EXTENSIONS of REMARKS February 7, 1991 EXTENSIONS of REMARKS
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
3404 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS February 7, 1991 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS NATIONAL PARKS REVITALIZA Mr. Speaker, the circumstances at our na when the concessioner corporation is sold. TION ACT: TIME TO CHANGE tional parks have changed dramatically since Some even argue that concession contracts CONCESSIONER POLICY AT OUR 1965. Our national parks are not commercial allow our national parks to be managed for the NATIONAL PARKS outposts. In fact, many parks are teeming with benefit of concessioners rather than for re visitors and the short summer season is grow source conservation. HON. MIKE SYNAR ing to 10 months or even year-round visitation To his considerable credit, Secretary Lujan OF OKLAHOMA even in many of the most remote areas. has initiated a reform campaign to correct IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES The incentive package provided under the some of these deficiencies. Indeed, the Sec Wednesday, February 6, 1991 original National Park Concessions Policy Act retary has discretion to take bold action, but has outlived its usefulness. Now, while operat he needs legislative support to complete these Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to in ing a concession at one of our national parks reforms. The National Parks Revitalization Act troduce the National Parks Revitalization Act. has become a lucrative enterprise, the tax that I am introducing today will strengthen the Enactment of this amendment to the 1965 Na payer is being shortchanged. Secretary's authority to reform concessions tional Park Concessions Policy Act will be The leverage created by the National Park operations, standardize the process of conces both good for the taxpayer and the environ Concessions Policy Act's incentive package sions reform, and assure a fair return to the ment. has made it virtually impossible for others to taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, it is increasingly clear that the compete against an existing concessioner at This reform effort is vitally important since Federal Government is underpaid for the use one of our national parks. At the end of every most contracts come up for renewal over the of taxpayer assets at national parks. For ex concessions contract term, the Secretary of next 5 years, including several large contracts: ample, in 1988 concessioners' gross receipts the Interior must entertain offers from others Sequoia (1991), Yellowstone (1992) and Yo totaled about $500 million, but they only paid for improved concessions services or in semite (1993). Therefore, we need to give the the Federal Government $12 million in fran creased franchise fees, but no one will submit Secretary all the tools necessary to take ad chise fees. That equals about 2.5 percent of a bid. Instead enterprising businesses are dis vantage of this unique window of opportunity gross income. suaded from submitting proposals because a to construct and proper balance for conces In fact, the taxpayers lose $200 million each successful bidder proposal would have to do sions operation. year because national park concessioners do more than simply prepare the highest and best Mr. Speaker, as I have already noted the not return a fair share of the profits to the bid for concessioner services. In fact, a suc National Parks Revitalization Act is written as Government. The simple truth is that it is time cessful bidder would have to accept the obli an amendment to the 1965 National Park for a change. gation of paying off the possessory interest of Concessions Policy Act so as to take advan Concessions contracts create monopolies the existing tenured concessioner and would tage of the better aspects of the existing law over all goods and services consumed at our have to overcome the existing concessioner's while making the changes necessary to fit cur national parks, the crown jewels of this Na preference. Thus, the incentive package has rent circumstances. tion's natural heritage. But, the contracts and become a nearly perfect barrier to competition The National Parks Revitalization Act will in the National Park Concessions Policy Act are for concession opportunities. crease franchise fees from the present aver relics of a time gone by. Unfortunately, the loser in all this is the tax age of 2.5 percent of gross receipts to 22.5 Mr. Speaker, the existing law is based on a payer, Mr. Speaker. As documented in reports percent of gross receipts. This increase is set of assumptions that are no longer valid. It from the inspector general of the Department consistent with Secretary Lujan's publicly stat was enacted at a time in our Nation's history of the Interior [OIG], the U.S. General Ac ed objective for concessions reform. This in when it was deemed necessary to extend ex counting Office, the House Committees on crease will allow the Park Service to acquire traordinary incentives to businesses to operate Small Business and Government Operations the possessory interest of existing conces our national parks. At that time--before the and the National Park Service itself, the exist sioners and to more adequately fund resource completion of our Interstate Highway System ing contract law and regulations are not in the management, interpretation and conservation revolutionized family trave~ncessions OJ.r public interest. It is time for reform. activities from the proceeds of a reasonable erations in national parks were viewed as risky It is good that concession services are pro franchise fee. commercial outposts that we sought to coax vided by the private sector, instead of the But raising franchise fees by itself will not into providing goods, services and hospitality Government, and no one wants to change that remedy our national park concessions protr at remote and scarcely visited locales with a aspect of national park concessions oper lems. Congress must agree to return more of short summer season of operations and activi ations. However, !t is wrong for concession these dollars to the parks for operation, main ties. revenues to be diverted from the National tenance, and capital improvements. Accordingly, the 1965 National Park Con Park System's resource conservation needs at Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the National cessions Policy Act created a set of incentives a time when park budgets are stagnant and Parks Revitalization Act prescribes a maxi for concessioners, which included low fran park visitation is soaring. mum term for concessions contracts, requires chise fees, renewal preference for satisfactory Mr. Speaker, here is a summary of the defi concessioners to pay fair market rents and all performance and the rights to acquire, hold ciencies in existing concessions policy, law utilities costs, and phases out the anti-com and transfer a possessory interest in struc and regulation: Franchise fees for national petitive problems presented by the existing tures, fixtures and improvements upon land park concession contracts are far too low; statute's treatment of renewal preference. The owned by the United States within such areas concession contracts last too long; existing National Parks Revitalization Act will allow the administered by the National Park Service. contractors have a renewal preference and National Park Service and the Secretary of In This incentive package worked in the begin possessory interest in park structures and fa terior to redirect concession operations to be ning, but perhaps it has worked too well. cilities that are preventing open competition; consistent with today's circumstances and While the right of preference renewal and contracts do not charge fair market rents for budget constraints. the rights associated with possessory interest taxpayer-owned facilities; contracts do not Finally, the National Parks Revitalization Act served the initial purposes of attracting private contain standardized language, so the cost of will resolve the argument that concession con capital and quality concessions operations to administering them is too high; and, contracts tracts allow our national parks to be managed our national parks, these rights have now be allow a concessioner to sell his exclusive use for benefit of concessioners rather than for re come significant-and almost insurmount of park facilities, low concession fees and source conservation. Under this measure all able-impediments to competition. preference for renewal as intangible assets concession contracts must be consistent with • This "bullet" symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor. Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor. • --..-. •, H- - I ,• --. - .- February 7, 1991 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 3405 the National Park Service Organic Act, the First, temporarily suspend repayment of di the borrower, is called to active duty in the purposes of the act creating the particular unit rect loans made by the Small Business Ad military service subsequent to the disburse of the National Park System in question and ministration to any borrower called to active ment of the proceeds of such loan. The sus its general management plan. pension shall be effective on the date Admin duty, or to joint borrowers, such as a husband istration is notified that the borrower has Mr. Speaker, I hope that introduction of the and wife, if one of them is called to active commenced active duty status or, at the National Parks Revitalization Act will help duty. The suspension would continue until 90 election of the borrower it shall be made ef frame this important debate and promote re days after discharge. fective at any time subsequent to the date form. I believe the National Parks Revitaliza Second, temporarily suspend or reduce the the borrower entered active duty status, and tion Act presents a formula that will be good repayment obligation of any direct loan made shall continue for 90 days after such person for both the taxpayers and the environment. I by SBA to a partnership or corporation if the ceases to be on active duty.