                       Total rules ---------------------------------------
                                                              granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).............................................          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).............................................          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).............................................          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).............................................          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).............................................          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)............................................          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)............................................          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).............................................          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).............................................           80      21         26       59         74 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
  the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of     
  order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.                            
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is    
  otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
  of total rules granted.                                                                                       
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called 
  modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for           
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are        
  restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.                                                        
                                                                                                                
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''   
  Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through July 28, 1994.                                                        


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).        
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994......  O         H.R. 2442: EDA                 N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).    
                                           Reauthorization.                                                                                             
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,  
                                           Protection.                                                                  1994).                          
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994.....  O         H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).    
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 2108: Black Lung          4 (D-1; R-3)....  N/A.......................  A: VV (May 19, 1994).            
                                           Benefits Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   173 (D-115; R-    ..........................  A: 369-49 (May 18, 1994).        
                                           1995.                          58).                                                                          
H. Res. 431, May 20, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   ................  100 (D-80; R-20)..........  A: Voice Vote (May 23, 1994).    
                                           1995.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 440, May 24, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4385: Natl Hiway System   16 (D-10; R-6)..  5 (D-5; R-0)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 25, 1994).    
                                           Designation.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 443, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4426: For. Ops. Approps,  39 (D-11; R-28).  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 233-191 A: 244-181 (May 25,  
                                           FY 1995.                                                                     1994).                          
H. Res. 444, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4454: Leg Branch Approp,  43 (D-10; R-33).  12 (D-8; R-4).............  A: 249-177 (May 26, 1994).       
                                           FY 1995.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 447, June 8, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4539: Treasury/Postal     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 236-177 (June 9, 1994).       
                                           Approps 1995.                                                                                                
H. Res. 467, June 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4600: Expedited           N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 240-185 A:Voice Vote (July   
                                           Rescissions Act.                                                             14, 1994).                      
H. Res. 468, June 28, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4299: Intelligence        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 19, 1994).   
                                           Auth., FY 1995.                                                                                              
H. Res. 474, July 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3937: Export Admin. Act   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 14, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 475, July 12, 1994....  O         H.R. 1188: Anti. Redlining in  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 20, 1994).   
                                           Ins.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 482, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3838: Housing & Comm.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 21, 1994).   
                                           Dev. Act.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 483, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3870: Environ. Tech. Act  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 26, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 484, July 20, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4604: Budget Control Act  3 (D-2; R-1)....  3 (D-2; R-1)..............  PQ: 245-180 A: Voice Vote (July  
                                           of 1994.                                                                     21, 1994).                      
H. Res. 491, July 27, 1994....  O         H.R. 2448: Radon Disclosure    N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 492, July 27, 1994....  O         S. 208: NPS Concession Policy  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished 
gentleman from Farmington, UT [Mr. Hansen].
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the actions 
of the Rules Committee on S. 208. I appreciate Chairman Miller's 
request for an open rule and the opportunity we will have to offer 
amendments on the floor. However, the problem here is that this 
legislation has been amended by the Rules Committee in order to 
overcome the Budget Act violations of S. 208.
  It seems that many Members of this body are misinformed as to the 
fiscal effects of S. 208. According to the Congressional Budget Office 
and apparently the Rules and the Budget Committees, S. 208 will not 
raise the revenues promised by its proponents but will actually result 
in direct spending. The Chairman may disagree with me but if this bill 
does actually raise revenues as promised, why was it necessary for the 
Chairman of the Subcommittee to offer an amendment to the Rules 
Committee that would circumvent the Budget Act.
  The truth of the matter is that the National Parks and Conservation 
Association [NPCA] has continually claimed that S. 208 would raise $40 
million dollars in revenues for the parks. However, I have made 
numerous requests of the NPCA to substantiate this $40 million figure 
and they cannot provide any information or evidence that any new 
revenue will be generated. The CBO says that S. 208 will actually cost 
money and apparently Mr. Vento agrees or he would not have offered the 
amendment in Rules Committee without the knowledge of the minority.
  My Republican colleagues received in the mail this morning a dear 
colleague that was signed by the Citizens Against Government Waste and 
the National Taxpayers Union. Although I am one of the most fiscally 
conservative members on this side of the aisle, these groups are simply 
misinformed on this issue. I fully respect the opinions of the 
Gentlelady from Kansas but I am afraid that the NPCA has mislead 
members on both sides of the aisle regarding the fiscal impacts of S. 
208. The $40 million cannot be substantiated and I challenge any Member 
of this body to do so. This is a number pulled out of the air by the 
NPCA and the lies have to stop now.
  Rather than create any new money for the parks, Chairman Vento's 
amendment in Rules Committee will now require that the first $22.6 
million that will supposedly be collected must first go to the treasury 
and not to the parks. The entire emphasis behind concession reform has 
been to return more money to the parks and now we are taking that money 
away.
  S. 208 is bad legislation that fails to raise new revenues, does not 
increase competition on 80 percent of the contracts and drives visitor 
services out of the parks. I thank the Rules Committee for the open 
rule but the Rules Committee should not be in the habit of amending 
legislation outside the purview of the authorizing committee. I urge my 
colleagues to look closely at the committee report and CBO's estimates 
and to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the time.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I want to answer his question if I can. Obviously we have a 
difference of opinion about the legislation, but we should not differ 
about the fiscal impact of the $22.6 million that he referred to as to 
those dollars. That is the current, or the projected, CBO estimate of 
the amount of money that will come from concession contracts in fiscal 
year 1995, and if you look further, you will find that there is a 
slight increase in that amount over the 5-year budget cycle that we are 
required to respond to with regard to the Committee on the Budget.
  In order to satisfy the concerns of the Committee on the Budget, 
because as you know in this legislation the dollars accrued from the 
increase or what we anticipate will be an increase in concession fees 
will be used to extinguish something, the property rights, of current 
concessioners in the park, but in order to satisfy the Budget Act, we 
had to specify that the amounts that are anticipated under the present 
policy path would go to the Treasury as they are going there today 
based on the projected budget amounts that CBO had projected as if 
there had been no change in policy.
  So, indeed, those dollars, the increased number of dollars that are 
reflected there, is the current policy that we are talking about.
  The increased dollars, if any, and my colleague and I have may have 
differing views with regard to that, would be used by and large for the 
extinguishing of the possessory interests within the parks and for 
other purposes, for the franchise fees, and the other dollars would 
stay in the park, as I think most of us would like to occur. But we had 
to deal with that baseline, and we will have to do that in similar 
measures that raise revenues in parks.
  I thank my colleague very much for yielding and permitting me to 
explain that.
  Mr. HANSEN. My friend from Minnesota, if I am reading him right, made 
a statement which is absolutely true, as he normally would, a very 
distinguished Member of this group, but let me say this: How we should 
interpret it is this way, prior to going to the Committee on Rules, 
most Members of this body were of the opinion that the money would flow 
back to the parks. The parks that are falling apart, that cannot take 
care of their infrastructures would have dollars given to them so they 
could build their infrastructure.
  We are now saying, well, that is not entirely so, and that is why my 
friend from Minnesota had to put this amendment in to satisfy the CBO. 
Is that not correct?
  Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman will yield further, I think the money is, 
when it comes to the Treasury, is not exactly going into a black hole 
that is lost. The appropriators can appropriate it back out.
  Mr. HANSEN. May I say respectfully that is where we would disagree.
  Mr. VENTO. I would like to, and I think the gentleman would like to, 
see all the revenue raised from the parks remain in the parks without 
having to go through the OMB or go through the Committee on 
Appropriations; we are saying the policy changes, which I believe will 
enhance revenue, and the gentleman has spoken a different view with 
regard to that, will stay in the parks, and our preference would be for 
all the dollars to stay there from dollar one, whether they are the 
existing concession franchise fees or whatever improvements and 
enhancements take place through this legislation, but that in order to 
satisfy the CBO and the Committee on the Budget and the Office of 
Management and Budget, we had to deal with the CBO projection, and so 
that is why it has been modified, and for only that reason.
  Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the comment from my friend from Minnesota.
  I do think that people should realize that the idea of reinvigorating 
the parks, of money flowing into the parks, of the infrastructure of 
the parks, of what this will do as far as visitation which we will talk 
about later, I really feel this is a bad piece of legislation, and I 
would ask my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I believe what we have in front of us is a rule where the Committee 
on Rules has done its best to make a fix. We have not done it 
apparently as cleanly as we hoped we would. We do have an open rule. It 
is clear we have got a lot of points to debate. We should get on with 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to accept this open 
rule so we may proceed to consideration of the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 492 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the Senate bill, S. 
208.

                              {time}  1536


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
Senate bill (S. 208) to reform the concessions policies of the National 
Park Service, and for other purposes, with Mr. McNulty in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the Senate bill is considered as 
having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  I, of course, rise in strong support of S. 208, a measure for 
concession reforms that is supported by, and part of the product of, 
Vice President Gore's Task Force on Reinventing Government. This 
measure is supported by the Clinton administration. This measure is 
strongly supported by the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt. 
This measure is supported by the National Park Director, Roger Kennedy. 
It is supported by the conservation organizations throughout the 
Nation, and it has been led by the National Parks and Conservation 
Association itself. This measure is supported by the Taxpayers' 
Association and Citizens Against Government Waste.
  I might say that this measure, which provides for an entrepreneurial 
effort to in fact try and invigorate our parks, to use the strength of 
the free enterprise system and competition which have served this 
Nation, are long due in terms of this measure.
  There was a time, Mr. Chairman, when our parks and some parks today 
are not able to sustain or attract the private sector in terms of 
maintaining services to the guests and to the individuals who frequent 
our national parks. But today many of these concessions, and some of 
our outstanding crown jewels, our national parks, are big business. 
They, in fact, have become the trading chips on Wall Street, the 
trading material between international companies and firms.
  Some of these concession contracts are multi-million-dollar, 100-
million-dollar, very, very valuable contracts, as there is an effort to 
try and provide these services, and in essence to cash in on the 
people's parks, the national parks.
  The parks in this Nation were created for the enjoyment of the 
public. They have been preserved. They are being conserved and 
rehabilitated. They are not there as profit centers solely for those 
that would take advantage of a system of regulation that no longer 
serves the American people or these parks.
  The efforts made in the mid-1960's were landmark efforts in terms of 
policy, but they are not serving us today. In fact, they are a 
disservice to these parks, and that is why this lineup of conservation, 
taxpayer groups and this administration and the past administration, 
led by Secretary Lujan that set much of the foundations for the 
progressive policy that has been passed by the Senate, is largely 
endorsed in this bill with some changes.
  The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that people need the 
concessions that are sometimes in the parks, and these services in 
order to enjoy them. We have come to realize there are many drawbacks 
to existing law. Existing law does not foster competition. It thwarts 
competition, and the existing law provides an absolute right, 
preferential renewal for someone that has a contract, irrespective, and 
by and large of how they have conducted themselves, simply by meeting 
the price of a bidder.
  The existing law permits the buildup of a very valuable possessory 
interest which is based on current value of some investment made; in 
other words, this is completely at odds with the types of leases and 
concessions that exist across this country for ballparks, State parks, 
shopping centers, and for a variety of other things.

