309 



Mr. Finney. First I want to say I am not authorized to speak for 

 either one of the pulp mills. But it would involve, cancellation 

 would involve a breach of contract and a taking, and I have heard 

 the figure quoted that it would be over a billion dollars. 



But that is only part of the effect of cancelling those long-term 

 timber sales. It is not just the money that is going to be paid out to 

 the pulp mills. It is the hardships that would happen should those 

 mills then close because of that cancellation, which my estimate is 

 they would in a very difficult market. 



Then you have all of the contractors who are in place for road- 

 building and logging to supply those mills, and what about those 

 people? They are going to be hurt very bad. Will they have a 

 demand on the government? 



Then the people who really, really get hurt are the people who 

 have jobs out on those islands. How about the people that live in 

 the large logging communities that are supported by those long- 

 term timber sales? 



Upon cancellation, my understanding is the Forest Service imme- 

 diately has to move out all of the facilities that exist in those 

 camps. They cannot sell independent timber sale programs in those 

 areas and let the facilities stay there, because if they did the pulp 

 companies then are going to have a leg up for bidding on that 

 timber because they own the facilities. 



They are only there because they are under a special use permit 

 allowed by the long-term timber sales, which will be cancelled 

 when those timber sales end. So it would be, I would guess, several 

 years before those people who have jobs could relocate and find 

 places where there are, the Forest Service is able to bid independ- 

 ent timber sales, and those people could move back into the area. 



It would be devastating to the people who work on the national 

 forest in the timber industry. 



Senator Murkowski. Mr. Finney, there is a planted question 

 here: In 1976 Congress passed the National Forest Management 

 Act by adopting the proposal by Senator Humphrey instead of the 

 proposal by Senator Randolph. Do you recall that, and can you in 

 30 seconds explain the difference between the two proposals? 



Mr. Finney. Well, Senator, I remember from that process in the 

 1980's that Senator Randolph was trying to convince the Congress 

 that they should use prescriptive methods, that they should pass 

 very strict prescriptive methods for the forest industry on the Ton- 

 gass. 



Senator Humphrey held out that they should be broader, they 

 should be based on the TLMP information that was present at that 

 time. Fortunately, Senator Humphrey was the one who prevailed 

 in the argument. 



Mr. Metcalf. Senator Murkowski, I think that obviously there 

 are several scenarios. It has never been our intention to close the 

 pulp mills through H.R. 987, and I do not think that they would be 

 closed. 



CRS estimated that, if there were any awards of damages, it 

 would be $25 to $125 million. I think that it is important to recog- 

 nize that those jobs would still be there, the timber would still be 

 there, that the forest simply would be managed on a more multiple 

 use keel than what it is now. 



