11 



cies. Although our bills differ, I know that we support the same 

 goals of competition and returning a fair franchise fee back to the 

 national parks. I would like to work with you and the rest of this 

 subcommittee on concessions and encourage you not to use a one- 

 size-fits-all concession policy since there are so many variables. I 

 thank the committee very much for hearing my testimony today. 



Mr. Hansen. We thank our colleague for her testimony. We ap- 

 preciate it very much. Is there anyone on the committee who has 

 a question for our colleague from Kansas? The gentleman from 

 New Mexico, our ranking member. 



Mr. Richardson. I would just like to ask unanimous consent 

 that my statement be in the record. And also I have no question 

 for the gentlelady, but I want to commend her for her bill. I am 

 a co-sponsor. She has shown leadership on this issue. Her bill 

 passed overwhelmingly in the last session, I think it should be the 

 basis for any kind of reform, and I just wanted to say that I am 

 proud to be on her side in this debate. 



Mr. Hansen. I was going to recognize the gentleman for any 

 opening remarks that he may have. If you would like to go 

 ahead 



Mr. Richardson. That will do it, Mr. Chairman. The ski permit 

 fee bill — I think that this is an important issue too. I think as long 

 as we stay close to fair market value, and I commend you for mov- 

 ing these bills. 



[Statement of Mr. Richardson follows:] 



STATEMENT OF HON. BILL RICHARDSON, A U.S. 

 REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW MEXICO 



Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that at long last we are considering national park 

 service concession reform legislation. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 773, introduced by 

 my friend and colleague from Kansas, Mrs. Meyers. The gentlelady is to be com- 

 mended for her advocacy of this important legislative initiative, which represents 

 a broad, bipartisan consensus. 



A little history bears repeating. H.R. 773 is the successor of the NPS concessions 

 reform legislation that passed the House in 1994 by an overwhelming vote of 386 

 to 30 and which also passed the Senate by an equally overwhelming vote of 90 to 

 9. The bill has been the subject of numerous hearings over the years and addresses 

 problems identified in GAO and Inspector General reports. It is a proposal that also 

 has the support of the Administration. 



Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for H.R. 2028, which was introduced less 

 than 2 weeks ago. H.R. 2028 is a substantial rewrite of the concessions policy of 

 the six principal Federal land management agencies. Whereas H.R. 773 represents 

 a long-debated and carefully considered response to an abundantly identified prob- 

 lem, H.R. 2028 has no such history. I am concerned that by lumping all the Federal 

 agencies together, we will delay and undercut the reforms needed for the NPS. H.R. 

 773 is a tested proposal, that given the chance, I believe the House would again 

 overwhelmingly support. 



I also note we are considering H.R. 1527, dealing with ski permit fees. This is 

 something the subcommittee will want to look at carefully. I am all for simplifying 

 the fee determination, as long as I can be assured that the Federal Government is 

 getting fair market value for the use of Federal assets. 



Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by once again saying that I am pleased to voice 

 my support for the bipartisan proposal of the gentlelady from Kansas. 



Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Oregon has a 

 question. 



Mr. Cooley. Representative Meyers, I wanted to ask you about 

 one thing I have some concern about. There seems to be a conflict 

 of numbers involved here. You don't have your pages here, but let 



