38 



Mr. Miller. You know, if the threat of 1.4 billion or whatever 

 the threat is, you know, that that is somehow going to drive this 

 legislation or the threat to go out of business, I think the first thing 

 we have to know as policymakers is kind of why is this taking 

 place. You said it is a difference in the volume of timber being of- 

 fered and what you could have previously had. The Secretary was 

 here saying we are going to meet our contractual commitments 

 under the contract. You are suing suggesting they are not. Some- 

 body else is suing suggesting they are going too far. And so in the 

 middle of all this, we are told that but for this legislation, this mill 

 is going to close down. I say, well, how can that be if there are 

 other people who have a vital interest, supposedly, in this city of 

 Ketchikan, the region of Southeast Alaska and the State of Alaska? 

 Where are they? 



Mr. Lewis. And I guess the answer to that would be with the ex- 

 tension and having a timber base, they would be more than willing 

 to probably loan us that money. 



Mr. Miller. And that is what the Secretary is telling you, you 

 are going to have the timber base. They just sat here an hour and 

 a half 



Mr. Lewis. No, they — what has happened is, you know, you have 

 got to know one thing. There really wasn't any claims and there 

 wasn't any filings in the court. This 1.4 billion came about through 

 the contract changes that were unilaterally made to the contracts. 

 That is where the 1.4 billion came from. It was from the arbitrary 

 change in those contracts. And that is why we are in court. What 

 we are trying to do here is to stop that. We only — all we have tried 

 to do with this language is to put back those changes that were 

 made in the unilateral contract, only on our contract, not on the 

 lands, to stop those claims and at the same time show that what 

 we need is a 15-year extension to be able to become modern, to be 

 able to go forward. 



Mr. Miller. With all due respect, that contract was reprehen- 

 sible to the — repugnant to the American people. That is what I am 

 saying. That is the only terms and conditions under which this bill 

 can operate. As you saw in previous Congresses, the decision was 

 that price was too high. Now maybe if there is a case here about 

 unilateral alteration of the contract, maybe we have to just let this 

 contract run out in 2004 and cut our losses in terms of public re- 

 source. 



Mr. Lewis. You know, that doesn't help the people that are up 

 there. That doesn't help anything else. The return to the govern- 

 ment is in the hands of the Forest Service. The return in the gov- 

 ernment dictates the type of operation, sale operation that they are 

 going to have, what the costs are going to be in removing that tim- 

 ber. Their choice has been 



Mr. Miller. But you are pitting that against what you say is re- 

 quired in terms of your investment. If you have to make this in- 

 vestment, you cannot do so under the current rules and regula- 

 tions. 



Mr. Lewis. Under the 



Mr. Miller. And the suggestion that — and all I am asking is are 

 there other people that can chip into this in terms of the State, the 

 region or the city, that can allow that to take place? 