                              {time}  1540

  It is unique to the Park Service. As I said, at one time when we had 
mom-and-pop operations in the parks, when it was difficult to attract 
people to come to those parks, it probably was necessary. Today when 
these are the bargaining chips on Wall Street in terms of takeovers and 
mergers, multimillion-dollar value, billion-dollar values represented, 
it is time we update the law and make it current to what the present 
situation is.
  The possessory interest, buildup of an interest in these parks, makes 
it absolutely impossible for an individual to buy out that possessory 
interest and to really compete. So we need to change that, change the 
law. That is what we are about.
  This bill changes the situation to make it workable, to deal with the 
barriers that exist. This bill recognizes very importantly that when 
facilities and services can be provided outside a park, that should be 
the preferable option. This particular legislation does not throw any 
concessioners out of the park. This legislation does put that 
concessioner in the free enterprise system in competition.
  I know there are a lot of speeches given on this floor in terms of 
individuals who favor free enterprise, they like to give speeches, but 
sometimes we find that those who give the loudest speeches and those 
that proclaim the virtues of free enterprise simply do not want to 
practice free enterprise.
  This bill, as far as it can, attempts to inject some competition into 
the free enterprise.
  We know there has been a sad history out there with regard to service 
provided in these parks to constituents. We know that has to be 
improved, that they cannot just be profit centers. We have to look to 
the preservation of service to people and our communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of S. 208, the National Park 
Service Concessions Policy Reform Act. This is an important reform 
bill. The legislation has been a long time coming, and represents a 
broad, bipartisan consensus. To a large extent, it would give 
permanent, statutory effect to changes in National Park Service 
policies that were prompted by our former colleague and former 
Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan, and also reflects important 
suggestions from the General Accounting Office, the Interior 
Department's inspector general, and other experts.
  Mr. Chairman, the relevant background to this bill, as well as its 
detailed provisions, are discussed at length in the Natural Resources 
Committee's report on this bill. Therefore, I will only summarize a 
number of major points that members should be aware of concerning this 
measure.
  National Park Service concessions contracts are now primarily 
governed by a 1965 act known as the National Park Service Concessions 
Policy Act. That 1965 act, developed by our former colleague and 
distinguished chairman, Mo Udall, and other members of our committee, 
was a very sound measure for its day and age.
  For example, the 1965 act established the policy that park facilities 
and services ``shall be limited to those that are necessary and 
appropriate for the public use and enjoyment of the National Park area 
in which they are located and that are consistent to the highest 
practicable degree with the preservation and conservation of the 
areas.'' That is an important standard and one that is retained in this 
bill.
  However, some parts of the 1965 act have become outmoded, as 
improvements in transportation and an increasingly mobile population 
have made the parks less isolated and less remote.
  A prime example is section 6 of the 1965 act, which enables 
concessioners who acquire or construct structures, fixtures, or 
improvements on Federal lands within a park to obtain a possessory 
interest that can be assigned, transferred, or encumbered.
  In addition, the 1965 act gives all National Park concessioners a 
preferential right of renewal of their concession contracts so long as 
they have performed in a satisfactory manner, and allows present 
concessioners to receive preferential rights to provide new or 
additional accommodations, facilities, or services in the same National 
Park System unit.
  While these and other provisions of the 1965 act may have been 
desirable when there was a perceived need to entice firms to seek 
concession contracts, they now represent very significant and effective 
obstacles to competition. They substantially undercut the willingness 
and ability of firms not already holding concession contracts to seek 
to win such contracts.
  The central thrust of S. 208 is to put more reliance on competition 
in the selection of concessioners--for the benefit of park visitors and 
also of the taxpayers.
  At the same time, the bill retains the provision of existing law that 
consideration of Federal revenues is to be subordinate to the 
objectives of proper protection of park resources and provision of 
necessary and appropriate facilities and services to park visitors at 
reasonable rates.
  In order to increase competition for concession contracts, the bill 
would do away with the special provisions of current law that enable 
National Park concessioners to amass possessory interests in park 
facilities.
  The current law's ``possessory interest'' provision is unique to the 
National Park System. It is not used in our National Forests and public 
lands nor by State park systems, or in typical commercial leasing 
arrangements. It represents a barrier to market entry by firms that 
would be interested in seeking concession contracts if they did not 
have to be prepared to pay the sometimes-substantial initial costs of 
purchasing these possessory interests.
  The bill also would revise the current law's requirement that all 
National Park concessioners have a preferential right to renewal of 
their contracts. This is also an important step to increase 
competition. At the same time, the bill would continue these renewal 
rights for small businesses concession contracts--those grossing less 
than a half-million dollars annually.
  The Natural Resources Committee considered but rejected amendments 
that would have continued the ability of concessioners to obtain 
possessory interests in park facilities, and that would have extended 
the preferential rights of renewal of one class of concessioners--
guides, river runners, and outfitters--regardless of the size of their 
operations.
  I think that rejection of these amendments was an appropriate action 
by the committee and I would urge the House to reject these and similar 
weakening amendments if they are offered on the floor.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation for 
able efforts of the many Members on both sides of the aisle who have 
assisted in making it possible for us to bring this important bill to 
the floor of the House today.
  In particular, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. 
Meyers] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] for their 
leadership on this matter, and also to note the important contributions 
of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Synar].
  Thanks to their efforts and those of the chairman and other members 
of our committee, we have an opportunity today to significantly 
increase competition for concession contracts, for the benefit of all 
the visitors to the National Park System and for the benefit of the 
American people who own the priceless treasures of our National Parks.
  I urge the House to pass this measure without any weakening 
amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue of concessions reform has been thoroughly 
analyzed and debated by Congress for a number of years. While there are 
numerous areas of disagreement regarding the extent and nature of any 
necessary reform, throughout the years of discussion and debate, it has 
been the clear and uncontested testimony of numerous witnesses that the 
concession program has provided a great public service in parks at a 
reasonable cost. In that regard, the existing law has been an 
unqualified success. However, it has also become clear that two aspects 
of the present law need to be addressed: increased competition and 
increased return to the Federal Government.
  Even discounting the exaggerated reports by the GAO and Interior IG, 
it is clear in the record that the Federal Government could be 
receiving greater revenues from the concession program. However, I 
would hasten to point out that is not an artifact of existing law, but 
a result of discretionary decisions by Department of the Interior 
officials. Similarly, only a tiny fraction of contracts in recent years 
have been awarded to other than current concessionaires on the basis of 
competition.
  Proponents of S. 208 claim that the issues of increased competition 
and increased revenue to the Federal Government are addressed in this 
bill. Mr. Chairman, that is totally inaccurate. Under the version of S. 
208, we are considering today, there will be no increased competition 
for over 80 percent of existing concession contracts. Similarly, 
according to CBO, S. 208 will generate no new funds for the National 
Park Service. In fact, under an amendment made in order as part of the 
rule, the amount of money which will be available to parks from 
concession operations under this bill will be less than it is today.
  Mr. Chairman, the real impacts of this bill will be reduced and more 
expensive visitor services and accommodations. Proponents of this 
legislation are fond of citing how concessionaires in State parks pay 
higher franchise fees for the privilege of doing business. Hearst 
Castle State Park in California is one of the often cited examples 
where the concessionaire pays a 26-percent franchise fee on food sales.
  It so happens that this same concessionaire operates at Muir Woods 
National Park about 150 miles north, where they pay a smaller franchise 
fee to the Federal Government. The simple difference between the two 
operations is that prices for the same items cost 40 to 60 percent more 
at the State park. The hot dog which sells for $1.85 at Muir Woods 
costs visitors to the state park $2.85.
  Proponents of this legislation have also frequently compared 
concessionaires in parks to tenants at shopping malls. Again, the 
analogy is completely faulty. There are two types of tenants in malls, 
anchor tenants and renters. Anchor tenants typically either own their 
stores outright or have 50- to 99-year, renewable leases. Renters 
typically have low costs and are not requested to make major capitol 
improvements. Neither of these models fit the situation of a park 
concessionaire, asked to invest heavily on someone else's land, with no 
guarantee of the continued opportunity to remain in business.
  The net effect of this legislation will surely be increased costs for 
the park visitors and decreased private sector investments in our 
parks.
  Mr. Chairman, it is easy to see why environmental groups which have 
fought against concession development and services in Grand Canyon, 
Zion, Bryce, Carlsbad Caverns, Yosemite, Sequoia, and so forth have put 
so much energy into this legislation. it goes a long way toward their 
goal of locking up parks and closing off visitor access. Their goals 
are fundamentally inconsistent with basic law establishing the National 
Park Service and the desires of the American public. That position 
never could have prevailed if it had been debated on its merits.
  I hope the House can today adopt important amendments which fix the 
many problems with this bill which jeopardize the quality of the 
visitor experience of millions of persons annually at our National 
parks.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murphy].
  Mr. MURPHY. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding 
this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have served for 17 years with the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento] on the Parks Subcommittee. He has done a very 
diligent, masterful job in addressing a subject that I think 
periodically Congress should address, the concessions and the 
facilities in our national parks.
  I particularly agree with the gentleman from Minnesota in one of his 
opening remarks where he stated that America's national parks are for 
America's families.
  I therefore am on the floor today to propose two family-friendly 
amendments to my good colleague from Minnesota. I have taken numerous 
vacations for many, many years with numerous children and numerous 
grandchildren, totalling approximately 30 today.
  I know that when I take my children and grandchildren on vacations to 
national or State parks or other areas, I know what they are looking 
for. They are looking for fun items, they are looking for excitement, 
they are looking to swim, yes, they are looking to hike, they are 
looking for a soft drink or ice cream, they are looking for a hot dog.
  These are things America's families are expecting in their 
recreational parks.
  My amendments, which I will address later, are those which I call 
family-friendly. They will provide more services in the national parks 
than this bill provides.
  In the closing days of the markup in the full committee, not in 
subcommittee but in full committee, the chairman inserted a provision 
which would very drastically restrict those family facilities in our 
national parks.
  My amendment will be brought forth to hopefully cure that. I will 
address that later.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wyoming [Mr. Thomas.]
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill as it is before us 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, I have spent a good deal of time visiting with 
outfitters, guides, and concessionaires across Wyoming who are 
extremely concerned about this legislation. If it is approved, it seems 
to me we run a very grave risk of changing the very way that 
concessions have been developed through the years and are administered 
currently on Federal lands and on parks.
  Let me make clear that I am not opposed to making changes. There need 
to be changes.
  My notion, however, is that most of those changes, if not all, can be 
made under the present law. The administration has not made them, this 
administration, nor previous administrations. Those that administer the 
program are not willing to take the steps to do that.
  The primary objective of the National Park Service concession program 
is to insure protection of the resources first, to provide the quality 
service to the public, and to enable a reasonable return. The return is 
not the first function of these kinds of things. We need to have an 
incentive that allows people to continue to make the investment, in 
some cases very large investment, such as at Yellowstone National Park.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not an easy thing to do, to have hundreds of 
millions of dollars from a private investor who is out there without 
some sort of hoped-for continuation of their good services. Just 
recently the park at Yellowstone turned the campground over to a 
concessionaire because there was not enough money in the budget to keep 
them up. Only in this way could it be done, and they are doing that.

                              {time}  1550

  Through the years the system has worked well. If there are problems, 
they could be fixed the way they are. I think we bring a size 10 
solution here to about a size 3 problem, and that is beginning to be 
sort of the issue that we are faced with on these Federal projects 
throughout the country.
  One of them, of course, is the idea of eliminating possessory 
interests where there is an opportunity here, with a great deal of 
investment, that, rather than take it at the market price, should this 
concessionaire leave, we have a straight line depreciation which may or 
may not reflect the kind of investment that is there.
  But I am especially concerned about the effects of this measure on 
outfitters and guides across the Nation. The bill encourages a 
revolving door in this instance and where there is relatively little 
investment, but a great deal of expertise, and these outfitters of 
various sizes, most of them are very small, and, by the way, one of the 
difficulties is the variation in concessionaires. There is a great deal 
of difference between a TW that had hundreds and millions of dollars 
invested and the family ranch operator in Teton National Park. This 
bill puts them all together in the same kind of operation.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that we could make some concessions; we tried 
to do that in committee, that would recognize these small investors, 
that would recognize these outfitters, and I urge that we do consider 
that before this bill is passed. This measure is ill conceived as it is 
and will not help our parks, will not provide additional revenues. The 
current system is basically sound, and adjustments need to be made 
there.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against this legislation as it 
now exists.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Synar], chairman of the subcommittee of 
the Committee on Government Operations that has worked hard on this 
measure, and the gentleman is the principal sponsor of one of the 
initiatives.
  (Mr. SYNAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong and enthusiastic 
support of S. 208, as reported, a bill to make major reforms in the 
concessions policy of the Park Service. Over the last 5 years, the 
Government Operations Subcommittee on Environment, Energy and Natural 
Resources, which I have the honor to chair has held 3 days of oversight 
hearings and commissioned four separate General Accounting Office 
studies on government concessions policies and practices. As a result 
of that work I sponsored H.R. 743 in the last session, a reform bill 
similar in virtually all major respects to S. 208.
  Mr. Chairman, I have waited a long time for this moment I applaud 
Chairman Vento and our colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee 
for bringing this measure before us today. It's good for the taxpayers, 
it's good for competition, and it's good for the parks.
  The current Park Service concession policy is a money loser, which 
returns to the Treasury just a small fraction concessioners' hundreds 
of millions of dollars in gross receipts. The taxpayers have never 
received a fair share of these often lucrative operations on public 
lands; it's time we made sure the taxpayers get the break they deserve.
  The current policy is also a competition buster which discourages new 
businesses from entering the market and competing to provide better 
goods and services to tourists at our Nation's magnificent national 
parks. Current law restricts competition in several ways.
  Remarkably, under the current policy, existing concessioners have a 
perpetual, preferential right of renewal for their contracts--which may 
have terms up to 30 years. This preferential right of renewal has 
stifled competition, especially for the larger, more lucrative 
concessions, and that guarantee of future business must be repealed for 
all but the smaller concessioners. In this respect, the bill before us 
quite properly retains the preferential right of renewal for small 
operations which are expected to gross less than $500,000 a year.
  Under current policy, concessioners also are guaranteed a possessory 
interest in improvements they make to structures on park property--
interests which, under the current scheme, only increase in value over 
time and must be bought out at inflated prices by a new contractor. We 
will address this issue of possessory interest buyouts during 
consideration of the Murphy amendment, which seeks to protect the 
concessioners' possessory interest in perpetuity. In the meantime, 
though, let me make a point in response to the argument the 
concessioners have always made about the ``equity'' of their current 
possessory interest protection. The concessioners would have us believe 
that they make these investments because they just love the parks, and 
they just love the park visitors.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we all know that concessioners don't make 
these investments out of the goodness of their hearts, because they 
just love our parks. No, indeed. By and large, they make these 
investments in order to increase their revenues. It's that simple. And 
believe me, they have reaped the financial rewards of those investments 
for many, many years now--without ever having to return a fair share of 
their revenues to the taxpayers who own these parks.
  To my knowledge, the National Park Service is the only Federal agency 
which still guarantees such unnecessarily generous possessory interest 
buyouts, and it's time for a change.
  These existing policies are a throwback to the days when the 
Government actually had to offer inducements to concessioners to open 
up commercial operations in our National Parks. Mr. Chairman, those 
days are long gone, and it is long past time for Congress to insist on 
drastic reform of this system.
  Almost 10 years ago, President Reagan's cost-cutting Grace Commission 
singled out concessions reform as a target for increased fees and 
improved services; a decade ago, that Commission called for the end of 
preferential treatment for existing concessioners and a new system of 
competition for these lucrative contracts.
  But a decade later, as my own subcommittee's oversight hearings 
showed, the Department of the Interior still does not have a national--
or rational--system for managing park concessioners. In some cases, 
even the most basic information about concession agreements and 
operations had never been assembled.
  The General Accounting Office estimates that there are more than 
1,500 concession agreements at national park sites. Many of these 
concession arrangements have not been reviewed for years; indeed, for 
many, the Service didn't even know how much they were generating in 
revenues. Thus, it is not surprising that GAO and the Department's 
Inspector General both have concluded that the taxpayers are losing 
tens of millions of dollars every year through inequitable fee 
schedules and lax oversight.
  Overall gross receipts by National Park Service concessioners in 1990 
reached almost $600 million; it may be substantially more now. Yet park 
concessioners, who earn their revenues through the privilege of 
operating on public lands, return less than 3 percent of their gross 
receipts to the owners of those lands--the taxpayers.
  Maybe that disgracefully low rate of return is the reason the 
concessioners have never been anxious for the public to know how much 
money they make off of these public lands. In fact, I would remind my 
colleagues, several years ago the concession industry actually filed a 
lawsuit to keep the Interior Department's Inspector General from 
issuing a report that disclosed how much in revenues were generated by 
these various concession operations, and how much they paid to the 
Government in fees. Well, it's not a secret that many of these 
operations generate tens of millions of dollars a year in revenues; 
it's also not a secret that those same concession operations may pay 
only a few thousand dollars in fees.
  Compare the national park concessioners' average returns to the 
taxpayers with fees paid by concessioners at some of the Nation's most 
popular State parks, or with private and Federal entertainment 
attractions such as the Meadowlands Sport Complex in New Jersey, the 
Hearst San Simeon Historical Monument in California, or the Cove 
Palisades Park in Oregon.
  Concessioner fees at these sites range from 10 percent of gross 
receipts for State park boat rentals, to as high as 65 percent on some 
merchandize sold at the Meadowlands. And concessioners pay these higher 
fees without the inducement of long contract terms and preferential 
rights of renewal.
  Mr. Chairman, it's time for a change.
  As long ago as 1976, our Committee on Government Operations issued a 
joint oversight report with the Committee on Small Business which found 
that National Park Service policies discourage competition and give 
concessioners too great a voice in concession management. Here's what 
our predecessors said about the need for Park Service concession reform 
almost 20 years ago:

       The hearings and investigation of the subcommittees 
     demonstrated that the National Park Service administration of 
     concessions has been inadequate and ineffective; that the 
     concessioners have, in effect, been allowed to do business 
     with little overall control or supervision by the NPS; that 
     concessioners have undue influence over NPS concessions 
     management and policies; that concession contracts are vague, 
     ambiguous, and generally do not adequately protect the 
     Government's interest; that the 1965 concession statute 
     discourages competition for concessions and encourages large 
     corporations to take over an increasing number of concessions 
     operations at the more profitable areas of the National Park 
     System, to the detriment of small business; and that the 
     general public is rarely consulted concerning the management 
     of Park Service concessions.

