84 



For example, regarding the Alaska Pulp and Ketchikan Pulp 



contracts, the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 



wrote : 



The Committee considers termination of the 

 long-term contracts to be an appropriate 

 exercise of the federal government's power to 

 protect the public interest and that, 

 pursuant to 'sovereign act' immunity, no 

 damages shall be paid to an PC or KPC. 



H.R. Rep. No. 101-84, 101st Cong., Sess. at 24 (June 13, 1989). 



While ultimately the contracts were unilaterally modified by 



Congress rather than terminated, the assertion of the sovereign 



acts doctrine is likewise ineffective. This is particularly true 



when the statute is directed at an individual contract despite 



self-serving legislative pronouncements to the contrary that the 



legislation is "public and general." 



The Winstar decision holds that unless contracts 

 explicitly provide otherwise, the government bears the risk of 

 statutory and regulatory changes that preclude completion of the 

 contract. This is the case for the majority of timber sale 

 contracts in the West and will strengthen timber purchaser's 

 contract claims against the government. 



I am not alone in concluding that the Winstar case will 

 strengthen, rather than weaken the timber contractors' arguments 

 that regulatory changes affecting its contracts amount to a 

 breach. This position is supported by the Forest Service's own 

 analysis of its contract, by the National Forest Management Act, 

 and by Federal Court of Federal Claims and Board of Contract 



-6- smi\iiwhk7l96 



