79 



My name is Scott Horngren. I am a partner in the law 

 firm of Haglund & Kirtley of Portland, Oregon. Our firm 

 represents timber sale purchasers throughout the west who hold 

 Forest Service timber sale contracts. I am testifying on behalf 

 of the Northwest Forest Resource Council, a coalition of timber 

 trade associations comprised of over 90% of federal timber 

 purchasers in the Pacific Northwest. Our firm has represented 

 timber sale contractors in the United States Court of Federal 

 Claims, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, and the 

 Agricultural Board of Contract Appeals. 



I am here today to discuss the implications of the 

 recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. Winstar 

 Corporation . No. 95-865, 1996 U.S. LEXIS 4266 (July 1, 1996), as 

 it relates to Forest Service timber sale contacts. The Winstar 

 case is a culmination of over a half decade of litigation over 

 government contract liability for statutory and regulatory 

 changes to minimum capital standards for saving and loan 

 associations. These changes effectively caused the demise of 

 numerous savings and loan associations including two of the 

 plaintiffs in Winstar . The Winstar decision has implications 

 throughout the government contracting field, and for federal 

 timber sale contracts in particular. 



Federal timber purchasers are being boTibarded by 

 regulatory and policy changes. These changes include adoption of 

 the President's Northwest Forest Plan that essentially prohibits 

 harvest in late successional reserves, establishes vast buffer 



- 1 - SKK\Swh)f7796 