  Mr. Chairman, those criticisms are as true today as they were almost 
20 years ago, and that's why we need the reforms embodied in S. 208, as 
reported by the Natural Resources Committee.
  This legislation would cure the defects in the existing concession 
policy, by requiring real competition for contracts, by weaning 
concessioners from their unjustified subsidies and buyouts, and by 
getting a better and fairer return for the taxpayers and directing 
concession fees back into the parks where they are needed.
  Only a strong concession reform bill will ensure that these 
significant, long overdue changes are made. I urge all my colleagues to 
support S. 208 and to firmly reject the weakening amendments being 
advocated by the concession industry.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a 
question, please?
  Mr. SYNAR. I yield to the gentleman from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if the gentleman 
would help me compare the Meadowlands with Teton National Park in terms 
of the length of the season, in terms of the intensity in terms of the 
market that is available.
  My point is there is a substantial difference between those two, it 
seems to me, in terms of the volume year round.
  Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Chairman, there is a substantial difference. Let us 
take the Meadowlands, for example. I used in my example that 65 percent 
of some concessions, we are returned 65 percent, compared to the 
Yosemite concession services where we get point seven five. That does 
not seem like we are doing a very good job getting the type of royalty 
and returns that even private and State parks get.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SYNAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, Yosemite was 7.5 before the National Park 
Service used the new procedure that is outlined in this bill, and now I 
understand it is zero. There is no income from the current 
concessionaire because other concessions have been made to him under 
these very rules and regulations my colleagues are trying to put in law 
today.
  Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Chairman, let me correct the gentleman's understanding 
of the Yosemite contract. Under the new consideration of government the 
franchise fee eliminated was in lieu of capital fund of 4.5 to 5 
percent and the elimination of the possessory interest which was very 
important for us to get control back over to the park.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of S. 
208, the National Park Service Concessions Policy Reform Act. As some 
of my colleagues may know, I introduced virtually identical 
legislation, H.R. 1493, in the House last year.
  Today, we have an opportunity to make substantial improvements to 
National Park Service concession contracting procedures. S. 208 opens 
Park Service concession contracts to competition, provides American 
taxpayers an adequate return from Park Service concessionaires, and 
dedicates more funding to our parks. At the same time. S. 208 also 
protects existing contracts and related property values.
  S. 208 is protaxpayer and propark. It ensures that the National Park 
Service will award its valuable concession contracts in a fair manner, 
through open competition. The bill establishes a floor--or a minimum 
franchise fee--for new contracts, or those being renewed. After this 
floor is established by the Secretary of Interior, bidding would be 
allowed above the minimum.
  Currently, no bids are received when a contract is being renewed 
because the current holder can retain his contract by meeting the 
highest bid. Consequently, no other prospective bidders are willing to 
take the time--and money--in an effort to win a contract only to have 
the current concessionaire meet the best competing bid because of a 
preferential right to renew.
  A recent report by the Interior Department's inspector general found 
that, of 29 Park Service contract offerings, 28 incumbent 
concessionaires had no competing offer. It is clear the current law 
stifles open competition.
  Under the current system, when contracts are renewed without 
competition, franchise fees remain low while concessionaire profits 
increase. In 1992, concessionaires generated more than $650 million in 
gross revenue. As a group, concessionaires returned to the Federal 
Government just 2.6 percent of that $650 million, none of which went to 
the parks.
  In the rare instances that an incumbent concessionaire leaves a park, 
competition is tremendous. This happened at Yosemite National Park. 
Since no incumbent concessionaire was in the running, six interested 
parties submitted a bid to offer services at Yosemite. The winning bid 
returns to Yosemite the equivalent of a 20-percent franchise fee. In 
contrast, the previous franchise fee was three-fourths of 1 percent.
  Another important provision in S. 208 is the establishment of park 
improvement funds into which franchise fees collected from the gross 
revenues from concessionaires are deposited. The bill includes a much 
needed directive to the Park Service requiring that half of the fees 
generated in a park be reinvested back into its operating budget of the 
park. The remaining half is directed to reducing the $2 billion backlog 
of infrastructure repair in the Park System. It is estimated that $40 
million annually will be returned back to the parks.
  This is one of the key recommendations that has been made many times 
by various commissions on reforms for the Park Service, including the 
Grace Commission. This provision is commonsense since many popular 
parks are being loved to death by the public and are in desperate need 
of infrastructure repair and upkeep.
  S. 208 also changes the policy which grants possessory interest in 
structures built on Park System land by concessionaires. The current 
law values these structures at their replacement cost, which increases 
over time, giving concessionaires a real estate bonanza. As you can 
guess, estimates of possessory interest are very high because the 
structures are located in the Park System with a very captive market.
  Under S. 208, structures will be valued by the straight line 
depreciation method--which is the method used in the GAAP--Generally 
Accepted Accounting Principles--and in similar real estate 
transactions. This is the manner in which other concessions are 
contracted by State parks, in private land development agreements, and 
is fair to taxpayers and to the concessionaire.
  Knowing that there are small ``Mom and Pop'' concessions that have 
been in some national parks for many years, the bill exempts these 
small concessions that gross less than $500,000. These family-operated 
concessions are very different than the lucrative multimillion dollar 
concession contracts that are awarded for popular national parks.
  It is imperative that the House act on S. 208 because a sizable 
number of Park Service concession contracts have or will soon be 
expiring. Without action, contracts will be renewed without competition 
and the practice of the awarding contracts with anemic franchise fees 
will continue.

  Mr. Chairman, because of preferential right of renewal and possessory 
interest, we do not have open bidding for the concessions in the Park 
System. Consequently, we receive less than 3 percent of gross receipts 
from concessionaires. However, State government parks and others 
offering concession contracts receive more than 10 percent of gross 
receipts.
  S. 208 and our House bill have received the endorsements of the 
National Parks and Conservation Association, Citizens Against 
Government Waste, and the National Taxpayers Union. These two taxpayer 
watchdog groups have indicated that they will be scoring this vote as a 
protaxpayer vote.
  I do want to make it clear that I am not questioning the good service 
concessionaires are giving to park visitors. The policies in the 1965 
concessions law may have been necessary then to get people into parks, 
but now they are not prudent. Our national parks are visited by 275 
million people annually, and these numbers are expected to increase to 
half a billion in 5 years.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan bill that opens competition, helps 
our parks, and rewards the taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on S. 208.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Synar].
  Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss in my responsibility if I 
did not take this opportunity to commend the gentlewoman from Kansas 
[Mrs. Meyers] for her outstanding service and leadership in this area. 
As I said in my opening remarks, I feel like the legislation I have 
introduced in the last session is virtually identical to what we are 
doing. But I think it is very safe to say that the gentlewoman's 
leadership on her legislation that she has introduced is very similar 
also.
  The gentlewoman ended her speech with what I think we need to 
remember here: This is a bipartisan effort, that is very responsible, 
that goes to the heart of what I think many of our taxpayers and 
constituents have told us, which is to try to run government a little 
bit more like a government.
  I wanted to take this opportunity to give special recognition to the 
gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I 
appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I would like to point out the essence of 
the legislation comes to us because of, as the gentleman from Oklahoma 
[Mr. Synar] said, a series of General Accounting Office reports that 
held this up to the light of day.
  What served well in 1965 has not served well today. In fact, it has 
been headlines in the paper with regard to the amount of franchise fees 
and the dollars that were coming back to the Treasury, and the 
exorbitant type of benefits that were flowing to some concessionaires. 
Not to all. I think by and large the concessionaires in our national 
parks, some of them were in these locations before they were parks, so 
they have been an important part in meeting the needs of the American 
public in terms of enjoyment and really stewardship of those parks. 
That work with those concessionaires is important.
  What the GAO reports pointed out is some very, very bad examples of 
what was happening, and, I might say, an inspector general's report 
commissioned by then-Secretary Lujan is what really started him down 
the path. He tackled the Yosemite contract with the help of the 
Congress, and I think we really have some continuity here with 
Secretary Babbitt and others proceeding to bring this to a conclusion.
  The concerns are that there has been no record of what was going on, 
because every individual superintendent had a policy unto himself in 
the individual park where there were concessionaires. Not all of our 
parks have concessions. There was no record, no information, no 
continuity, and the end result was that we had buildings that were 
publicly owned that were being rented for a pittance. We had no 
revenues coming back in. We had individuals acquiring a possessory 
interest in lieu of franchise fees. Not only were they making the 
profits, but then taking the franchise fees they were supposed to pay 
to the Park Service and acquiring a possessory interest, and today we 
have to buy them back. That is the case. There are no records of what 
occurred.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the chairman of the Committee 
on Natural Resources.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
legislation that will bring much needed reform to policies governing 
concessions contracts at our national parks.
  Current policy is nearly 30 years old and reflects the priorities of 
a much different time. The changes contemplated by S. 208 will 
encourage greater competition that we expect will raise more revenue 
that, under the bill, can be retained directly by the parks to support 
badly underfunded maintenance and construction needs.
  S. 208 passed the Senate by a vote of 90 to 9. Rarely has reform of 
any policy in the natural resources arena won such a ringing 
endorsement from the other body. I think this is a reflection of the 
broad consensus that several years of congressional examination of 
these issues has produced.
  Today, contracts for goods and services in our national parks are 
awarded in ways that differ significantly not only from accepted 
practices in the private sector and State and local park systems, but 
also from contracting methods on lands managed by the U.S. Forest 
Service and the Bureau of Land Management. This may have made sense at 
a time when our parks were underdeveloped and undervisited and it was 
deemed necessary to dangle generous terms in front of prospective 
concessioners to encourage investment, construction, and visitor 
services.
  In 1994, few would argue that our parks are underdeveloped and 
undervisited. As visitation throughout the Park System has grown 
geometrically business opportunities and profits at the parks have 
risen handsomely. But neither the taxpayers nor the parks themselves 
have benefited because old policies lock in contracts when length is up 
to 30 years with franchise fees that average a puny 2.6 percent of 
gross, smother competition for these lucrative contracts, and then 
funnel what revenues are generated into the black hole of the general 
fund. Today, Park Service concessions contracts generate only about $16 
million a year for the Treasury. We can do better by our national parks 
and our citizens who love and visit them.
  One of the major culprits in this situation is a system called 
possessory interest. In national parks, unlike State parks, other 
Federal lands, or even shopping malls and other private sector 
developments, the operator of a concession can invest in an improvement 
to a facility he does not own and claim an appreciating, fair-market 
value property right for that investment. Nobody else does this. A 
similar improvement elsewhere earns you a right to the value of the 
investment itself properly depreciated over time and nothing more.
  The result in our parks is that many concessioners have accrued 
millions of dollars in possessory interest portfolios that pose very 
high barriers to real competition at contract renewal time. That is 
because a competitor not only has to offer better service at a better 
price and a better return to the taxpayer, he or she has to do so while 
buying out the possessory interest of the existing concessioner.
  S.208 sensibly eliminates this practice, while protecting the rights 
and property accrued under the existing system.
  The bill also allows parks to keep the revenues generated by 
concession contracts in funds at those parks for use in meeting 
construction and maintenance needs. We have heard repeatedly on the 
floor of this House stories detailing the dire straits of the basic 
infrastructure of the parks. And while I believe that some of the 
multibillion estimates of the so-called backlog of park construction 
needs are highly misleading, nevertheless it is incumbent upon Congress 
to do everything it can to help park superintendents provide for the 
health and safety of visitors and to protect the natural, cultural, and 
historic resources for which the parks were established in the first 
place.
  For all those Members who have bemoaned the lack of adequate 
financial resources to take care of what we have in the National Park 
System, here is their chance to make a positive contribution to 
alleviating that problem.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a good bill, a long overdue bill that is 
supported by the administration, by many conservation and environmental 
groups, and by an exceedingly broad, bipartisan majority in the Senate.
  This legislation will reduce the need for more appropriated funds to 
address park needs, increase revenues for park purposes, and improve 
our ability to be good stewards of the national heritage our Park 
System so proudly represents.

