the Tongass, nor are we here to discuss the harvest level. The Fed- 

 eral land-planning process is doing that. We are not here to discuss 

 the conditions of the harvest. This bill concerns none of these is- 

 sues. This is not the usual Tongass debate. I suggest that if you 

 want to debate any of these issues, save your breath for TLMP. 



I want to be very clear on that point, because testimony address- 

 ing any Tongass issues other than the contract extensions are not 

 relevant. I hope that witnesses do not waste their time or my time 

 on irrelevant testimony. It does not serve the process. It does not 

 serve the committee's needs. It is irrelevant testimony that wastes 

 time that Ketchikan doesn't have the time to waste. 



To me this is a moral issue. People said in 1989 and 1990 that 

 the situation we face today in Tongass would not occur. When I 

 look around this room, I see subjects in this room today that told 

 me, sat down in my office and said this would not occur. I happen 

 to know there are a few old-fashioned people who believe their 

 word is their word is their word and a commitment is a commit- 

 ment is a commitment. But now that I'm older it shows me very 

 little. And that includes this Administration and those people with- 

 in the Administration. 



KPC is the only large mill in the Tongass. It is responsible for 

 employing 1200-plus ifSaskans. KPC's new management has come 

 to the Congress with a request. They want to improve their mill 

 by building a chlorine free pulp process, the second such system in 

 the nation. I want to stress the second such system in the nation. 

 They want to make the facility more energy efficient. Doing so will 

 cost about $175 to $200 million. They need a reasonably secure 

 timber supply for 23 years to get financing for the mill improve- 

 ments. Their only viable timber supply comes from Federal 

 Tongass forest. Their timber request is well within the maximum 

 sustainable harvest level for the Tongass, even the maximum al- 

 lowed by the pending Tongass Land Plan Revision. Even with the 

 extension, the independent timber program would still have to 

 have an adequate supply for its needs. The Governor of Alaska and 

 the State legislature support this extension. 



Frankly, my friends, this is a no-brainer. Unless someone does 

 really want — does not want timber harvested in the Tongass, and 

 I know all of those that do not want it harvested at all, we should 

 pass this bill. 



This hearing is to address the contract changes in the bill. I en- 

 courage witnesses to keep their testimony and answers on the 

 point. The contract changes ordered by the 1990 Tongass Timber 

 Reform Act are in a large part responsible for the closure of the 

 Alaska pulp mill. They are responsible for a 42 percent decline in 

 Southeast Alaska timber jobs. I don't want to see that repeated by 

 the performance at KPC mill. 



The unfair, unilateral contract changes ordered by TTRA still 

 plague the Ketchikan Pulp Company. They are addressed in my 

 bill and my intent is to make sure the contract is commercially via- 

 ble and fair. 



Imagine if you owned a house backed by a Federal loan. What 

 would you think if the government said we are going to change the 

 terms of your loan, instead of six percent your interest rate is now 

 eight, it will never go down but we can increase it again when we 



