35 



these issues, and I trust that this will be the case in this instance. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Hansen. Thank you, the gentleman from Minnesota. I agree 

 with your comments. We are moving into another century, and I 

 think we have got to roll with that a little bit. I am sure that the 

 things that we are all looking at, as Mr. Kennedy pointed out — we 

 are all trying to achieve this thing. 



We are now hashing over the details, and we have put a couple 

 proposals on the table. They didn't come from Mt. Sinai. They 

 weren't written by God. They are just written by a puny little man, 

 and we are trying to do our best to work this thing out. And we 

 all realize that some of us are punier than others, if I may say so. 



But looking at this and what we are trying to accomplish is we 

 really just want to come to something that works. I think that we 

 will accept the fact that a lot of the things we have done in the 

 past haven't worked out. It doesn't mean they were wrong. They 

 just didn't work, and it is our position to refme and purify these 

 things. 



I think in my 36 years as an elected official, I think in city coun- 

 cil, State legislative bodies, and Congress, we find something — 

 "Well, it was a good idea, but it didn't work right. So let us refine 

 it now. Let us purify it a little bit. Let us get the thing so it works 

 a little better," and that is all we are asking. We don't want to put 

 anybody on the defensive. We don't want to take anybody on. That 

 is not the idea of these hearings. 



The idea is to get good comment from you folks who know a lot 

 more about it than we do; people on the ground, the concessioners 

 in this case, the agencies are now before us, and others that we can 

 work all these things out. Now, we try our best to take care of the 

 interests of people where we can. Many times you can't. 



Our number 1 concern here is to do what is right for the United 

 States of America first, and, second, we get down to the more indi- 

 vidual things. So I hope no one takes it that we are trying to pick 

 on anybody. That is not the point at all. And in concept, I agree 

 with the gentleman from Minnesota. There are some things I 

 would disagree with, but that is what we do around here. We agree 

 to disagree. 



Mr. Unger, you were asked a lot of questions about the exchange 

 of land, and in your opening comments, you listed three reasons 

 why you didn't like the idea of a ski resort going in there. We have 

 held hearings on land exchange. And no disrespect to any of you 

 folks here, but land exchange just doesn't happen, in our opinion — 

 those of us who have to go out and deal with real people all the 

 time in the St. George and the Logan, Utah, or wherever they may 

 be. They don't see that. 



And I have to respectfully say as a city councilman for 12 years 

 in the little third class city of Farmington, Utah, we had a piece 

 of ground right in the middle of the city that was owned by the 

 Forest Service. For 12 years we tried to get the Forest Service — 

 we had you surrounded — to do something. 



Here was debris on it; kids riding their bikes on it; accidents on 

 it. You were a target defendant and didn't realize it, but a lot of 

 plaintiff attorneys were salivating at the mouth waiting for some 