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], a member of the committee.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, when Congress last addressed this 
issue in 1965, the parks were remote outposts, poorly served by 
transportation links, and visited by a small fraction of today's. 
Thirty years ago it made sense to offer incentives to attract 
businesses to the parks. However, it is now 1994, and park visitation 
rates exceed a quarter of a billion people per year.
  In addition, Federal investments in roads and other programs in the 
past 30 years have made parks even more accessible, and they are now 
have attractive business opportunities.
  So in my estimation, and in my experience with our National Park 
System in Hawaii, where we have visitors from all over the world, let 
alone the United States and Hawaii itself, S. 208 makes a series of 
very prudent reforms.
  It eliminates the concessioner's preferential right to renew 
contracts if they have gross annual revenues in excess of $500,000 and 
it reforms the method of calculating the concessioner's possessory 
interest in order for a more accurate value to be assessed.
  I believe that this will protect the liability to the taxpayer.
  This measure will return the revenues generated by concessionaires to 
the National Park System. This will not solve all our problems, but it 
is certainly a step, a major step in a direction towards addressing the 
Park System's unmet needs.
  The bill, as has been noted, is supported by Government antiwaste 
groups like the National Taxpayers Union and Citizens Against 
Government Waste, park groups themselves, propark groups like the 
National Parks and Conservation Association, as well as, of course, the 
National Park Service.
  It does recognize, and I want to note for the record, the area in 
which I have some knowledge, and I think it should be something that 
should go on the record.
  I want it noted from the act that ``there are established Federal 
contracting authorities, aside from the 1965 Act, that this bill would 
repeal and replace, that the National Park Service can use in 
conjunction with the authority provided by the bill as reported. For 
example, the Randolph-Sheppard Act allows a Federal agency to `sole-
source' a concession contract or authorize to a State which in turn 
assigns it to a blind operator. The Committee understands that this 
authority has been successfully utilized at the U.S.S. Arizona 
memorial,'' a particular area, Mr. Chairman, which is visited by 
literally millions of people, ``at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Repeal of the 
1965 Act will not affect such other contracting authorities, and the 
Committee expects that the National Park Service will continue to 
utilize them in appropriate cases.''
  I think that S. 208, as presented by the chairman and the committee, 
gives every adequate opportunity to take unique circumstances into 
account.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of S. 208, the 
National Service Concessions Policy Reform Act. I want to commend 
Chairman Bruce Vento and Chairman George Miller for all their hard work 
on this issue. I would also like to acknowledge the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Synar] for his efforts to bring reform to park 
concessions.
  Mr. Chairman, when the Concessions Policy Act was enacted in 1965 
there was a legitimate need for some of its provisions, including 
preferential right of renewal and minimal lease payments. Many of the 
parks attracted few visitors and the Federal Government took steps to 
attract businesses to develop hotels and restaurants and to provide 
services to the public. In the mid-1960's, it wasn't profitable to 
operate concessions in many parks so incentives had to be provided. 
Circumstances are completely different today.
  Our national parks are some of the most heavily visited sites in the 
world. In 1992, nearly 275 million people visited sites managed by the 
National Park Service [NPS]. In fact, so many people are visiting major 
parks, such as Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Smokey Mountain, that park 
managers are considering reducing visitor numbers in an effort to 
protect fragile natural resources.
  But now, operating concessions in the national parks is a very 
profitable business. In 1992, concessioners earned $650 million in 
gross revenue, but paid merely 2.6 percent of that to the Federal 
Government in the form of franchise fees. If one does the math, this 
amounts to $17 million, which in my opinion, is a ridiculously low 
amount when one considers how lucrative these concessions are to those 
lucky enough to have a monopoly. This is a great deal for 
concessioners, but not for the American people. I believe reform is 
long overdue.
  Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, I strongly support S. 208 as 
reported by the Natural Resources Committee. This bill makes important 
reforms which will benefit the American people without compromising 
services in our national parks. For the first time, the bill 
establishes a truly competitive process for bidding for concession 
contracts by abolishing the right of preferential renewal. This 
procedure stifled competition because the current contract holder was 
always allowed to match the lowest bid. The bill does preserve this 
right of those with contracts which gross less than $500,000 per year. 
Many people were concerned that eliminating preferential right of 
renewal would adversely affect river runners and guides which provides 
specialized services. During consideration of the bill in committee, 
Chairman Vento made it clear that only about 23 of the more than 220 
concessioners specializing in river running grossed more than $500,000. 
Therefore, the vast majority of small businesses would be protected 
under this legislation.
  Importantly, the bill requires the Secretary of Interior to set 
minimum bids for each contract which guarantees a fair return for the 
American people. While a fair return is important, it is critical that 
concession contracts not be awarded to companies which can not 
demonstrate that they will be able to operate in such a way as to 
protect natural resources in the park. This bill makes it clear that in 
awarding a contract, the Secretary's ultimate responsibility is to 
ensure that park resources are protected. While generating revenue is 
important, safeguarding nationally significant historic, cultural and 
natural resources is paramount and all other goals should be considered 
subsequently.
  As many of my colleagues know, the Park Service has a massive 
maintenance backlog which must be addressed. Some have estimated the 
backlog to be in the billions of dollars. Furthermore, tight budgetary 
circumstances make substantial increases in appropriations impossible. 
This legislation seeks to provide the Park Service with additional 
financial resources to address this pressing issue. The bill creates a 
special fund in the Treasury where franchise fees will be deposited. 
Fifty percent of the fees will be distributed to the individual parks 
in proportion to the amount collect in that park and 50 percent will be 
distributed to the parks based on need. In addition, the legislation 
authorizes the creation of Park Improvement Funds in certain parks. 
Under this provision, concessioners would deposit all franchise fees 
collected in a specific park and expend them on projects designated by 
the Secretary. These provisions will provide park managers with a 
valuable new source of revenue to address mounting maintenance 
problems.
  Finally, the bill eliminates concessioners' possessory interest in 
structures. Possessory interest is a costly relic of the past and has 
no place in the park system today. While existing contracts which 
include possessory interests will be honored, new contractors will not 
receive this special treatment, one that I would note is not afforded 
to those who operate concessions in ballparks for example. This will 
bring policy into line with common commercial leases and reduce costs 
substantially.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a well-balanced bill which will ensure that the 
American people continue to receive the highest level of service in our 
parks. At the same time, taxpayers will begin to receive a fair return 
on lucrative contracts held by park concessioners. Most importantly, 
this legislation requires that natural resource protection and 
stewardship remain paramount in awarding contracts. I urge my 
colleagues to support this landmark bill.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has now expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the Committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed 
in House Report 103-623, is considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment and each section is considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
modified, is as follows:

                                 S. 208

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Park Service 
     Concessions Policy Reform Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--In furtherance of the Act of August 25, 1916 
     (39 Stat. 535), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1, 2-4), which directs 
     the Secretary of the Interior to administer areas of the 
     National Park System in accordance with the fundamental 
     purpose of conserving their scenery, wildlife, natural and 
     historic objects, and providing for their enjoyment in a 
     manner that will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of 
     future generations, the Congress finds that the preservation 
     and conservation of park resources and values requires that 
     such public accommodations, facilities, and services within 
     such areas as the Secretary, in accordance with this Act, 
     determines necessary and appropriate--
       (1) should be provided only under carefully controlled 
     safeguards against unregulated and indiscriminate use so that 
     visitation will not unduly impair park resources and values; 
     and
       (2) should be limited to locations and designs consistent 
     to the highest practicable degree with the preservation and 
     conservation of park resources and values.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the Congress that--
       (1) development on Federal lands within a park shall be 
     limited to those facilities that the Secretary determines are 
     necessary and appropriate for public use and enjoyment of the 
     park in which such facilities and services are located;
       (2) development within a park should be consistent to the 
     highest practicable degree with the preservation and 
     conservation of the park's resources and values;
       (3) park facilities and services the Secretary determines 
     suitable to be provided by parties other than the Secretary 
     should be provided by private persons, corporations, or other 
     entities, except when no private interest is qualified and 
     willing to provide such facilities and services;
       (4) if the Secretary determines that development should 
     occur within a park, such development shall be designed, 
     located, and operated in a manner that is consistent with the 
     purposes for which such park was established;
       (5) the right to provide such services and to develop or 
     utilize facilities should be awarded to the person, 
     corporation, or entity submitting the best proposal through a 
     competitive selection process;
       (6) such facilities or services should be provided to the 
     public at reasonable rates; and
       (7) if adequate facilities to serve the needs of park 
     visitors exist outside a park's boundaries or can feasibly be 
     developed outside such boundaries by private enterprise, such 
     facilities should not be developed or expanded within the 
     park.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act--
       (1) the term ``concessioner'' means a person, corporation, 
     or other entity to whom a concession contract has been 
     awarded;
       (2) the term ``concession contract'' means a contract, or 
     permit, (but not an authorization issued pursuant to section 
     5(b) of this Act) to provide facilities or services, or both, 
     at a park;
       (3) the term ``facilities'' means improvements to real 
     property within parks used to provide accommodations, 
     facilities, or services to park visitors;
       (4) the term ``park'' means a unit of the National Park 
     System;
       (5) the term ``proposal'' means the complete proposal for a 
     concession contract offered by a potential or existing 
     concessioner in response to the minimum requirements for the 
     contract established by the Secretary;
       (6) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior; and
       (7) the term ``franchise fee'' means the fee required by a 
     concession contract to be paid to the United States in 
     consideration for the privileges afforded by such contract to 
     the holder thereof, which may be expressed as a percentage of 
     revenues derived by the contract holder from activities 
     authorized by the contract, and which shall be in addition to 
     fees required to be paid to the United States for the use of 
     federally-owned buildings or other facilities.

     SEC. 4. REPEAL OF CONCESSIONS POLICY ACT OF 1965.

       The Act of October 9, 1965, Public Law 89-249 (79 Stat. 
     969, 16 U.S.C. 20-20g), entitled ``An Act relating to the 
     establishment of concession policies in the areas 
     administered by National Park Service and for other 
     purposes'', is hereby repealed. The repeal of such Act shall 
     not affect the validity of any contract entered into under 
     such Act, but the provisions of this Act shall apply to any 
     such contract except to the extent such provisions are 
     inconsistent with the express terms and conditions of the 
     contract. Nothing in this Act that is inconsistent with a 
     prospectus issued before April 1, 1994, shall apply to the 
     contract with respect to which such prospectus was issued. 
     The Secretary is authorized to award a concession contract 
     prior to promulgation of new regulations to implement this 
     Act if the Secretary determines that protection of public 
     health and safety warrant such action, provided that such 
     contract is consistent with this Act.

     SEC. 5. CONCESSION CONTRACTS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) Concessions.--(1) Subject to the findings and policy 
     stated in section 2 of this Act and the provisions of this 
     section, the Secretary may award concession contracts that 
     authorize private persons, corporations, or other entities to 
     provide services to park visitors and to utilize facilities 
     if the Secretary determines that such award is the 
     appropriate means for such authorization.
       (2) Concession contracts shall be awarded only to the 
     extent that the Secretary finds that the services to be 
     provided and the facilities to be utilized pursuant to each 
     such contract are necessary and appropriate for the 
     accommodation of visitors to a park.
       (3) The provision of services and the utilization of 
     facilities pursuant to concession contracts shall be 
     consistent with all applicable requirements of law, including 
     laws relating generally to the administration and management 
     of units of the National Park Service, and with the general 
     management plan, concessions plan, and other relevant plans 
     developed by the Secretary for the relevant park.
       (b) Other Authorizations.--(1) To the extent specified in 
     this subsection, the Secretary, upon request, may authorize a 
     private person, corporation, or other entity to provide 
     services to park visitors otherwise than by award of a 
     concession contract.
       (2)(A) The authority of this subsection may be used only to 
     authorize provision of services to park visitors that the 
     Secretary determines have minimal impact on park resources 
     and values and will be consistent with the purposes for which 
     the relevant park was established and with all applicable 
     management plans for such park.
       (B) The Secretary--
       (i) shall require payment of a reasonable fee for issuance 
     of an authorization under this subsection;
       (ii) shall require that the provision of services under 
     such an authorization be accomplished in a manner consistent 
     to the highest practicable degree with the preservation and 
     conservation of park resources and values;
       (iii) shall take appropriate steps to limit the liability 
     of the United States arising from the provision of services 
     under such an authorization; and
       (iv) shall have no authority under this subsection to issue 
     more authorizations than are consistent with the preservation 
     and proper management of park resources and values, and shall 
     establish such other conditions for issuance of such an 
     authorization as the Secretary determines appropriate for 
     protection of visitors, provision of adequate and appropriate 
     visitor services, and protection and proper management of the 
     resources and values of the National Park System.
       (3) An entity seeking or obtaining an authorization 
     pursuant to this subsection shall not be precluded from also 
     submitting proposals for concession contracts.

     SEC. 6. COMPETITIVE SELECTION PROCESS.

