[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 91 (Thursday, July 14, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3937, EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 
                                  1994

  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 474 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                              H. Res. 474

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3937) entitled the ``Export Administration Act 
     of 1994''. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and the 
     amendments made in order by this resolution and shall not 
     exceed ninety minutes, with fifteen minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs, fifteen minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Armed Services, fifteen minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary, fifteen minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Public Works and 
     Transportation, fifteen minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on on Ways and Means, and fifteen minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     committee amendments now printed in the bill, it shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 4663. 
     That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered by title rather than by section, and each title 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment directly or indirectly changing section 
     111(c)(2)(B)(iii), 111(d)(4)(F), 111(e)(3), or 226(b)(8) of 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as 
     original text shall be in order. No amendment affecting the 
     subject of timber shall be in order. It shall be in order to 
     consider the amendments printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution only in the 
     order printed. Each amendment printed in the report may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against the amendments printed in the report are 
     waived. If more than one of the amendments printed in the 
     report is adopted, only the last to be adopted shall be 
     considered as finally adopted and reported to the House. 
     Except as provided in section 2 of this resolution, no other 
     amendment (other than a further amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute) may directly or indirectly change a portion of 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as 
     original text addressed by an amendment printed in the 
     report. Except as provided in section 3, no other amendment 
     to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text shall be in order unless printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for 
     that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII before the 
     commencement of consideration of the bill. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been finally adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment finally adopted in the Committee of the Whole to 
     the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     made in order as original text. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. It shall be in order immediately after the 
     disposition of the amendments printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution to consider 
     additional amendments directly or indirectly changing a 
     portion of the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text addressed by an amendment printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by a 
     Member designated jointly by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services. All points of order against such additional 
     amendments are waived.
       Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman 
     of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or a designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments otherwise in 
     order to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text or germane modifications of any such 
     amendment. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this 
     section shall be considered as read (except that 
     modifications shall be reported), shall be debatable for ten 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the committee of the Whole. For the purpose of inclusion in 
     such amendments en bloc, an amendment printed in the form of 
     a motion to strike may be modified to the form of a germane 
     perfecting amendment to the text originally proposed to be 
     stricken. All points of order against such amendments en bloc 
     are waived. The original proponent of an amendment included 
     in such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the 
     Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of 
     the amendment en bloc.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, export control laws are designed to keep potentially 
dangerous technologies out of the hands of nations that threaten the 
entire international community.
  H.R. 3937 takes a major step forward in export control policy by 
shifting our focus from an outdated cold war framework to the new 
threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
  This is an important issue and an important bill and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 474 is a modified open rule for 
consideration of H.R. 3937, the Export Administration Act of 1994.
  The rule provides a total of 90 minutes of general debate to be 
divided between the six committees with jurisdiction over the bill.
  The rule makes in order the text of H.R. 4663 as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment. This compromise text represents an agreement 
between the various committees of jurisdiction.
  Under the rule, this compromise bill would be open to amendment at 
any point, with two exceptions:
  First, the rule does not allow amendments on the sections of the bill 
reported by the Ways and Means Committee--these provisions deal with 
sanctions.
  Second, the rule prohibits amendments affecting the subject of 
timber.
  The Rules Committee felt it best to leave undisturbed the timber 
provisions reported by the Foreign Affairs Committee, and consequently, 
consciously chose the very broad language of this prohibition.
  The use of the word affecting reflects a judgment that the rule 
should foreclose not only amendments making explicit references to 
timber per se, but also amendments that have effects on timber 
different from those proposed in the original--text substitute that was 
derived from the product of committee deliberations.
  The rule also requires that all amendments be printed in the 
Congressional Record prior to consideration of the bill.
  The rule establishes an orderly procedure for consideration of the 
matters in dispute between the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Armed 
Services Committee. The rule provides for the consideration of the 
Dellums and Hamilton amendments under a king-of-the-hill procedure.
  If the matters in disagreement are resolved, the rule allows the 
bipartisan leadership of the two committees to offer an en bloc 
