to the attention of Congress, working to bring it to the attention 

 of Members of Congress back home in their districts. And their po- 

 sition was flat out cancellation. And we made a decision at that 

 time that what we would do is we would work with the people in 

 Southeast Alaska, with the varied interests, and we would try to 

 come to some kind of an agreement for the reform of the timbering 

 practices on the Tongass. And that was in fact accomplished. That 

 was accomplished with a great deal of input by yourself and by the 

 senators from Alaska. 



What we have been handed in this legislation is an essential — 

 a dual track, here. I won't reclaim that which they have sued for 

 or force them to reclaim that which they lost in the Acts of Con- 

 gress with the Tongass Reform Act. And what we don't know, what 

 is not answered in this legislation is whether or not in fact this is 

 all necessary for the economic viability of KPC. I would suggest 

 that in fact this legislation — and I think some people suggested 

 this also in the hearings yesterday in the Senate. In fact, this legis- 

 lation substantially overreaches if it is to address that problem. 



But I think it is also very clear that this legislation as it is cur- 

 rently written, I would believe, is going to be not only unacceptable 

 to a bipartisan majority in this House, but I think clearly already 

 we have strong indications that this is strongly opposed at this 

 stage by the Administration. And so I think that not only do we 

 have to look at the contents of this legislation and the claims and 

 the merits of those claims, I think you also better be careful about 

 the process. 



If people believe for the moment that they can use the claims of 

 the imminent shutdown as a reason by which we will slam dunk 

 this legislation or somehow add this in conference committee to the 

 Parks Bill or to some other vehicle, I think at that point you are 

 probably just inviting a veto, and we would be no further along 

 after these deliberations than we were before they began. 



And so with that, I look forward to the hearing, but I do so with 

 a rather skeptical frame of mind at this point that this is the only 

 legislation or this is the only means by which this company has the 

 ability to stay in business. I have to tell you as one who represents 

 a district — and I am sure many other Congressmen and Members 

 of Congress share this. A lot of companies in this country have 

 made some very difficult choices about whether or not they can 

 continue to stay in business or not, and they didn't have the luxury 

 and their workers didn't have the luxury of somehow believing that 

 they could simply get the Federal Government to hand over the re- 

 sources and to let them run in a manner that they would be able 

 to run in a competitive economic atmosphere. 



And so I think that this bill is going to be measured and the 

 claims here are going to be measured by what many Members have 

 experienced in their own districts with respect to difficult and 

 tough economic choices that companies have had to make and com- 

 munities have had to make. Thank you. 



The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. I might suggest one thing. 

 At least you are not shutting the door completely. I would like to 

 see some suggestions on legislation. I know my goal is to keep the 

 city viable, not a dying city like other cities in Southeast Alaska. 

 Regardless of what testimony we heard, I can read the reports of 