       (a) In General.--(1) Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     and consistent with the provisions of subsection (g), any 
     concession contract entered into pursuant to this Act shall 
     be awarded to the person submitting the best proposal, as 
     determined by the Secretary through the competitive selection 
     process specified in this section.
       (2) Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall promulgate appropriate regulations 
     establishing a process to implement this section. The 
     regulations shall include provisions for establishing 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 conditions or requirements 
     or provide such services, if any, as set forth in a 
     prospectus pursuant to sections 6(c)(2) (D) and (E).
       (b) Temporary Contract.--Notwithstanding the provisions of 
     subsection (a), the Secretary may award on a noncompetitive 
     basis a temporary concession contract if the Secretary 
     determines such an award to be necessary in order to avoid 
     interruption of services to the public at a park. Prior to 
     making such a determination, the Secretary shall take all 
     reasonable and appropriate steps to consider alternative 
     actions to avoid such interruptions.
       (c) Prospectus.--(1) Prior to soliciting proposals for a 
     concession contract at a park, the Secretary shall prepare a 
     prospectus soliciting proposals, shall publish a notice of 
     its availability at least once in such local or national 
     newspapers or trade publications as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate, and shall make such prospectus available upon 
     request to all interested parties.
       (2) The prospectus shall include, but need not be limited 
     to, the following information:
       (A) The minimum requirements for such contract, as set 
     forth in subsection (d).
       (B) The terms and conditions of the existing concession 
     contract awarded for such park, if any, including all fees 
     and other forms of compensation provided to the United States 
     by the concessioner, and all information available to the 
     Secretary with regard to the wages, hours, and conditions of 
     employment of the workforce engaged by the concessioner to 
     fulfill the requirements of such existing concession 
     contract.
       (C) Other authorized facilities or services which may be 
     included in a proposal.
       (D) Facilities and services to be provided by the Secretary 
     to the concessioner, if any, including but not limited to, 
     public access, utilities, and buildings.
       (E) The services to park visitors intended to be offered 
     within a park by the Secretary, including but not limited to, 
     interpretive programs, campsites, and visitor centers.
       (F) Such other information related to the proposed 
     concessions operation which is not privileged or otherwise 
     exempt from disclosure under Federal law as the Secretary 
     determines is necessary to allow for the submission of 
     competitive proposals.
       (d) Minimum Proposal Requirements.--(1) No proposal shall 
     be considered which fails to meet the minimum requirements 
     included in the relevant prospectus. Such minimum 
     requirements shall include payment to the United States of a 
     franchise fee and shall also include, but need not be limited 
     to, the following:
       (A) The minimum acceptable franchise fee, fees for use of 
     any Federal buildings or other facilities, and any other fees 
     to be paid to the United States.
       (B) The duration of the contract.
       (C) Any facilities, services, or capital investments 
     required to be provided by the concessioner.
       (D) Measures that will be required in order to ensure the 
     protection and preservation of park resources and values.
       (2) The Secretary may reject any proposal, notwithstanding 
     the amount of franchise fee offered, if the Secretary 
     determines that the person, corporation, or entity making 
     such proposal is not qualified, is likely to provide 
     unsatisfactory service, or that the proposal is not 
     sufficiently responsive to the objectives of protecting and 
     preserving park resources and of providing necessary and 
     appropriate facilities or services to the public at 
     reasonable rates.
       (3) If all proposals submitted to the Secretary either fail 
     to meet the minimum requirements or are rejected by the 
     Secretary, the Secretary shall establish new minimum contract 
     requirements and re-initiate the competitive selection 
     process pursuant to this section.
       (e) Selection of Best Proposal.--(1) In selecting the best 
     proposal, the Secretary shall consider the following 
     principal factors:
       (A) The responsiveness of the proposal to the objectives of 
     protecting and preserving park resources and of providing 
     necessary and appropriate facilities and services to the 
     public at reasonable rates.
       (B) The experience, expertise, and related background of 
     the person, corporation, or other entity submitting the 
     proposal, including whether the submitter is the holder of a 
     previous concession contract for similar services at the same 
     park and has established a record of outstanding performance 
     in executing that contract, the submitter's history of 
     satisfactory performance under any other concession contract, 
     and the submitter's compliance with applicable labor law and 
     existing standards regarding wages, hours, and conditions of 
     employment and provision of a safe and healthful workplace in 
     connection with any concession contract.
       (C) The financial capability of the person, corporation, or 
     entity submitting the proposal.
       (D) The proposed franchise fee: Provided, That 
     consideration of revenue to the United States shall be 
     subordinate to the objectives of protecting and preserving 
     park resources including cultural resources, and of providing 
     necessary and appropriate facilities or services to the 
     public at reasonable rates.
       (2) The Secretary may also consider such secondary factors 
     as the Secretary deems appropriate. In developing regulations 
     to implement this Act, the Secretary shall consider the 
     extent to which plans for employment of Indians (including 
     Native Alaskans) and involvement of businesses owned by 
     Indians, Indian tribes, or Native Alaskans in the operation 
     of concession contracts should be identified as a factor in 
     the selection of a best offer under this section.
       (f) Congressional Notification.--(1) The Secretary shall 
     submit any proposed concession contract with anticipated 
     annual gross receipts in excess of $1,000,000 (indexed to 
     1993 constant dollars) or a duration in excess of ten years 
     to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     United States Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources 
     of the United States House of Representatives.
       (2) The Secretary shall not award any such proposed 
     contract until at least 60 days subsequent to the submission 
     thereof to both Committees.
       (g) No Preferential Right of Renewal.--(1) Except as 
     provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall not grant a 
     preferential right to a concessioner to renew a concession 
     contract executed pursuant to this Act.
       (2)(A)(i) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary shall include a preferential right of renewal 
     in a concession contract covered by this paragraph, but 
     exercise of such right shall be subject to the requirements 
     of this paragraph.
       (ii) As used in this paragraph, the term ``preferential 
     right of renewal'' means a provision in a concession contract 
     allowing a concessioner satisfying the requirements of this 
     paragraph to have the opportunity to match the terms and 
     conditions of any competing proposal which the Secretary 
     determines to be the best offer for a new concession contract 
     for provision of the same services as were authorized by the 
     concession contract that included the preferential right of 
     renewal.
       (B) The provisions of this paragraph shall apply only to 
     concession contracts which the Secretary estimates will 
     result in annual gross receipts of no more than $500,000 in 
     any year during the term of the contract.
       (C) A preferential right of renewal may be exercised by a 
     concessioner only when such right is included in a concession 
     contract and only where the Secretary has determined both--
       (i) that the concessioner has operated satisfactorily 
     during the term of such contract, and
       (ii) that the concessioner has submitted a responsive 
     proposal for a new contract which satisfies the minimum 
     requirements established by the Secretary pursuant to section 
     6 of this Act.
       (D) A concessioner who exercises a preferential right of 
     renewal in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph 
     shall be entitled to award of the new concession contract 
     with respect to which such right is exercised.
       (h) No Preferential Right to Additional Services.--The 
     Secretary shall not grant a preferential right to a 
     concessioner to provide new or additional services at a park, 
     but may agree to changes in concession contracts that would 
     allow the holders thereof to provide services incidental to 
     or closely related to the services authorized by such 
     contracts, if the Secretary determines that such changes 
     would enhance the safety or enjoyment of park visitors or the 
     protection of park resources and values and would not unduly 
     restrict competition for award of concession contracts.

     SEC. 7. FRANCHISE FEES.

       Franchise fees, however stated, shall not be less than the 
     minimum franchise fee established by the Secretary for each 
     contract. The minimum franchise fee shall be determined in a 
     manner that will provide the concessioner with a reasonable 
     opportunity to realize a profit on the operation as a whole, 
     commensurate with the capital invested and the obligations 
     assumed.

     SEC. 8. USE OF FRANCHISE FEES.

       (a) Special Account.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     all receipts collected pursuant to this Act shall be covered 
     into a special account established in the Treasury of the 
     United States. Amounts covered into such account in a fiscal 
     year shall be available for expenditure, subject to 
     appropriation, solely as follows:
       (1) 50 percent shall be allocated among the units of the 
     National Park System in the same proportion as franchise fees 
     collected from a specific unit bears to the total amount 
     covered into the account for each fiscal year, to be used for 
     resource management and protection, maintenance activities, 
     interpretation, and research.
       (2) 50 percent shall be allocated among the units of the 
     National Park System on the basis of need, in a manner to be 
     determined by the Secretary, to be used for resource 
     management and protection, maintenance activities, 
     interpretation, and research.
       (b) Park Improvement Funds.--(1) The Secretary shall, where 
     the Secretary determines it to be desirable, establish a Park 
     Improvement Fund (hereinafter in this section referred to as 
     the ``fund''), in which, for each fiscal year after fiscal 
     year 1994, the Secretary may deposit some or all of the 
     receipts collected from concessioners to the extent that such 
     receipts exceed the amounts specified in the following table:

``Fiscal year:                                                   Amount
  1995......................................................$22,600,000
  1996.......................................................25,500,000
  1997.......................................................27,500,000
  1998.......................................................30,900,000
  After 1998..............................................35,700,000''.
       (2) The Secretary shall maintain the fund separately from 
     any other funds or accounts and shall not commingle the 
     monies in the fund with any other monies. The Secretary may 
     establish such other terms, conditions, or requirements as 
     the Secretary determines to be necessary to ensure the 
     financial integrity of such fund.
       (3)(A) Monies from the fund shall be expended solely for 
     activities and projects within the park which are consistent 
     with the park's general management plan, concessions plan, 
     and other applicable plans, and which the Secretary 
     determines will enhance public use, safety, and enjoyment of 
     the park, including but not limited to projects which 
     directly or indirectly support concession facilities or 
     services required by the concession contract, but no 
     expenditure from the fund shall have the effect of creating 
     or increasing any compensable interest of any concessioner in 
     any such facilities. A concessioner shall not be allowed to 
     make any advances or credits to the fund.
       (B) To the extent consistent with the need to respond to 
     urgent requirements and with priorities established as part 
     of a park's general management plan or concessions management 
     plan, the Secretary shall direct that monies from the fund be 
     utilized in coordination with funds provided by other 
     sources, including donations from the National Park 
     Foundation or other groups associated with one or more units 
     of the National Park System.
       (4) A concessioner shall not be granted any interest in 
     improvements made from fund expenditures, including any 
     interest granted pursuant to section 11(b) of this Act.
       (5) Nothing in this subsection shall affect the obligation 
     of a concessioner to insure, maintain, and repair any 
     structure, fixture, or improvement assigned to such 
     concessioner and to insure that such structure, fixture, or 
     improvement fully complies with applicable safety and health 
     laws and regulations.
       (6) The Secretary shall maintain proper records for all 
     expenditures made from the fund. Such records shall include, 
     but not be limited to invoices, bank statements, canceled 
     checks, and such other information as the Secretary may 
     require.
       (7) A fund established pursuant to this subsection may not 
     be used for any capital expenditure exceeding $2,500,000 in 
     any fiscal year unless such expenditure from a fund has been 
     authorized in advance by Act of Congress. The Secretary shall 
     annually inform the Congress concerning the actual and 
     projected use of moneys in each fund established pursuant to 
     this subsection.

     SEC. 9. DURATION OF CONTRACT.

       (a) Maximum Term.--A concession contract entered into 
     pursuant to this Act shall be awarded for a term not to 
     exceed ten years: Provided, however, That the Secretary may 
     award a contract for a term not to exceed twenty years if the 
     Secretary determines that a longer term is a necessary 
     component of the overall contract in order to reduce the 
     costs to the United States of acquiring possessory interests 
     or to carry out the policies of this Act and other laws 
     applicable to the National Park System.
       (b) Temporary Contract.--A temporary concession contract 
     awarded on a non-competitive basis pursuant to section 6(b) 
     of this Act shall be for a term not to exceed two years.

     SEC. 10. TRANSFER OF CONTRACT.

       (a) In General.--(1) No concession contract may be 
     transferred, assigned, sold, or otherwise conveyed by a 
     concessioner without prior written notification to, and 
     approval of the Secretary.
       (2) The Secretary shall not unreasonably withhold approval 
     of a transfer, assignment, sale, or conveyance of a 
     concession contract, but shall not approve the transfer of a 
     concession contract to any individual, corporation or other 
     entity if the Secretary determines that--
       (A) such individual, corporation or entity is, or is likely 
     to be, unable to completely satisfy all of the requirements, 
     terms, and conditions of the contract;
       (B) such transfer, assignment, sale or conveyance is not 
     consistent with the objectives of protecting and preserving 
     park resources, and of providing necessary and appropriate 
     facilities or services to the public at reasonable rates; or
       (C) the terms of the transfer, assignment, sale, or 
     conveyance directly or indirectly attribute a significant 
     value to intangible assets or otherwise may so reduce the 
     opportunity for a reasonable profit over the remaining term 
     of the contract that the United States would be required to 
     make substantial additional expenditures in order to avoid 
     interruption of services to park visitors.
       (b) Congressional Notification.--Within thirty days after 
     receiving a request to approve a transfer, assignment, sale, 
     or other conveyance of a concession contract, the Secretary 
     shall notify the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of 
     the United States Senate and the Committee on Natural 
     Resources of the United States House of Representatives of 
     such proposal. Approval of such proposal, if granted by the 
     Secretary, shall not take effect until sixty days after the 
     date of notification of both Committees.

     SEC. 11. PROTECTION OF CONCESSIONER INVESTMENT.

       (a) Existing Structures.--(1) A concessioner who, pursuant 
     to a concession contract, before the date of enactment of 
     this Act acquired or constructed, or as of such date was 
     required by such a contract to commence acquisition or 
     construction, of any structure, fixture, or improvement upon 
     land owned by the United States within a park, shall have a 
     possessory interest therein, to the extent provided by such 
     contract.
       (2) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to a 
     concessioner whose contract in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act does not include recognition of a 
     possessory interest.
       (3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), with respect 
     to a concession 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 (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)(i) 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.
       (ii) If the Secretary suspends the depreciation provisions 
     of subsection (b)(1) pursuant to this subparagraph, the 
     Secretary may include in the relevant concession contract, as 
     an obligation of the United States, a compensatory interest 
     in any structure, fixture, or improvement with respect to 
     which such depreciation provisions were suspended in an 
     amount not to exceed the fair market value of such structure, 
     fixture, or improvement.
       (b) New Structures.--(1) On or after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, a concessioner who constructs or acquires a new, 
     additional, or replacement structure, fixture, or improvement 
     upon land owned by the United States within a park, pursuant 
     to a concession contract, shall have an interest in such 
     structure, fixture, or improvement equivalent to the actual 
     original cost of acquiring or constructing such structure, 
     fixture, or improvement, less straight line depreciation over 
     the estimated useful life of the asset according to Generally 
     Accepted Accounting Principles: Provided, That in no event 
     shall the estimated useful life of such asset exceed the 
     depreciation period used for such asset for Federal income 
     tax purposes.
       (2) In the event that the contract expires or is terminated 
     prior to the estimated useful life of an asset described in 
     paragraph (1), the concessioner shall be entitled to receive 
     from the United States or the successor concessioner payment 
     equal to the value of the concessioner's interest in such 
     structure, fixture, or improvement. A successor concessioner 
     may not revalue the interest in such structure, fixture, or 
     improvement, the method of depreciation, or the estimated 
     useful life of the asset.
       (3) Title to any such structure, fixture, or improvement 
     shall be vested in the United States.
       (c) Insurance, Maintenance and Repair.--Nothing in this 
     section shall affect the obligation of a concessioner to 
     insure, maintain, and repair any structure, fixture, or 
     improvement assigned to such concessioner and to insure that 
     such structure, fixture, or improvement fully complies with 
     applicable safety and health laws and regulations.

     SEC. 12. RATES AND CHARGES TO PUBLIC.

       The reasonableness of a concessioner's rates and charges to 
     the public shall, unless otherwise provided in the prospectus 
     and contract, be judged primarily by comparison with those 
     rates and charges for facilities and services of comparable 
     character charged by parties in reasonable proximity to the 
     relevant park and operating under similar conditions, with 
     due consideration for length of season, seasonal variance, 
     average percentage of occupancy, accessibility, availability 
     and costs of labor and materials, type of patronage, and 
     other factors deemed significant by the Secretary.

     SEC. 13. CONCESSIONER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION.

