I rise in support of the pending legislation to inject competition into the awarding of concessions contracts in our national parks. This reform is good both for taxpayers and for the parks. It would replace a protective Government subsidy with the guiding forces of the marketplace. Let me make clear that, in my view, this legislation is not an attack on those concessioners now operating in our parks. Rather, it is an effort to eliminate a wasteful Government subsidy. Businesses in our parks play by the Federal Government's rules. Our job today is to ensure that those rules are fair to everyone involved--including the taxpayers. Business profits should be controlled by market forces, not by market-skewing Government regulations. Under current law, concessioners in our parks are shielded from certain market forces and enjoy certain preferential rights. The result is that they pay the Federal Government--their landlord--less in fees than the market dictates for franchises in our parks. In essence, they are subsidized by the taxpayers. The numbers tell the story. In 1992, concessioners grossed $650 million and paid about 2.6 percent of that--$17.2 million--in fees. The automatic granting of a preferential right to incumbent concessioners to renew their contracts has virtually eliminated competition among eligible businesses for concessions contracts.
Nancy Kassebaum: “I rise in support of the pending legislation to inject competition into the awarding of concessions contracts in our…”
Editor's note · Context
Supporting legislation to increase competition in national park concessions contracts.
Share
More from Nancy Kassebaum
I suggest that we have been in the 104th Congress for 2 years. This legislation was introduced in the House some time ago. It would have been useful to us here in the U.S. Senate if this legislation had been before us prior to July 31. We…
I rise to discuss, again, legislation that has been before us, which is support for the Teamwork for Employees and Management Act, the TEAM Act. During the past couple of days, we have had some lengthy debate on this legislation, as well…
I care just as much as the Senator from Massachusetts or the Senator from Oregon about the quality of health care. We all do in this Chamber. There is a process, unfortunately--or fortunately--under which we operate around. That process…
no, this is not another study. It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. So it does not have statutory authority as the language of the Senator from Oregon would have had. However, it does not call for another study. It simply says that the…





