29 



Mr. Kennedy. Two comments, if I may. First, there is no ques- 

 tion that three-quarters of a percent to 17 percent is a wholly arti- 

 ficial way of looking at the difference between the two. The pre- 

 vious concessioner did a lot of very good things that they, so to 

 speak, don't get credit for. No question about that. 



Second, I think everybody in this room thinks fundamentally 

 that the reason to have concessioners there is to provide service to 

 the public. The dollars are important, and it is good to get revenue 

 back. But the reason you got them at all is the reason you have 

 parks; that is to serve the public. You want to have hotel rooms, 

 and you want to have food service, and whatever else it takes to 

 give the public a decent experience. 



Now, the National Park Service is responsible for the parks, and 

 it is responsible for trying to be sure that service to the public is 

 as well delivered as possible. While there are very good conces- 

 sioners, there are some not so good concessioners. And the fact is 

 that the public, when we ask them their opinions of what we do, 

 most of the negative comments have to do with what happens on 

 the part of concessioners operating in the parks. We have a real 

 interest in being sure that services are well performed. 



Now, that gives us a dilemma to which you point. Do you want 

 Park Service people in measuring the steak? Of course not. Do you 

 want Park Service people deciding whether the ice cream has melt- 

 ed or not? No. But there is a point beyond which the Park Service 

 has an interest in being sure the public gets well served. 



And this, as in all human affairs, means somebody has got to be 

 sensible in the way they administer it because you have the two 

 extremes; let them do anything they please and to hell with the 

 public, and at the other end a bunch of people peddling around 

 through the kitchen making unnecessary trouble. It is a dilemma 

 of management, and I don't know any way to legislate it. 



Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. I don't have any other comments. 



Mr. Hansen. Mr. Pombo. 



Mr. Pombo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Unger, in response 

 to Mr. Duncan's question, you said that the land that the Federal 

 Government owns was set aside by action of this Congress for the 

 good of the public. And I think a more truthful statement is it is 

 what we were left with, and with very few exceptions, notably what 

 Mr. Kennedy oversees, the land was not set aside by actions of this 

 Congress. It was just what we ended up with. 



Specifically, in your written statement, you say that in opposition 

 to privatization of any Forest Service lands that it would also in- 

 crease direct spending and, therefore, increase the deficit under the 

 PAYGO provisions of the Omnibus Budget Act. 



I am a little bit confused as to what you mean by that because 

 we will hear testimony in a few minutes and we have heard testi- 

 mony already that the Federal Government loses a lot of money be- 

 cause of the way these contracts are structured. And the cost of op- 

 erating the Forest Service or the Park Service or the Bureau, who- 

 ever oversees these, is not being reimbursed enough to pay for 

 what you are doing. 



I don't understand how it will cost us more money if you are not 

 doing that anymore. If you don't have to oversee a ski resort some- 

 where, and you don't have to have any of your employees on-site 



93-983 0-95-2 