       (a) Regulations.--Within one hundred and eighty days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, after an 
     appropriate period for public comment, shall publish 
     regulations establishing standards and criteria for 
     evaluating the performance of concessioners operating within 
     parks.
       (b) Periodic Evaluation.--(1) The Secretary shall 
     periodically conduct an evaluation of each concessioner 
     operating under a concession contract pursuant to this Act to 
     determine whether such concessioner has performed 
     satisfactorily. In evaluating a concessioner's performance, 
     the Secretary shall seek and consider applicable reports and 
     comments from appropriate Federal, State, and local 
     regulatory agencies, and shall seek and consider the views of 
     park visitors and concession customers. If the Secretary's 
     performance evaluation results in an unsatisfactory rating of 
     the concessioner's overall operation, the Secretary shall so 
     notify the concessioner in writing, and shall provide the 
     concessioner with a list of the minimum requirements 
     necessary for the operation to be rated satisfactory.
       (2) The Secretary may terminate a concession contract if 
     the concessioner fails to meet the minimum operational 
     requirements identified by the Secretary within the time 
     limitations established by the Secretary at the time notice 
     of the unsatisfactory rating is provided to the concessioner.
       (3) If the Secretary terminates a concession contract 
     pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall solicit 
     proposals for a new contract consistent with the provisions 
     of this Act.
       (c) Congressional Notification.--The Secretary shall notify 
     the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United 
     States Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the 
     United States House of Representatives of each unsatisfactory 
     rating and of each concession contract terminated pursuant to 
     this section.

     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, 
     the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior, 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 and the Inspector General 
     deem 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, 
     including those related to any Park Improvement Funds 
     established pursuant to section 8(b).

     SEC. 15. EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN LEASE REQUIREMENTS.

       The provisions of section 321 of the Act of June 30, 1932 
     (47 Stat. 412; 40 U.S.C. 303b), relating to the leasing of 
     buildings and properties of the United States, shall not 
     apply to contracts awarded by the Secretary pursuant to this 
     Act.

     SEC. 16. NO EFFECT ON ANILCA PROVISIONS.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to amend, supersede, 
     or otherwise affect any provision of the Alaska National 
     Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.).

     SEC. 17. IMPLEMENTATION.

       (a) Audit Requirement.--Beginning with fiscal year 1997, 
     the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior shall 
     conduct a biennial audit of the Secretary's implementation of 
     this Act and the award and management of concession contracts 
     and authorizations described in section 5(b).
       (b) Biennial Reports.--Beginning on June 1, 1997, and 
     biannually thereafter the Secretary and 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 Committee on Natural Resources of the 
     United States House of Representatives on the implementation 
     of this Act and the effect of such implementation on 
     facilities operated and services provided pursuant to 
     concession contracts.
       (c) Information From Secretary.--In each report required by 
     this section, the Secretary shall--
       (1) identify any concession contracts which have been 
     renewed, renegotiated, terminated, or transferred during the 
     2 years prior to the submission of the report and identify 
     any significant changes in the terms of the new contract;
       (2) state the amount of franchise fees, the rates which 
     would be charged for services, and the level of other 
     services required to be provided by the concessioner in 
     comparison to that required in any previous concession 
     contract for the same facilities or services at the same 
     park;
       (3) assess the degree to which facilities are being 
     maintained, using the condition of such facilities on the 
     date of enactment of this Act as a baseline;
       (4) indicate whether competition has been increased or 
     decreased with respect to the awarding of concession 
     contracts;
       (5) set forth the total amount of revenues received and 
     financial obligations incurred or reduced by the Federal 
     Government as a result of enactment of this 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; and
       (6) include information concerning any park improvement 
     funds established pursuant to section 8(b) of this Act, 
     including--
       (A) the total amount of funds deposited into and expended 
     from each such fund during the preceding 2-year period; and
       (B) the purposes for which expenditures from such funds 
     during such period were used.
       (d) Information From Inspector General.--In each report 
     required by this section, the Inspector General of the 
     Department of the Interior shall include information as to 
     the results of the audit required by subsection (a), 
     including--
       (1) the status of the Secretary's implementation of this 
     Act;
       (2) the extent to which such implementation has furthered 
     the policies of this Act, as set forth in section 2, and has 
     led to an increase or decrease in competition for concession 
     contracts;
       (3) the adequacy of recordkeeping and other requirements 
     imposed on establishment and use of park improvement funds 
     established pursuant to section 8(b); and
       (4) any recommendations the Inspector General may find 
     appropriate in order to further the purposes of this Act and 
     other laws applicable to the National Park System or to 
     assure that park improvement funds established pursuant to 
     section 8(b) are maintained and expenditures therefrom are 
     used in accordance with this Act and sound business 
     practices.


                    amendments offered by mr. vento

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Vento: Page 16, line 3, after 
     ``all receipts'' insert ``including fees for use of 
     Federally-owned buildings or other facilities''.
       Page 21, line 9, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``, the value of such possessory interest to be 
     determined for all purposes on the basis of applicable laws 
     and contracts in effect on the day before such date of 
     enactment.''.
       Page 25, line 21, after ``unsatisfactory'' insert ``overall 
     annual''.

  Mr. VENTO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, these amendments are essentially technical. 
They have been discussed with the minority, and I believe they are not 
controversial.
  The amendments would revise the bill to clarify several points, 
including the treatment of building-use and other fees, the continued 
applicability of existing provisions of law, and the scope of required 
reports to the Congress.
  These technical amendments are minor, but they will make the bill 
more clear in several important respects. I urge their adoption.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
These are excellent technical amendments, and I agree with the 
gentleman wholeheartedly.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  The amendments were agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. murphy

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Murphy: Page 3, strike line 24, 
     and all that follows down through line 3 on page 4 (section 
     2(b), paragraph (7)).
       Page 3, line 23, strike ``and'' and insert a period.
       Page 3, line 21, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.

  Mr. MURPHY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve all points of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved at the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, my first amendment proposes to delete 
section 7 of the bill. Let me just briefly read that section. It is 
only four lines.

       If adequate facilities to serve the needs of park visitors 
     exist outside park boundaries or can feasibly be developed 
     outside such boundaries by private enterprise, such 
     facilities should not be developed or expanded within the 
     park.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. Chairman, there was not in the original bill, neither the House 
bill, nor was it in the bill of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Synar], we held no hearings on this particular paragraph. Let me point 
out that the words ``adequate facilities,'' and ``needs of park 
visitors,'' and ``outside of park boundaries,'' how far outside? ``Can 
feasibly developed,'' what is considered ``feasibly?''
  Mr. Chairman, what American families want when they go to our 
national parks is lodging, food, camping, boating, swimming, hiking, 
rafting, horseback riding, the things that we have been gradually 
improving in our park services to facilitate the visits of American 
families, which is what we now have in place.
  Mr. Chairman, I fear if this clause is left in this bill, first, we 
will wind up with a batch of lawsuits against the Park Service, because 
every time the Park Service in the future wants to make some 
development within the park perimeters, some group, some person will 
then file an injunction against the Park Service and say it could 
feasibly be developed outside the park, it could do this, it could do 
that. It does not meet the needs of the park visitors. We would just 
wind up with endless lawsuits.
  Next, Mr. Chairman, we would, if we had them immediately outside the 
park, wind up with a junk yard of facilities lining the entrance into 
our national parks with no quality control. Any time any facility is 
built within the Park Service, we have quality control. We tell them 
what may be built, what may not be built; what may be used, what may 
not be used; what trail may be followed, what trail may not be 
followed. We would have no such control when we force all of these 
facilities outside the park. We could not control them.
  Next, Mr. Chairman, what about the facilities? People go into a 
national park comprised of many, many square miles. What do they have 
to do when they want to get refreshment or their kids want to take a 
swim or they want to go camping? Do they then have to journey clear 
back outside the park every day, go outside and find some facilities 
where they are now provided in the Park Service?
  The distances from the park entrance to desired areas, Mr. Chairman, 
I have been to Yosemite, Yellowstone, many of the parks, the Grand 
Canyon, where the park entrance is miles and miles from the facilities 
we go to. We would have to, therefore, traverse all the way back to the 
park entrance for any facilities whatsoever.
  Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that this amendment is accomplishing what 
Secretary Babbitt said he would do.
  I quote: ``On my watch, the Park Service will not build additional 
lodging facilities within parks * * * On my watch, the Park Service 
will not be in the road building business,'' and so forth and so on.
  Mr. Chairman, if this amendment passes, the Park Service will no 
longer be able to provide the American families with what they expect 
to find when they go to a national park. They will force us totally out 
of the park system. We talk about losing money for the Park Service. We 
are going to make a lot of money for concessionaires on the outside. 
There will not be a dime paid to the Park Service. All the facilities 
will be built on the outside. There will be no money for the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I think what this will eventually wind up doing is 
creating inaccessible wilderness areas for only those people who are 
physically able, who want to endure long hikes and dangerous escapades 
like climbing mountains and so forth. Yes, they will continue to go in, 
but the American families will not be able to go in because what their 
kids want will not be within the parks, they will be outside the park 
somewhere, some far distance, and we know not where.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to seriously consider what this 
last minute inclusion into the bill did before full committee. It was 
never put in prior to that. It was not in the Senate bill. No hearings 
have been held. This was put in, and the only thing I can say, it would 
be totally antifamily. We would not be able to take our kids to the 
national parks the way we have been in the past 40 years.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment we are presenting will ensure that 
facilities and services will continue to exist within our national 
parks so that the American people can enjoy our national treasures.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, during the subcommittee markup, the 
chairman added language that states:

        ``If adequate facilities to serve the needs of park 
     visitors exist outside a park's boundaries or can feasibly be 
     developed outside such boundaries by private enterprise, such 
     facilities should not be developed or expanded with the 
     park.''

  What this language will do is prevent any further replacement, 
expansion, or construction of new facilities within any of our national 
parks. Our amendment will strike the Vento language to ensure that park 
visitors are provided the services and accommodations necessary to 
enjoy the parks.
  How many of us remember in Yellowstone Park, just a few short years 
ago, we had more coverage than the O.J. Simpson trial, and everyone 
could see the place burning up there. There was a question of letting 
it burn.
  If Members have been to Yellowstone, Mr. Chairman, instead of those 
beautiful pine trees, you see toothpicks sticking up. What happened 
when the Park Service got there? The superintendent of the park, all 
the people that surrounded Yellowstone, they went to the Old Faithful 
Lodge and the park superintendent said, ``Of all the things we don't 
want to lose, it is this beautiful lodge that we've got. People come 
from all over America to see this lodge.''
  What did they do? They brought the trucks and the workers and they 
put their hoses up on the roof and they kept them there to protect the 
lodge. The trees will come back, Mr. Chairman, but the lodge will never 
come back, built many years ago. Mr. Chairman, everyone who goes there 
thrills at that beautiful lodge. However, under the Vento amendment, 
that lodge could not be replaced.
  If we go over to Lake Lodge, where people stand there and look at the 
beautiful Yellowstone Lake, full of cutthroat trout, they go there by 
the hundreds and it is a beautiful, beautiful lodge. Americans, 
Europeans, Orientals, come to see that lodge.
  Under the Vento amendment, they could not be replaced. Where would 
they go? They would go outside, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Murphy] said. We will have no control. How about a Motel 6 right next 
to it? How about a golden arches to feed them? How about a junk yard 
for their cars? All of that would be right outside the lodge that they 
cannot take care of.
  Mr. Chairman, let us go down to one of nature's most beautiful things 
there is on the face of the Earth, 281 miles of the Grand Canyon. We 
stand there and our hearts are moved as we look at that beautiful 
thing. Out there years and years ago they built this, and we hang out 
over the north rim, standing there, thrilled as we look at it. It 
burned down in the 1930's. If it burned down after this goes through, 
we would never replace it. Never could we stand on the north rim with 
our families. We would have to drive all the way from Jacob's Lake to 
get up to there, which is 42 miles.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the Members in their offices, please do 
not let this go through. It is not just the bugs and bunnies and pine 
trees, but they want to walk in and see these facilities. they want to 
eat dinner there. They want to buy a few things. They want to rent 
those lodge rooms. Why would anyone want to go with this language?
  Mr. Chairman, our national parks are not wilderness parks, they 
represent our national treasures, designed to showcase to visitors all 
of the natural and historic wonders of this country. The Park Service 
Organic Act of 1916 specifically directs the Secretary of the Interior 
to provide for the enjoyment of all, the enjoyment of all, not just a 
few, to see these parks. People come to these parks to engage 
themselves in parks, to get a hands-on experience. People do not go to 
parks to stand at the border and look, like it was some kind of museum.

  Mr. Chairman, our parks were created for people and their families to 
educate, to enjoy, and to be involved in what each park has to offer. 
Park Service statistics clearly show people who visit parks take 
advantage of the amenities that our concessionaires have provided 
within the parks. In fact, most of them even go for that reason. Not 
many people in this world have the time, money, or health to strap on a 
50-pound backpack to hike through a park, and that is not what our 
parks are for.
  The administration is clearly trying to turn our parks into 
wilderness areas, inaccessible to the American public. S. 208 alone 
will drive many of our concessionaires out of the parks, and the 
language added by my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], 
will also force all of the facilities out of the parks.
  Mr. Chairman, if this Congress wants to continue to provide visitor 
services and amenities within the parks, we must adopt this extremely 
important amendment. Our national parks are designed to be enjoyed and 
have access by the citizens of this country, and the passage of this 
amendment will guarantee that access.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murphy]. I surely would disagree about 
what was said by Mr. Babbitt when he said, ``On my watch, the Park 
Service will not build additional lodging facilities within parks. * * 
*  On my watch, the Park Service will not be in the road building 
business. Roads are the enemies of national parks * * *  .''
  On his watch, the parks are going to hell in a handbasket.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in opposition to the amendment.
  (Mr. SYNAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Chairman, I think this is going to be an interesting 
debate because for the very first time I have heard from my Republican 
colleagues that they do not think the private sector can do as good a 
job as the Government, which is usually the opposite position that they 
take. In the time that I have, I would like to make five arguments on 
why the gentleman from Pennsylvania's arguments and amendment may not 
be in the best interest of running our National Parks.
  First, it is already park policy, if one looks at the 1965 
Concessions Policy Act and the Concession Management Guidelines of the 
National Park Service-48, Let me read that language:
  ``If adequate facilities exist or can feasibly be developed by 
private enterprise to serve park visitors' needs for commercial 
services outside park boundaries, such facilities will not be expanded 
or developed within parks.''
  So it has been part of our National Park Service for a long time.
  The second reason I think the gentleman's amendment is not 
necessarily in the best interest is that it flies in the face of what 
we are trying to do with reinventing government. We are trying to move 
to further development into the private sector through sound policy and 
that is exactly what this amendment would not allow us to do.

