32 



begin to reduce our ability to provide all of those kinds of services 

 to the public, we are going to reduce the legacy that the national 

 forests provide for the American people. 



Mr, Hayworth. So, in essence, any tjrpe of transfer you believe 

 is just at odds with the Forest Service mission? 



Mr. Unger. Well, the Forest Service lands have been built up 

 over a period of time, first in the late 1800's, later in the teens at 

 the beginning of this century; put together very carefully piece by 

 piece truly by this Congress in setting aside land reserves and in 

 making authorities for purchase under the Weaks Act. 



It has not been something that has been growing by leaps and 

 bounds. It has not grown like topsy. It has been a process in which 

 the Congress has carefully determined which lands ought to be 

 managed as part of the national forest system. So I think that if 

 there is any question about whether some of those lands appro- 

 priately meet the mission, those kinds of questions have to be 

 looked at just as closely and carefully as the Congress did in estab- 

 lishing the forests in the first place. 



Mr. Hayworth. Thank you very much for your answer. I thank 

 all of you for coming and spending some time with us today, and 

 I have no further questions. 



Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Hayworth. The committee will 

 stand in recess while we go vote. We will come right back. 



[Recess.] 



Mr. Hansen. I recognize the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. 

 Vento, for five minutes. 



Mr. Vento. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I was following up with the 

 Forest Service testimony and the issue of the proposal H.R. 2028, 

 which is before us. Obviously, the other measure, that is to say the 

 one that we have co-sponsored with Mrs. Meyers and part of the 

 Miller bill, has been gone over. 



Obviously, the issue here is holding these together, it is an inter- 

 esting proposal. I suppose that there is commonality, and you think 

 you have got an absolute fix on what the solution or the proper pol- 

 icy path was, having the same policies for all the agencies would 

 work. But I think that there are substantial differences between 

 the agencies. For instance, do we have any ski concessions in the 

 Park Service, Mr. Kennedy? 



Mr. Kennedy. We have a couple rope tows, Mr. Vento, but essen- 

 tially, no. 



Mr. Vento. One of the problems, of course, is that the possessory 

 interest under the Park Service has actually created, in essence, a 

 sort of new property right within the parks. Does this bill, H.R. 

 2028, extinguish that? I mean, the other proposals that we have 

 had here actually amortize whatever interests so that they are co- 

 incidentally with the contract or if not with the contract, that they 

 basically would be extinguishable on a regularized period. That is 

 the intent I think of H.R. 723 and of the Miller bill. Does this new 

 bill, H.R. 2028, extinguish these such property interests in the 

 parks? 



Mr. Kennedy. The automatic right of renewal is not extin- 

 guished, but accelerated I think in the way that H.R. 2028 is now 

 drafted. 



