30 



to oversee the actions on that formerly public land, how would that 

 cost you more money in your agency? 



Mr. Unger. As I understand the statement in our testimony, Mr. 

 Pombo, it is specifically referring to the fact that under that provi- 

 sion half of the money received would go to the Treasury and half 

 would go to the agency. And I believe, according to those that are 

 familiar and expert in this business of scoring, apparently the 

 money that would come into the Treasury would not be scored as 

 revenue, but the money that would be expended by the agency 

 would be considered an outlay, would be considered a direct ex- 

 penditure, and, therefore, would be considered as contributing to 

 the deficit. 



Mr. PoMBO. So the goofy way we budget back here is basically 

 what your statement is based on. 



Mr. Unger. Well, I am saying that that is my understanding 

 from the people who are familiar with those processes. 



Mr. Pombo. But in the real world, I mean, outside of the way we 

 budget? 



Mr. Unger. Right. 



Mr. Pombo. In the real world, it wouldn't cost you more money. 

 In fact, it would bring money into your agency to accomplish some 

 of the other missions and goals that you have because it would give 

 you money to go out and do some of the things that you guys come 

 in here and ask for every year. So in the real world, you would be 

 better off, I mean, outside of our budget process. In the real world 

 you would be better off, and the deficit would be lower? 



Mr. Unger. In the real world, if this provision were enacted and 

 land were sold and the Treasury would clearly receive some of that 

 money, the agency would receive some of that money, we would not 

 have the responsibility of administering that particular piece of 

 land, and the funds would be used for other purposes. That is true. 



Mr. Pombo. In your mission of your agency, would it not be bet- 

 ter to carry out what your mission really is in caring for Forest 

 Service lands if we did go in and privatize some of these ski resorts 

 or what other things that are on forest land and lower your outlay 

 in terms of caring for these that are really outside of your mission 

 statement and give you the ability to do what your agency was 

 really set up to do? 



Mr. Unger. Well, our agency was set up to do and has been 

 given the responsibility of doing many things, including providing 

 recreation on the national forests. And one of the kinds of recre- 

 ation that is very important is the providing of this kind of skiing 

 resource. Probably 60 percent of the lift capacity of skiing in this 

 country is on national forest land so it is a very, very important 

 way in which these lands serve the public as well as 



Mr. Pombo. And it is probably a higher percentage of mountain- 

 ous areas than 60 percent are actually owned by the Federal Gov- 

 ernment. 



Mr. Unger. That is logical. Yes. 



Mr. Pombo. You know, in my State alone it is way over 60 per- 

 cent of our forests are owned by the Federal Government so that 

 is kind of a skewed number. I mean, you have sat here and lis- 

 tened, and I am sure privately you have talked to Mr. Kennedy 

 many times about all of the problems that they have being a Fed- 