  A third reason the gentleman's amendment may be shortsighted is that 
it would create unfair competition. One of the things this bill is 
trying to do is to level the playing field so that competitors for 
those kinds of concessions, particularly those in the private sector, 
can feel like they are not at an unfair competitive disadvantage from 
subsidized government concessionaires.
  Fourth is that it will give us an opportunity to do something which 
all of us agree needs to be done and that is to protect our park 
resources, particularly controlling visitors and development and the 
impacts that they have.
  Fifth, and most important, something I thought my Republican 
colleagues would embrace, is it will stimulate local rule economies by 
creating new jobs and new revenues for those communities that surround 
and are most impacted by our national parks.
  So for these five reasons, that it is already park policy, it is 
reinventing government, it would be unfair competition, it would help 
us protect our park services and finally stimulate local economies, I 
ask the House to reject this amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The amendment would delete from the bill one of the statements of 
policy that are intended to guide the National Park Service in 
connection with the award and management of concession contracts.
  The policy statement in question, set forth in section 2(B)(7) of the 
bill, says that ``if adequate facilities to serve the needs of park 
visitors exist outside a park's boundaries or can feasibly be developed 
outside such boundaries by private enterprise, such facilities should 
not be developed or expanded within the park.''
  Members should be aware, Mr. Chairman, that this is a nearly word-
for-word reiteration of an existing National Park Service policy. It is 
not a new, radical departure. It has been part of the National Park 
Service's management policies since the 1970's. Instead, the bill's 
language is merely a formal recognition that the parks are no longer 
nearly so isolated, so remote, as once was the case, and that as a 
result it is less necessary for new or expanded facilities to be built 
within the parks, because it is more likely than it once was that 
facilities such as hotels, motels, restaurants, and the like can be 
developed outside park boundaries that will do an equally good job of 
meeting visitor needs and desires.
  Let me stress, Mr. Chairman, that this policy statement relates only 
to new or expanded facilities. It does not affect existing facilities 
and it does not prevent the development of new or expanded facilities 
within the parks. It merely says that before we build such new or 
expanded facilities within the parks, we should see whether private 
enterprise, operating outside the park boundaries, can do the job just 
as well or maybe better.
  Mr. Chairman, the part of the bill that this amendment would strike 
enjoys widespread support. We have received letters strongly endorsing 
its retention in the bill from a number of firms and groups, including 
the Small Business Legislative Council, the National Association of RV 
Parks and Campgrounds, and the Minnesota Association of Campground 
Operators, to name only a few.
  They recognize that while this part of the bill is just a reiteration 
of existing policy, it is sound and deserving of congressional 
approval. They recognize that this policy statement should stay in the 
bill. I agree with them, and therefore I urge the rejection of this 
amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is another one of those issues which means that 
the Congress is going to micromanage the national parks in America.
  One national park is not like another and that is part of the beauty 
and the uniqueness of our National Park System. The facts are that 92 
percent of all parks in America are already managed as wilderness. That 
leaves a very small margin, 8 percent, for people, for concessions, for 
amenities, for others who are not as robust and are as able as many of 
us to use the outdoors and to enjoy our National Park System. It 
certainly means that the parks are not overbuilt, surely. It does mean 
that there is a very small amount left should the Park Service decide 
that there should be concessions left for people.
  It seems to me that by not passing this amendment, we have struck a 
bargain which provides inflexibility for the National Park Service that 
should not be there.
  We talk about investment of private entrepreneurs and this bill 
without the other Murphy amendment will absolutely eliminate many small 
investors in our parks in this country. Certainly there is no money 
left in the Park Service for further construction or acquisition or 
operations. They are behind some $5 billion in construction, $2 billion 
in land acquisition, and $400 million in park operations.
  If we want any kind of improvement in our parks throughout the 
country, we have to rely upon private entrepreneurs and to encourage 
them to build on public land, which they must have a possessory 
interest if they are going to be encouraged to do that.
  Therefore, this all boils down again, in my opinion, to overmanaging 
by a group of people here in the Congress who cannot have the 
flexibility of knowing the difference between Crater Lake and 
Yellowstone National Park. But the Park Service ought to have the 
flexibility to manage its business. I suggest that we pass the Murphy 
amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Chairman, clearly the House should reject this amendment. This 
amendment tries to destroy what has been current policy now for the 
past 20 years endorsed by the previous administrations, carried out 
under the previous administrations and carried out under the current 
administrations, and, that is, that we ought to seek some balance, that 
we ought to take a look at what resources are available to us when we 
provide accommodations or any services within the national parks. If 
those services are readily available outside the park, we ought to let 
the private sector go ahead and develop those services, develop those 
accommodations and not step on their business opportunities with the 
heavy hand, or heavy foot, I guess I would step on their opportunities 
with, with the heavy foot of the Federal Government. If it is 
inconvenient, if it does not meet the needs of the visitors of the 
park, then we ought to go ahead and try to develop those services and 
accommodations in the park as we have.
  This policy again that is current policy that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murphy] seeks to strike also allows us to rearrange 
what is going on into the parks now. In Yosemite, we cannot accommodate 
the number of people because of the number of the facilities that are 
there. We think that warehousing, that truck repair, that shop repair 
could be better done outside of that park.

                              {time}  1640

  We ought to seek that warehouse space outside of the park. We think 
that some of the housing can be combined with different types of 
housing in the park and housing outside of the park for employees and 
others.
  That is what this policy lets us do. It lets the private sector, in 
some cases, develop housing for Park Service employees. I thought that 
was what the other side of the aisle and the gentleman over there are 
always yelling about, the Federal Government limiting the private 
sector's opportunities. This allows us to balance that.
  We know that the economies around the national parks, whether it is 
Everglades, or Yellowstone, or Yosemite, that these are some of the 
fastest growing areas in our country because of the visitation, because 
of the revenues that they generate. The people in the West at 
Yellowstone have a community, they have an economy, and we ought not to 
break that down by insisting that all of the development take place in 
the parks.
  Obviously we also have the ability to enhance the experience of the 
visitors to these parks if we can balance the development inside of the 
park and the development outside of the park. There is nothing in the 
language of this bill, there is nothing in the current policy that says 
it has to be one way or the other. The National Park Service, the 
district people, the park superintendents will take it all into 
consideration and try to make a decision. In Yosemite we are simply 
better off, if the development is going to take place, that it now take 
place outside of the park. It is no great distance. It is no great 
distance if you are going to enjoy the value of the park to go to one 
of the entrances. But we can no longer sustain new development in the 
valley of that park.
  I think this also gives us an array of services to be presented to 
American families that they can afford. If we are just going to 
maintain accommodations available in those parks that are rather 
expensive, unique hotels that many of the parks have, then we are 
excluding many people from the economic ability to enjoy the parks. 
That array of services, that array of accommodations in many instances 
can be provided easier, less expensively on the outside by the Park 
Service.
  So, I do not quite understand this, because as pointed out by the 
chairman of the subcommittee, this is current policy. This is not a 
surprise, this is not something we are trying new. This is an effort to 
manage the parks by the Park Service, not by the Congress, this was not 
developed by us, in an orderly fashion with the balance between the 
private sector and the public sector, and I would hope that we would 
reject this amendment and we would make sure that our parks are 
compatible with the communities and the economies that are around them, 
and that we not expend Federal resources where we close out 
opportunities for the private sector, or we close out the opportunities 
for the visitors to the park, or we continue to have resources that we 
do not have for all of the parks by using them up to build unnecessary 
accommodations and provide services that can be provided by the private 
sector.
  I urge opposition to the amendment.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the findings and policy 
provisions in S. 208 do not remove existing concessions from any park, 
nor does the bill prohibit the Secretary from expanding existing 
concessions, or adding new ones in parks if such facilities are needed 
and the services are not available outside the park. The feasibility 
language in S. 208 is almost identical, in fact, to the National Park 
Service management policy manual right now.
  By removing the feasibility language it will restrict the Secretary 
of Interior's flexibility to balance commercial development inside the 
parks while protecting the natural and cultural resources. The 
amendment may indeed impact local economies that are interested in 
developing park visitor services outside the boundaries, outside of a 
park.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we just have a terrible inconsistency here. The general 
inconsistency goes this way: ``On May 23, 1994, Mr. Babbitt said, on my 
watch, the Park Service will not build additional lodging facilities 
within parks.'' I agree with what was stated, they are not going to 
take those out, but we are not going to replace them is the issue we 
are missing here. They are not going to be replaced. So if all of these 
beautiful facilities go down, they do not come back.
  We are not talking about little parks in the East. We are talking 
about huge parks in the West.
  What is interesting to note is in a letter that Michael Finley the 
Superintendent of Yosemite wrote in answer to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Doolittle], he said,

       The Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, has also 
     reviewed the letter and is supportive of the National Park 
     Service position.

  Now what is the position of the National Park Service? Here is what 
they say, and here is the biggest paradox I have seen all day. Here it 
comes out and here is the position:

       It is not our intent to adversely affect local economies. 
     Rather, it is to inform you that the National Park Service is 
     no longer seeking development of outside accommodations to 
     support park visitors.

  On the one hand they say we want them in the park, we do not want 
them out of the park; in other words, we do not want them to see the 
park. It is terribly confusing about this, and this logic flies in the 
face of everything my colleagues have said.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for 
her leadership in this role.
  The language says, ``Such facilities should not be developed or 
expanded within the park.'' We are talking about new facilities. In the 
event of a damaged facility, obviously decisions would need to be made.
  But the point is every park, as the chairman was pointing out to me, 
is absolutely unique in terms of the distance, the accommodations that 
surround it, the feasibility. At one time there were no utilities 
around the parks, there was no water or other processes, but the fact 
is today these could be substantial businesses. In fact, the fact that 
you have facilities in parks and expanding facilities sometimes in 
parks means that it precludes the opportunity for some development, 
because there is no critical area or mass taking place outside.
  So the fact is this is not Babbitt's policy. This was put into the 
bill by the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers]. This was put into 
the introduction of the bill that Dale Bumpers, the Senator, 
introduced, and this was put in the bill by me in full committee. I do 
not know what Babbitt's position is on this, but this is existing 
policy of the Park Service, and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding. The 
problem is no one knows what the administration position is. In the 
printed page we have two different things.
  I ask my friend from Minnesota, if Yellowstone Lodge burned down, 
under his amendment would we replace it?
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I think it would cost obviously a lot 
because it is a historic structure. But certainly they could replace 
some facility for lodging in the area. Would it be a historic structure 
like Yellowstone Lodge or Ahwanee or some of the expensive facilities 
that even our per diem will not permit us to stay at, I do not think 
so.
  Mr. HANSEN. If the gentlewoman will yield, it seems obviously this is 
the whole basis of this discussion. If we lose these historic 
structures, they are lost forever.
  It also seems obvious that the intent and purpose behind it is to get 
them out of there. The administration is absolutely blah. On one hand 
they say we do not want them in the parks; on the other hand, he comes 
right out and says, ``And we don't want them building outside the 
parks.''
  I agree with Chairman Miller. We should have the warehouses outside 
of the parks.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Murphy and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Meyers of 
Kansas was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I would like to make this perfectly clear in answer to my chairman's 
accusation that I intend to repeal the existing park policy. The 
management park policy of the park clearly states what the Park Service 
may do. What this bill is doing is taking that park policy, putting it 
into law and giving any person in the United States who does not like 
what the Park Service is doing at that given moment the right to go to 
Federal court, using this section of the law and say it is feasible to 
do this. The needs of the park visitors are already met, there are 
adequate facilities. They can to into court and tie it up forever, and 
every case will go in that way. That is the hidden agenda in this 
particular clause.
  Leave it in the park management policy. I urge Members to leave it in 
the park management policy and leave it there where it is now. It will 
be utilized by the Secretary of the Interior, and the Director of the 
Park Service. But it will not be utilized by every person in the world, 
in the United States who wants to come and tie us up in Federal court.

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. The fact is every person in the United 
States or an interested party has the ability to do that today under 
the existing policy.
  The actions of the Park Service will still be compared to the policy, 
and if somebody thinks it is not feasible or is feasible or it serves 
or does not serve, they have a right today to come in and sue. The 
gentlewoman is quite correct. It does not create any new additional 
rights or responsibilities.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murphy].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 148, 
noes 274, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 362]

                               AYES--148

     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lazio
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Williams
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                               NOES--274

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grandy
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Lambert
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     English
       

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Blackwell
     Carr
     Clay
     Frost
     Gallo
     Hayes
     Inhofe
     Laughlin
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Nadler
     Reynolds
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Washington
     Wheat
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Miss COLLINS of Michigan, Mr. BARTLETT of 
Maryland, and Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. McCOLLUM, Ms. MOLINARI and Messrs. TAYLOR of Misissippi, TAUZIN, 
and STENHOLM changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment,
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: Page 12, after line 23, 
     insert:
       (E) Giving preference to American concessioners.

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this is a five-word amendment, gives 
preference to American concessionaires.
  Mr. Chairman, people save up their money, go on vacation. When they 
get to one of our national parks, if there is going to be a chicken 
special, hopefully it might be Kentucky Fried.
  Think about that.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Trafficant].
  This would require, as I understand, that the domestic U.S. 
concessionaires would be considered to get preference, all of the 
factors being equal, and I have no objection to that, and I accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. We support it on 
this side.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.


               amendment offered by mr. thomas of wyoming

  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Thomas of Wyoming: Page 13, strike 
     line 22 and all that follows down through line 4 on page 15 
     and insert the following:
       (2)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     grant a preferential right of renewal to a concessioner for a 
     concessions contract which the Secretary estimates will have 
     annual gross revenues of no more than $500,000 or which--
       (i) solely authorizes a concessioner to provide outfitting, 
     guide, river running, or other similar services within a 
     park; and
       (ii) does not grant the concessioner any interest in any 
     structure, fixture, or improvement pursuant to section 11 of 
     this Act.
       (B) Subparagraph (A) shall apply only where the Secretary 
     determines that the concessioner--
       (i) has operated satisfactorily during the term of the 
     previous contract; and
       (ii) submits a responsive proposal for the new contract 
     which satisfies the minimum requirements established by the 
     Secretary.
       (C) For the purposes of subparagraph (A), the term 
     ``preferential right of renewal'' means that the Secretary 
     shall allow a concessioner satisfying the requirements of 
     this paragraph the opportunity to match the terms and 
     conditions of any competing proposal which the Secretary 
     determines to be the best offer.

