cessioners whose current contracts do not include recognition of a possessory interest, unless in a particular case the Secretary determines that equitable considerations warrant recognition of such interest. SEC. 7. The provisions of section 321 of the Act of June 30, 1932 (47 Stat. 412; 40 U.S.C. 303(b)), relating to the leasing of buildings and properties of the United States, shall not apply to privileges, leases, permits, and contracts granted by the Secretary of the Interior for the use of lands and improvements thereon, in areas administered by the National Park Service, for the purpose of providing accommodations, facilities, and services for visitors thereto, pursuant to the Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535), as amended, or the Act of August 21, 1935, chapter 593 (49 Stát. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461-467), as amended. SEC. 8. Subsection (h) of section 2 of the Act of August 21, 1935, the Historical Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 462 (h)), is amended by changing the proviso therein to read as follows: "Provided, That the Secretary may grant such concessions, leases, or permits and enter into contracts relating to the same with responsible persons, firms, or corporations without advertising and without securing competitive bids." RECORDS SEC. 9. Each concessioner shall keep such records as the Secretary may prescribe to enable the Secretary to determine that all terms of the concession contract have been and are being faithfully performed, and the Secretary and his duly authorized representatives shall, for the purpose of audit and examination, have access to said records and to other books, documents, and papers of the conces sioner pertinent to the contract and all the terms and conditions thereof. AVAILABILITY The Comptroller General of the United States or any of his duly authorized representatives shall, until the expiration of five (5) calendar years after the close of the business year of each concessioner or subconcessioner have access to and the right to examine any pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of the concessioner or subconcessioner related to the negotiated contract or contracts involved. Approved October 9, 1965, 6:35 a.m. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY House Report No. 591 (Comm. on Interior & Insular Affairs). Sept. 14: Considered and passed House. Mr. REUSS. I am reading from the 1965 act now. It provides that the accommodations, facilities, and services in the park area should be provided only under carefully controlled safeguards against unregulated and indiscriminate use, so that the heavy visitation will not unduly impair these values and so that development of such facilities can best be limited to locations where the least damage to park values will be caused. It is the policy of the Congress that such development shall be limited to those that are necessary and appropriate for public use and enjoyment of the national park area in which they are located and that are consistent to the highest practicable degree with the preservation and conservation of the areas. That is the policy, is it not? Mr. DICKENSON. That is correct, sir. Mr. REUSS. I have a little difficulty squaring that with concessions facilities which I understand now exist in Yosemite. I am referring particularly to the Pitch N' Putt Golf Course and to the 13 facilities for the sale of liquor, all of which are located within the park. [According to the General Accounting Office, the concession facilities at Yosemite National Park are as follows:] CONCESSION FACILITIES AT YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK At present, MCA Recreation has 1,498 lodging units in Yosemite Valley, including tents, facilities, and cabins without baths, as follows: OTHER CONCESSION FACILITIES WITHIN YOSEMITE VALLEY Authorized Concession facilities, which serve park visitors and MCA Recreation Co., and NPS employees in Yosemite Valley include: 3 restaurants; 2 cafeterias; 1 hotel dining room; 4 sandwich centers; 1 seven-lift garage; 2 service stations with a total of 15 pumps; 7 gift shops; 2 grocery stores; 1 delicatessen; 1 bank; 1 skating rink; 3 swimming pools; 1 pitch-and-putt golf course; 2 tennis courts; 33 kennels; 114 horse and mule stalls; 1 barber shop; 1 beauty shop; and 13 facilities for the sale of liquor. CONCESSION FACILITIES OUTSIDE YOSEMITE VALLEY Authorized Concession facilities outside Yosemite Valley are: Hotel dining rooms 3; sandwich centers 6; garage 1; service stations 5; gift shop and studios 1; grocery stores 3; stables 3; swimming pools 3; tennis courts 3; hard liquor places 6; golf course 1; and golf shop 1. Mr. REUSS. Without wishing to be puritanical about it, does booze really enhance the public use and enjoyment of a national park area? Why shouldn't liquor be available for sale only outside the park? Mr. DICKENSON. Our policy, Mr. Chairman, for many years has been to follow the prevailing practice of the community and the region in which we operate. If you have a dry area, we would be dry. If it was common practice to have the dispensing of alcoholic beverages, why, we would follow the regulations and the practice of the State. Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman would yield, would you inform us precisely how liquor adds to the enjoyment of a national park? Mr. DICKENSON. I am not sure I am qualified to make that judgment. Mr. DINGELL. You are here to speak for the Park Service. Mr. DICKENSON. Well Mr. DINGELL. I am kind of curious, though, why we all have to have a snootful of booze or a bottle in our boot before we can enjoy the parks. Mr. DICKENSON. The consumption of alcoholic beverages on public lands is strictly controlled. Whether or not it should be available, I think, is a matter of an expression of the public will or the public desire, and it has been our experience that the public desires to have alcoholic beverages available for their use within national parks. Mr. REUSS. Well, I would have thought that the expression of the public will was up to Congress, and that we had spoken in the 1965 act when we said that developments shall be limited to those that are necessary and appropriate for public use and the enjoyment of a national park area. If we had said, "provided that if the local people want liquor shops or bawdy houses or other things in the national park," but we did not say that. Mr. DICKENSON. I am aware of this. Mr. REUSS. But where did this idea crop up that Congress is not to be taken seriously and is to be brushed aside when some local person wants to open a liquor store? Mr. DICKENSON. I assure you we do follow the will of Congress, Mr. Chairman. Mr. REUSS. Well, I assure you that you are not. Mr. DICKENSON. But we see no clear expression of the Congress here where it says that alcohol shall be absolutely prohibited in national parks. Mr. REUSS. Congress did not say that, and I am not saying it. I would not have people frisked at the park gates to see whether they have got a pint of red eye in their pocket; but it does seem to me that people can sublimate their desires to buy liquor until they go outside the park again. Mr. DICKENSON. It is not axiomatic that we cater to every public expression requesting facilities or services, because national parks are indeed special places. But it has been the judgment of those who bear the responsibility for fulfilling expressed public needs, and since the consumption and sale of alcoholic beverages is a common phenomenon throughout the United States and is associated with parks and recreation as a means of relaxation and recreation, I am sure Mr. DINGELL. Well, that is very good rhetoric, but I would be most interested in your informing me how the sale of alcohol in the national parks comports with this language: Congress hereby finds that the preservation of park values requires that such public accommodations, facilities, and services as have to be provided within those areas, should be provided only under carefully controlled safeguards against unregulated and indiscriminate use, so that heavy visitation will not unduly impair these values and so that the development of such facilities can best be limited to locations where the least damage to park values will be caused. How does that give you the prerogative to sell whiskey or not to sell whiskey? It strikes me that there is a limitation on activities like this. Mr. DICKENSON. Well, I beg your pardon, sir, I do not understand what you are reading from. Mr. DINGELL. I was reading from title 16, section 20 of your fundamental concessions policies statute. That is the 1965 statute. It says: and so that the development of such facilities can best be limited to locations where the least damage to park values will be caused. It is the policy of the Congress that such development shall be limited to those that are necessary and appropriate for public use and enjoyment of the national park area in which they are located and that are consistent to the highest practicable degree with the preservation and conservation of the areas. How do pitch 'n putt and whiskey sales mesh with the betterment of the park? Mr. DICKENSON. Well, I think you will find 230 million different opinions on whiskey. Mr. REUSS. But does that direct you or mandate you or authorize you to sell whiskey or to put in pitch 'n putts either on your own or through concessioners? 47-059-75-9 I do not read it that way. Mr. DICKENSON. It was our impression that this part of the statute described a discretionary decision. Mr. DINGELL. That does not strike me as discretionary. How is pitch 'n putt consistent with an operating park area? How is the sale of whiskey consistent with those operations? Mr. DICKENSON. As long as the prevailing mores and manners of society give us this message Mr. DINGELL. That is not what the statute says. It does not talk about prevailing mores. It talks about the character of the park. Mr. DICKENSON. Well, I am not sure I can respond any differently than I already have. Mr. DINGELL. You do not seem to be doing very well. Mr. DICKENSON. If the Congress desires to prohibit the sale of whiskey, then it seems to me Mr. DINGELL. That is not what the statute says. I am intruding on my colleague's time. Mr. REUSS. Let me just ask you a little