40 



I have a company here that has a lower debt ratio than most of 

 the people in their industry. I appreciate that this bill may be mar- 

 ginal, but the question is are there other concessions that can be 

 made by others to increase the marginal capability of this bill. And 

 if in fact there is a problem within the Tongass reform, that will 

 be discussed too. But what we are stating — what we are being told 

 here is it is a full rewrite of the Tongass, but I appreciate the buff- 

 er zones and not emasculating the fish. I mean, you have to try to 

 keep some local base. It is this rewrite — we have to go back to $2 

 timber or you guys can't play. Well, then we have got to ask our- 

 selves is that a subsidy that the people of the United States desire 

 to engage in. The answer may be yes from your perspective, and 

 I don't know what my perspective is. It sounds a little rich to me 

 when there are other people that can diwy up. This is how you end 

 up with Federal deficits. It somehow becomes our problem. 



The Chairman. Well, you have got my bill. It will solve the whole 

 problem. 



Mr. Lewis. One thing, the 300 million that Mr. Janik had talked 

 about earlier as being available or potential on the Tongass Land 

 Management Plan, • that produces and should produce approxi- 

 mately a minimum of maybe $70 million into the Federal coffers. 

 That is through income tax of the workers. That is through other 

 taxes. That doesn't take the product and take it on and on and on 

 in through the system. That just takes your very first vendors. 

 That more than pays for the Forest Service's budget on handling 

 the timber. Any stumpage that comes after that is a bonus. 



And the Forest Service can manage that number to the point 

 that they want to. They can manage at the base rates. They can 

 manage it to $100. They can manage it to $200. That is their 

 choice. Their choice has been in the past to manage it to base rates, 

 to management to minimums, because they have put as much pro- 

 tection into the environment as they can, as much protection out 

 there as they can. They would rather take the stumpage money 

 and put it back into the land. And all of us thought that was the 

 way to go. We thought that is the way it should be managed. But 

 instead, all of a sudden we get groups that came up that said that 

 is not the way it should be managed. And it has confused all of us. 

 It has confused every one of us, not to understand exactly what's 

 wanted or needed. 



Mr. Miller. And that is why we have gone through the process 

 to determine. 



Mr. Lewis. Yeah, but what you guys did was turn around and 

 assume that the $2 at base rate was something that we had some- 

 thing to do with, that we chose to do that, and turned around and 

 unilaterally changed our contract. And that was wrong, because 

 that is not what was happening. It was not in our power to do that. 

 That wasn't something that we were doing. It was what the Forest 

 Service was doing. And so we got blamed for it and we got turned 

 around and you took away any profit that — any chance for us to 

 make a dollar and have a return. And all we have asked to do so 

 that we can continue to operate is to come forward and make those 

 changes back so we can survive and have an industry. And right 

 now the way it is going, it is very difficult. We can't survive with- 