  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wyoming?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I intend to withdraw this 
amendment. I only introduced it so that I can reemphasize again the 
difference between the concessionaires that we talk about. The 
concessionaires that my amendment dealt with are basically river 
runners or outfitters, folks that do not have facilities inside the 
park, but I think, and I understand, and I appreciate the effort the 
leadership is making in the committee to deal with these unique 
aspects.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment at the desk.
  As this bill currently stands, it will devastate many small 
outfitters and guides across the West. I have heard from outfitters and 
guides throughout the country that are very concerned about this bill.
  Outfitters and guides are not like other concessionaires. They have 
unique skills and knowledge about the specific areas where they work 
and do not gain possessory interest in their contracts. In addition, 
they have extremely short permits lasting only 5 years.
  What my amendment would do is grant a preferential right of renewal 
to those concessionaires who provide outfitting, guide, river running 
or other similar services within a park and do not have interests in 
any structure, fixture or improvement in the park. It is similar to 
language included in the Senate-passed version of this bill.
  Under the current language in this bill, only those concessionaires 
that gross less than $500,000 annually are given a preferential right 
of renewal.
  For over 75 years, the option to renew a contract, based on an 
outfitters performance, has been the incentive for these individuals to 
provide high levels of service. This preferential right to renew a 
contract has been the basis for the entire partnership between the 
Government and outfitters.
  The incentive for operating an outfitting business in the parks, 
which is extremely high-risk, has always been based on the belief that 
if you continued to perform good service, you would be allowed to stay 
in business and have a right to renew your contract with the park.
  This bill would completely change this situation and will harm 
outfitters across the Nation. If this legislation is approved, and 
bidding for short-term permits is implemented, many outfitters who have 
special skills and knowledge of their particular areas will be hurt.
  A revolving door of new outfitters in a region will be detrimental to 
safety, service, and overall resource stewardship in the parks.
  Destroying the current system and basing it solely on monetary bids 
will not benefit the public and will hurt the overall quality of 
service. In addition, it could jeopardize the health and safety of 
visitors to our parks.
  Finally, let me say that I understand the need for competition in the 
outfitting and guide industry. However, there is currently plenty of 
competition among these individuals because there are no exclusive 
contracts. Outfitters and guides already compete with one another on 
most public lands.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation's outfitters and guides have provided the 
public with high-quality service for many years. We should not change 
that policy now.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment and ask that this matter be 
considered as this bill goes to conference.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Wyoming 
[Mr. Thomas] for his concern with regards to this, and we are 
struggling to try and find a combination. As my colleagues know, the 
Senate measure is different in this regard, so it is something that we 
will be working on. I look to the gentleman's guidance and counsel with 
regards to finding a formulation that will work for outfitters. They 
are different than some of the other concessioners serving the park. 
They play an integral role, and I commend him for his concern and that 
of his colleague, the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. LaRocco] and others, 
the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] who shares a similar concern, 
and I thank him for not pursuing this amendment here as it was defeated 
in the committee.

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                    amendment offered by mr. murphy

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Murphy: Page 21, line 8, (section 
     11(a)(1)) after the word ``therein'' strike ``to the extent 
     provided by such contract'' and insert: ``defined as fair 
     market value. Such interest shall not be diminished nor 
     changed by terms of new or amended contracts relating to 
     existing structures, fixtures, and improvements.''.

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment calling the Members' 
attention that what the bill will do is deprive those persons who have 
been in partnership with the National Park Service for a number of 
years, since the 1965 act, in partnership in building facilities, boat 
docks, horse stables, lodges, and camping areas, and this will now 
deprive them of any possessory interest they may have in those 
facilities.
  The only thing that has kept private investors from putting money 
into our national parks is the very fact that when they finish those 
facilities, they do not own the ground, but at least they own a 
possessory interest in the facility. Later on, when their contract 
expires or they are outbid by someone else, they at least recover their 
fair market value.
  All I propose to do is amend this to define what possessory interest 
is as the fair market value.
  We have had this provision in the act. Mo Udall was one of the 
sponsors and movers of that in 1965 when he created this type of 
possessory interest in the developers of our national parks. What it 
will do, and it will be a problem for future Congresses, when we 
destroy the partnership between the private investors and the National 
Park Service, you, the Members of Congress, will be called upon to come 
up with the dollars it takes to rebuild or provide those facilities 
that American families want when they go to our national parks.
  Now, if you are willing, if you can possibly succeed in coming years 
with the austerity that has been imposed upon us by ourselves and our 
Budget Acts most recently, you will not find those dollars. The 
partnership will be gone, the private investors, without a possessory 
interest in recovering some of their investment, they would have to be 
a pretty darn foolish investor to go in and spend millions of dollars 
knowing that in 15 years they are gone.
  So we will succeed in destroying that partnership. When that happens, 
you will be called upon to replace those facilities, and my prediction 
is you will not do it, because you will not be able to financially do 
it. The National Park System will start to go downhill insofar as the 
use by American families.
  Mr. Chairman, they talk about they write them off. Tax write-offs, 
let me say before they raise that objection, yes, you build a building 
that you rent or use, and you can write it off over a period of 15 to 
30 years. But in those tax write-offs you only recover 15 to 38 percent 
of your investment, because that is all you save. If you write 
something off in your taxes, a house you may rent, you only recover 15 
percent of that. Eighty-five percent was your dollars. Now, that means 
we are asking the developers to throw away 85 cents on the dollar. I 
again submit, they are just not going to do it.
  Now, under the previous Secretary of the Interior, they tried one of 
these. Here is what they did. In Yosemite National Park they finally 
pressured the former developers and owners to sell out to somebody 
else. What they did, we used to get three-fourths of a percent income 
on the gross take of all the concessions in that park. Now they made a 
new deal, we get nothing.
  They will say oh, well, we get investment. They promised to invest 4 
percent. We will see. That contract is less than 1 year old. I would 
urge the Members, let that contract ripen. Let us see what happens in 
Yosemite. If it works, then maybe this provision has something to say 
for it. But if it does not work, 15 years down the line we will have no 
developers, no users, the partnership will be gone, and the facilities 
for American families in our National Park System, you better either be 
a mountain climber, backpack hiker, because there will be nothing left 
in between.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  This amendment strikes at a vital part of the bill and its adoption 
would gut the legislation. It would in effect postpone indefinitely the 
elimination of one of the most significant barriers that now exists to 
real, open competition for national park concession contracts.
  It would do that by allowing those concessioners who now have 
possessory interests in the parks to retain those interests 
indefinitely, meaning that any competitors who might want to win the 
contracts for those concessions would be severely handicapped in making 
a bid.
  As I noted in general debate, these possessory interests are unique 
to the National Park System. They are creatures of the 1965 act that we 
are seeking to replace through enactment of this reform bill.
  One of the most important parts of the bill is the requirement that 
in the future, improvements in a park be depreciated and that no 
possessory interests be created.
  The bill recognizes that existing possessory interests are a form of 
property, and it explicitly protects the right of those now having 
possessory interests to receive the full value of those interests upon 
the expiration of their current contracts. That is necessary, and that 
is fair. It combines the move to a new law, and new rules, with 
protection of the concessioners who have operated under the old rules.
  But if we adopt this amendment we will be saying that for the current 
concessioners, the old rules will not change.
  It says that these barriers to competition will remain, unless and 
until those who have the benefit of their protection decide to take the 
barriers down--and there is no guarantee that the barriers will in fact 
come down soon or ever.
  In fact, if this continues, the monopoly of concessionaires that are 
now in the park will continue into the future indefinitely. This is not 
the way concessions operate in numerous State parks, in the stadiums 
and ballparks around this country, in shopping centers, and it 
certainly is not necessary for the national parks.
  The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that if we persist in this, 
yesterday we were talking about the backlogs in the parks. One of the 
backlogs is going to be that these concessions will continue to grow in 
value. Even as we are trying to purchase lands in parks that are not 
now parks or deal with backlogs, we will be selling out the national 
parks to the concessionaires. We will be forever indentured in terms of 
billions of dollars of development in the parks that will be of private 
interest in our public parks, in our crown jewels, in the legacy and 
inheritance of future generations.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment richly deserves to be defeated. I urge 
the Members to defeat it. It undercuts and eliminates the major tenet 
of competition in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania offered a similar 
amendment in committee and it was wisely rejected. The amendment would 
have retained the old rules for everyone, and nothing would change. We 
do not need business as usual. We need a new reform policy. We need to 
defeat this Murphy amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murphy].
  The amendment was rejected.


                   amendment offered by mr. lancaster

  Mr. LANCASTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Lancaster: On page 14, line 14, 
     strike $500,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$3,000,000''.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. LANCASTER. Mr. Chairman, there certainly are needed reforms in 
the way our national parks enter into concessions contracts. There are 
too many deals in the Western parks where large corporate 
concessionaires have contracts that do not return a fair value to the 
Government.
  However, I am troubled that smaller concessionaires who have always 
given valuable services to the public and a fair return to the 
Government may be put at a disadvantage by this bill. I refer 
particularly to the changes in renewal rights for contracts.
  In North Carolina, several small companies have concessions at our 
two national seashores. They ferry visitors to Cape Lookout National 
Seashore, they provide ocean piers at Cape Hatteras National Seashore, 
and they offer overflights of the Outer Banks from the airstrip at the 
Wright Brothers National Historic Site.
  The bill today grants a preferential right of renewal to 
concessionaires with gross receipts of no greater than $500,000 
annually. This will apply to several of the North Carolina 
concessionaires.
  Unfortunately, it will not apply to the operator of the Oregon Inlet 
Fishing Center at Cape Hatteras National Seashore. The annual gross 
receipts for this operation exceed the cut-off established in the bill.
  The Oregon Inlet Fishing Center is the base for a substantial fleet 
of recreational fishing vessels available to the public for fishing in 
the Atlantic Ocean and the adjoining coastal sounds. In a unique 
arrangement, the fishing captains and owners of the vessels have formed 
a corporation that in turn has the concession for operating the Fishing 
Center. Thus, while the entity holding the concession has revenues 
exceeding the bill's cut-off, if we look at the situations of the 
individual boat captains and owners individually, I think they are 
deserving of a preferential right of renewal. They are local residents, 
many of them from families who have lived on the Outer Banks for 
generations.
  The Oregon Inlet Fishing Center and its operators have provided great 
service to the citizens of this country who visit the Cape Hatteras 
National Seashore. I believe that this concessionaire, and ones similar 
to it, should retain a preferential right of renewal. My amendment will 
ensure this, by establishing that concessionaires with annual gross 
receipts of up to $3 million have such a right.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
appreciate that my colleague and friend from North Carolina has a 
problem in terms of a cooperative group that breaks the threshold, but 
his solution to this is one that is very troublesome. We have in the 
bill the right of preferential right of renewal for contracts under 
$500,000.
  What the gentleman suggests is that he wants to raise that ceiling 
and his amendment raises it to $3 million for everyone, not just for 
this particular instance.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I am willing to look at the gentleman's 
concern insofar as this corporation or cooperative is unique and 
attempt to try to work with him. But to do it through this method would 
basically undercut fairness in the bill to the other concessionaires 
and to serving the park in terms of preferential right of renewal. We 
would basically be extending the preferential right of renewal.
  The preferential right of renewal and the possessory interest issues 
are the two basic tenets in the bill and the two impediments today in 
the current system to competition. If we want that competition, then we 
cannot take the Lancaster amendment. That is why I am asking my 
colleagues to strongly reject this particular amendment.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has offered a very fine amendment 
and one that makes a lot of sense. All he is basically doing is raising 
it from one-half million to 3 million.
  Now, the Small Business Administration classifies a small 
concessionaire as those with gross receipts less than $5 million. The 
Lancaster amendment will simply raise the level of protection and 
include more of the small concessionaires.
  For some reason there seems to be a feeling around here that there is 
some big huge organization, some big corporate giant that is doing all 
these things, when in effect most of them in these areas are just mom 
and pop organizations. Some guy starts a river running thing and he 
does it on the weekends. It gets better and better. Before long he has 
five boats, then he has ten boats. Then he is a full timer. All these 
people will come under this thing.
  I think it makes a lot of sense in this particular time to help these 
small concessionaires and go with the amendment of the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Lancaster].
  I urge the body to support this very fine amendment.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I think this would take virtually everyone out from under the reforms 
that are provided for in the bill and would render the bill essentially 
meaningless. I would be forced to oppose the amendment by the 
gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings). Is there further debate on 
this amendment?
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Lancaster].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as modified, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, 
as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose, and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Murtha) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the Senate bill (S. 
208) to reform the concessions policies of the National Park Service, 
and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 492, he reported 
the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee 
of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the third reading of the 
Senate bill.
  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the 
third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the Senate 
bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 386, 
nays 30, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 363]

                               YEAS--386

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--30

     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Bunning
     Callahan
     Combest
     Crapo
     DeLay
     Emerson
     Fields (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hunter
     Lewis (CA)
     Lightfoot
     McCandless
     McKeon
     Murphy
     Myers
     Oxley
     Packard
     Rogers
     Skeen
     Smith (OR)
     Stump
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (WY)
     Vucanovich
     Young (AK)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     English
       

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Blackwell
     Carr
     Clay
     Gallo
     Hayes
     Hutto
     Inhofe
     Laughlin
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McDade
     Reynolds
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Washington
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1801

  Messrs. HUNTER, McCANDLESS, LIGHTFOOT, and HERGER changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. EVERETT, ARMEY, and DOOLITTLE changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the Senate bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________