more about this mandate because it does help us get at the philosophical approach of the Park Service. I am informed that as part of the preparation of the new master plan for Yosemite, a consulting firm named VTN, at a cost I think of $300,000, made a study which included some recommendations. One of those recommendations was that nonessential activities, such as these 13 liquor stores, should be moved out of the park and put in an administrative area outside of the park. I believe there is one down at El Portal. Is that not a fact? Mr. DICKENSON. I believe the VTN study included many other types of facilities, as well. Mr. REUSS. Yes, but this was one of them. Mr. DICKENSON. Yes. Mr. REUSS. And is it not further a fact that that study was shown to the concessioner MCA, and that, in a July 17, 1974, memorandum to the files, Superintendent Arnberger sets forth some instructions to Ron Mortimore from Regional Director Chapman. One of those instructions, on page 39, was that the recommendation to remove these facilities from the park and put them in El Portal where they would not degrade the park "will be completely rewritten so as to call only for 'further review' of the possibility of a move to El Portal." Is that not a fact? [The July 17 memorandum is printed on p. 420.] Mr. DICKENSON. I believe that is correct, sir, as stated. Mr. REUSS. Is that not another case where the Park Service let the concessioner, MCA-which has been operating these 13 liquor storesin effect write the master plan on their own? Mr. DICKENSON. On the contrary, sir; the superintendent's reaction and others of the planning group were responding to directions from the Director of the National Park Service who had expressed great concern about the potential cost of the movement to El Portal from Yosemite Valley, and he did not wish to take a blanket position at that time of absolute movement out because of the cost; and that is precisely what is behind, I believe, the superintendent's statement there. It was a concern for cost. Mr. REUSS. Who was this Director? Mr. DICKENSON. That was Ronald Walker, the Director of the Park Service, sir. Mr. REUSS. Well, now, in Mr. Arnberger's memorandum of August 1, 1974, recording the results of the July 29 meeting with MCA, he writes, and I quote: The El Portal move was left in the draft but only as a concept with no real commitment behind it. In fact, it was stated by Mr. Dickenson that the company will not be pressed to make the move and that any possible move that might be considered would be subject to mutual agreement between the company and the Service. Who is the Mr. Dickenson? Mr. DICKENSON. That is myself. I am reflecting the views, as I indicated, of the Director of the Park Service. He was concerned about the cost. As a matter of fact, the VTN study estimated that the cost of moving facilities from Yosemite Valley to El Portal might exceed $110 million, and on that basis is seemed to us that this is a position that should not be taken flatly and unilaterally without some more public input and some additional discussion. And so that really is what is behind that particular position. [The August 1 memorandum is printed on p. 426.] Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Finnegan? Mr. FINNEGAN. Mr. Dickenson, is that not a total estimate of all of the costs that would have been involved in that move, including community costs, and not necessarily costs to the Park Service or to the concessioners? And second, the recommendation by the VTN people was on a staging or a phasing operation so that it could even be over a 10-year period, thus making the cost even less than you had suggested. Is that not correct? Mr. DICKENSON. Given that, you may well be right. The precise details I do not have in front of me right now. Mr. DINGELL. Would you submit those to us? Mr. DICKENSON. Yes, sir, we can. We will submit those. [The following statement relating to the cost estimate for relocation of facilities to El Portal was subsequently received from the NPS:] The following information is provided in regard to the cost estimate for relocation to El Portal prepared by VTN, Inc. The work prepared by the corporation was done under contract with the National Park Service and has been and will continue to be used in planning for the park. VTN has made no recommendation in relation to the future development at El Portal and they were not asked to do so. We will use this information to select elements to be moved to the El Portal Administrative Site for planning purposes. The cost to move the maximum amount of facilities to El Portal and to create a "viable" community there was estimated to be about $110,000,000. Of this amount, there would be direct costs to replace facilities, in kind, at El Portal in the amount of about $9,000,000 for NPS, $16,000,000 for Yosemite Park and Curry Company, and $700,000 for the other Federal agencies operating in the Yosemite Valley. Additional amounts would accrue to construction of a large visitor parking garage and related facilities of $22,000,000; for service industries and related facilities of $23,000,000; and municipal type community facilities of |