[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 98 (Thursday, June 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8521-S8522]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                     SKI AREA FEE STRUCTURE REFORM

 Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to ask my colleagues to take 
a close look at a bill which I cosponsored with Senator Murkowski and 
others. The ski area fee system for Forest Service special use permits 
needs reform and S. 907 is a good way to get this done.
  Skiing is one of the best uses that we have today on our national 
forests. The ski industry brings millions of people to the mountains to 
enjoy fresh air, scenery, and the mountain environment. Few other 
national forest activities are able to host such intense public use 
with relatively minimal impact.
  In fact, many resorts have taken extra steps to protect and enhance 
the environmental resources with trail and resort designs that include 
modifications for wildlife use, special sensitivities to wetlands, base 
villages that minimize the need for cars, and plantings that provide 
forage for birds. Over the years ski resorts have become adept at 
reducing water pollution, erosion, and snowmaking. There are still 
[[Page S8522]] problems to resolve, but I am confident that citizens, 
communities, and the ski industry will find solutions to each 
challenge.
  In addition to providing access to National Forests on a mass scale, 
the ski industry provides critical economic benefits. From the first 
American rope tow installed in Woodstock, VT, in 1934, to the high-
speed quads on Sugarbush 60 years later, the ski industry has brought 
economic opportunity to Vermont towns. The 1993-1994 ski season in 
Vermont generated $230 million from 4.3 million visitor days according 
to the Vermont Ski Area Association. These revenues translate into $17 
million in tax revenue for Vermont towns. The ski industry represents a 
sustainable use of national forests and a good neighbor. They deserve 
our support.
  The Murkowski-Leahy bill refines the fee structure for ski areas on 
national forests. The Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 
and the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 both mandate that 
the Federal Government collect fair market value for the use of Federal 
property. In 1965, the Forest Service developed the graduated rate-fee 
system [GRFS] which is still in use today. GRFS is based on the ski 
area's investment in fixed assets and sales generated in nine business 
categories. The ski industry and the Forest Service together agree that 
the system is complex, outdated, inefficient, and in need of reform.
  I wish we could say that the reform we propose is based on a 
comprehensive assessment of fair market value as current law, but such 
an assessment simply does not exist. Neither the General Accounting 
Office nor the Forest Service--or any other organization--has been able 
to offer assistance in developing a widely accepted assessment of fair 
market value. The revenue collected today is the closest approximation 
of fair market value, and therefore we have used the total revenue 
collected as the best available assessment. This bill solves the 
problems that we know how to solve, and does not preclude adjustments 
for issues that may benefit from further study.
  The solution proposed in the Murkowski-Leahy bill is a simple 
progressive rate structure based on gross sales. Since it operates much 
like an annual tax form, it is easy to prepare, relatively easy to 
audit, and less prone to litigation. The fees are linked to the economy 
so ski areas can make regular and fair payments that reflect their 
ability to pay. The bill also has a provision to adjust the rate 
structure for inflation and it would be easy to amend if the public 
wants to adjust the ski-fee revenues up or down based on further 
information on fair market value.
  This bill is a reasonable, balanced, and progressive bill that offers 
clear reform for the ski area fee system. This is basically the same 
bill that the Senate passed in 1992 with strong bipartisan support. I 
hope we can pass the S. 907 this year with equally strong 
support.


                          ____________________