33 



Mr. Vento. Well, Director Kennedy, I guess I didn't make myself 

 clear because what I am talking about is does this bill, H.R. 2028, 

 personify, enhance, and, in fact, create new inholdings, property 

 rights, with regards to interests — not interests with regards to 

 right of renewal but with regards to what is now, for instance, pub- 

 lic land-public resources? Does this, in fact, inject private owner- 

 ship into some elements of our park system? 



Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Vento, as I testified, we feel that H.R. 2028, 

 unless substantially modified, would be anticompetitive. Your ques- 

 tion with regard to the possessory interest requires a much more 

 complicated answer than I think you want to give me time for now. 



Mr. Vento. I don't want to give you time because I only have five 

 minutes, but it is my understanding that it does not extinguish 

 possessory interests and, in fact, simply initiates or puts in place 

 new types of property rights within the park system. We know, of 

 course, with regards to the Forest Service that it does that, Mr. 

 Unger, with regards to the ski lift bill. Is that correct? 



Mr. Unger. Could you repeat the question please? 



Mr. Vento. Well, the point is that it suggests that you ought to 

 sell parcels of land within the Forest Service for concession pur- 

 poses. The issue is with regards to the bill, it directs the Forest 

 Service to, in fact, enter into contracts to convey parcels of land 

 that are used for recreation purposes to an individual. Is that cor- 

 rect? 



Mr. Unger. I am not sure, Mr. Vento, which part of the bill you 

 are referring to. 



Mr. Vento. Well, the privatization of Forest Service lands. 



Mr. Unger. OK. 



Mr. Vento. It is section 15 of your testimony on page nine. 



Mr. Unger. That doesn't direct us. It provides the authority to 

 sell a ski area to a concessioner that is operating the ski area. 



Mr. Vento. These would, in essence, say to the Forest Service 

 that you could actually sell for that key part of the resources? In 

 other words, if the Forest Service took this activity, it would, in 

 fact, estabhsh an inholding within a national forest. Is that correct? 



Mr. Unger. Yes. 



Mr. Vento. But only in such areas that would have these rec- 

 reational qualities I guess. How is that defined? I mean, if some 

 new recreation activity were to come about, then would the Forest 

 Service have the authority, in fact, to sell that portion of the forest? 



Mr. Unger. Well, I believe it is restricted just to existing ski 

 area concessions. If I can take a moment to go back to the section 

 and double-check it. 



Mr. Vento. In any case, I don't know. I note your opposition to 

 it, but the point is that it would result in new inholdings in the 

 forest. I mean, one of the issues is the consolidation, and if some- 

 body else owns land, depending upon the State — we know that each 

 State treats ownership about the same — but that there are all sorts 

 of other restrictions that might be placed on it which would have 

 impacts on the adjacent Forest Service lands like, for instance, how 

 do you direct your fire service responsibility. 



Mr. Unger. Yes. 



Mr. Vento. Or the Park Service. I mean, one of the goals of this 

 legislation is obviously to try and recover more dollars, and I ap- 



