17 



islation, not just criticism, as I told Mr. Lyons, suggestions on how 

 to improve. The same thing for the gentleman from California. If 

 there is a way we can improve this act, because all I am trying to 

 do is keep the city alive — the company, with all due respects, as 

 they did in Sitka — Mr. Miller, your friend George, you know quite 

 well, Ishiama walked away. It didn't cost him a nickel. The com- 

 pany didn't — they just walked away from the town. Now it is slow- 

 ly becoming an old city. 



Mr. Miller. Would the Chairman yield? 



The Chairman. That is right. I will even give you a minute. I 

 know you won't admit it. 



Mr. Miller. Well, I just — on this point, because I think maybe 

 it goes to the crux of the problem, and I think the reason that the 

 Administration is having a problem responding here is, as I think 

 Secretary Lyons pointed out, what are the ground rules. If the 

 ground rules are that you are going to have consideration or enter- 

 tainment, or whatever the words are you want to use, of contract 

 extension, if the ground rules are it is going to be done within the 

 Tongass Reform Act, that is one thing. If it is going to be done in 

 the context of this legislation, it then starts providing rather sub- 

 stantial rewrites of the Tongass, that is a different thing. 



And that, as I understand it, the Administration is opposed to. 

 And the question at some point, I think, that maybe will not be re- 

 solved at this hearing, but has to be resolved. The point is what 

 are those ground rules. Is KPC prepared to live within the Tongass 

 Reform Act? And does the Tongass Reform Act allow you to meet 

 your contractual obligations? The fact that the cost is somewhat 

 higher may or may not be relevant. It may or may not be, because 

 it may go to the issue of whether we can operate in that business 

 environment. 



But by the same token, we have some obligation as the trustees 

 here not to simply give away the public's resources when in fact at 

 one time or another — it may not be in this volime, but including 

 the market from time to time generates a substantial amount of 

 revenues from these very same resources. That is the problem we 

 are grappling with here. 



I think what is suggested by Mr. Lj^ons and what is suggested 

 by myself and some others that are concerned is that this bill isn't 

 about a simple extension of that contract so you could amortize 

 your investment over some known period. It is more than that. And 

 if those are crucial to the extension, then I don't know that the ex- 

 tension can be had from the testimony of Mr. Lyons or from what 

 I understand the position is of the Administration. And that is 

 the — at some point it has got to be sorted out. 



The Chairman. Mr. Miller, I can say one thing. If I thought for 

 a moment this Administration was serious, really woula consider 

 and offer me some advice, I would be greatly pleased. Very frankly, 

 my bill was started as any piece of legislature. You see something 

 wrong with it, but I have yet to hear from the Administration what 

 will make this work to keep that city alive. Now if they want to 

 kill the city, tell me. That is all I am saying. If you want that city 

 to go down, if you want the timber — don't tell me, Mr. Janik — I 

 watched Sitka go down and it is down. 