amendment consisting of the compromise text.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Bellevue, WA [Ms. Dunn].
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill for the Export 
Administration Act and ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, may I say that the gentleman from Tennessee 
has done a good job in explaining one of the most complicated rules to 
come before the House in a long time.
  I hope that Members will not oppose this rule, because it represents 
the best that could be done under the difficult circumstances that 
surround the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the Export Administration Act has always presented 
difficulties on the floor of the House because it is an extraordinarily 
important statute which happens also to be highly technical in nature 
and something that does not lend itself to superficial analysis or 
debate.
  The Export Administration Act sets forth the policies, procedures, 
and institutional oversight concerning the export of so-called dual-use 
items--civilian products, commodities, or technologies that have 
potential for military applications.
  In controlling the export of such dual-use items, an appropriate 
balance must be struck between the absolute imperative of protecting 
the security of the country and the legitimate needs of the U.S. 
community to remain competitive in international markets.
  It might be said that this rule has to strike a balance, too.
  And without repeating everything that was said by the gentleman from 
Tennessee, I would like to comment on at least one of its most 
important aspects.
  Members are aware that the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Armed 
Services have taken sharply divergent positions on the question of 
which Federal department should have primary responsibility for 
handling the export licensing review process--indeed, this is one of 
the most important issues affecting the entire bill.
  The rule now before us seeks to settle this controversy by means of a 
king-of-the-hill procedure.
  First, the House will have a 60-minute debate and a vote on a package 
of en bloc amendments to be presented by the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Then, the House will have a 60-minute debate and a vote on a package 
of amendments to be presented by the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. Speaker, the important thing is this: Every Member will have the 
chance to cast a clean-cut cote--up or down--on the Armed Services 
proposals that make the Defense Department a co-equal partner with the 
Commerce Department in handling the export licensing review process.
  If the Armed Services amendment passes and the Foreign Affairs 
amendment does not, the bill will be substantially improved.
  Indeed, I believe that the uncertainties of the times and the 
complexity of modern technology argue for greater participation by the 
Defense Department, not less.
  But if the House chooses to pass both the Armed Services and the 
Foreign Affairs amendments, the net effect will be to move the bill at 
least some distance away from its present position that favors the 
Commerce Department so decisively.
  In any event, the rule provides us with a means of sorting out these 
questions--and for that reason I can forgo my usual opposition to king-
of-the-hill procedures.
  Mr. Speaker, it mut also be pointed out that the rule provides the 
Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs with the right to 
offer a compromise amendment on export licensing if they can somehow 
work out their differences.
  In addition, I believe it is worth noting that the rule does not--
repeat, does not--impose any time limit on the consideration of 
amendments under the 5-minute rule.
  So long as amendments are germane and have been printed in the 
Congressional Record prior to consideration of the bill, there is no 
time limit placed on their consideration under the regular 5-minute 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend the rest of my time addressing the 
specific concerns I have concerning the bill this rule makes in order.
  H.R. 3937, as reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
represents a fundamental shift in the way America will seek to control 
the export of dual-use items.
  The single most important element in this bill is the establishment 
of a statutory relationship or integration between U.S. policies on the 
export of dual-use items and the policies maintained by the 
multilateral export control regimes of which the United States is a 
member.
  In other words, from here on out, our Government will be relying 
almost exclusively on a multilateral approach for the establishment and 
enforcement of export control policies.
  This causes me great concern, Mr. Speaker, especially when I observe 
the performance of an administration that seems to view multilateral 
organizations as a substitute for U.S. leadership--instead of places 
where America must lead.
  Many of the provisions in this bill will have to be subject to 
further multilateral negotiations before they can be implemented, and 
they will have to be reinforced constantly and consistently in order to 
be effective thereafter.
  Is the Clinton administration up to this kind of challenge? Frankly, 
I doubt it.
  One need only look at the floundering attempts to establish a new 
consultative organization among the major Western industrial 
democracies to see that a multilateral approach to export controls, as 
envisioned in this bill, is the equivalent of hanging out a fire sale 
sign.
  Then there is the whole issue I mentioned earlier: The question of 
which Federal department should be the lead agency in this new process.
  This bill would give the Commerce Department almost exclusive 
control, and that really alarms me.
  During the 1980's, I found the Export Licensing Office at Commerce to 
be a shoestring operation more suited for a Charles Dickens story than 
for keeping up with the analytical demands imposed by modern technology 
and the multitude of dangerous places to which such technology can be 
diverted.
  Does the Commerce Department have the qualified personnel, the data 
base, the technical infrastructure and, most importantly, the 
commitment to undertake these new responsibilities? Frankly, I doubt 
that too.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, I seriously question whether our Government 
presently has either the political will or the administrative know-how 
to make good on the multilateral approach to export controls that this 
bill sets up.
  Our country has already fought one war against a dictatorship that 
managed to arm itself with military aid and dual-use technology from 
Western sources.
  And unless Members think the United States can afford to conduct 
another operation Desert Storm any time soon, they had better take 
another look at this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I have grave reservations about much that is contained 
in this bill.
  But debate in the House must go forward. I hope Members will not 
oppose this rule, which was put together in a very painstaking process 
in order to be fair to all committees involved.

 Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on Motions to H.R. 3937, Export 
               Administration Act of 1994--July 12, 1994

       1. Highest vote wins on King-Of-The-Hill--(Vote: Defeated 
     4-5). Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays--Moakley, 
     Derrick, Beilenson, Bonior, Gordon. Not voting: Frost, Hall, 
     Wheat, Slaughter.

                                  OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Open rules       Restrictive rules
                      Congress (years)                       Total rules ---------------------------------------
                                                              granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).............................................          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).............................................          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).............................................          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).............................................          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).............................................          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)............................................          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)............................................          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).............................................          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).............................................           75      17         23       58         77 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
  the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of     
  order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.                            
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is    
  otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
  of total rules granted.                                                                                       
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called 
  modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for           
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are        
  restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.                                                        
                                                                                                                
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''   
  Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through July 12, 1994.                                                        


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).        
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994......  O         H.R. 2442: EDA                 N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).    
                                           Reauthorization.                                                                                             
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,  
                                           Protection.                                                                  1994).                          
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994.....  O         H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).    
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 2108: Black Lung          4 (D-1; R-3)....  N/A.......................  A: VV (May 19, 1994).            
                                           Benefits Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   173 (D-115; R-    ..........................  A: 369-49 (May 18, 1994).        
                                           1995.                          58).                                                                          
H. Res. 431, May 20, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   ................  100 (D-80; R-20)..........  A: Voice Vote (May 23, 1994).    
                                           1995.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 440, May 24, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4385: Natl Hiway System   16 (D-10; R-6)..  5 (D-5; R-0)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 25, 1994).    
                                           Designation.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 443, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4426: For. Ops. Approps,  39 (D-11; R-28).  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 233-191 A: 244-181 (May 25,  
                                           FY 1995.                                                                     1994).                          
H. Res. 444, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4454: Leg Branch Approp,  43 (D-10; R-33).  12 (D-8; R-4).............  A: 249-177 (May 26, 1994).       
                                           FY 1995.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 447, June 8, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4539: Treasury/Postal     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 236-177 (June 9, 1994).       
                                           Approps 1995.                                                                                                
H. Res. 467, June 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4600: Expedited           N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Rescissions Act.                                                                                             
H. Res. 468, June 28, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4299: Intelligence        N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Auth., FY 1995.                                                                                              
H. Res. 474, July 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3937: Export Admin. Act   N/A.............  ..........................  .................................
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 475, July 12, 1994....  O         H.R. 1188: Anti-Redlining in   N/A.............  ..........................  .................................
                                           Ins.                                                                                                         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Gordon] for yielding a generous amount of time.
  This is an extraordinarily important issue which I will bring before 
the House to the people of the Pacific Northwest and indeed to the 
people of America, goes to the future of our forest resources and the 
future of the lumber and sawmill industry in the Northwest. I had 
intended to offer a totally germane amendment to the Export 
Administration Act pertaining to the export of raw logs, finding there 
was a critical short supply of raw logs in the Pacific Northwest and at 
that point directing the Secretary of Commerce, as the law provides, to 
restrict such export.
  This, as the gentleman said, is a very complicated rule. It is the 
most unusual and discriminatory rule I have seen in my years in the 
House. It is, as the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] requested, 
nearly an open rule with the exception of the complicated amendments 
for DOD. It is an open rule with one exception. This rule says that no 
amendment relating to the subject of timber shall be in order. That is 
quite unusual, to say the best. The intent of that rule and the intent 
of that gag order is to keep me and some other interested Members from 
offering an amendment to stop exporting our logs overseas while we 
close mills in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, in the Pacific Northwest we have 434 sawmills, and we 
are the timber breadbasket of the world. We are the timber breadbasket 
of the world. Strangely enough, in Japan, where they do not harvest a 
single tree, 16,000 sawmills are operating, and they are operating 
principally with logs exported from the Pacific Northwest. The price of 
lumber, as we heard earlier, has gone up dramatically. We need to deal 
with the situation.
  The Japanese allow our logs in without restriction, without barrier, 
without tariff, but our more efficient sawmills are not allowed by 
tariff and nontariff barriers to bring their lumber and sawmill 
products, their processed products, their manufactured products, 
products that are employing working Americans into their country. My 
colleagues will hear later how there is a great effort to get our 
lumber products into Japan. We are spending less lumber products into 
Japan today than we did in 1989.
  Are we going to keep acting like a colony? Are we going to keep 
giving them the logs, or are we going to stand up for the industrial 
interests and working people of this country?
  This is a rare moment. This is a moment where labor and environmental 
groups stand together. They both wish to see this amendment voted upon.
  I do not know what the concern is, why after I submitted testimony to 
the Committee on Rules, no one testified against the open rule, no one 
testified against my proposed amendment, but strangely enough these 
words appear in this rule: No amendment regarding timber. Why is it 
that some powerful interests in this House are afraid of having a vote 
on this issue. I ask,

       Don't they think they can win this issue? Don't they think 
     they can make the argument that timber isn't in short supply 
     in the Pacific Northwest? Don't they think they can make the 
     argument that the Japanese are great trading partners and we 
     should keep giving them our logs and keep letting them 
     discriminate against our finished products?

  Of course not. It is absurd. They would be laughed out of here. 
People would want to stand up, for once, for America and for our 
resources.

  I would like to insert into the Record a letter from a mill owner in 
my district who previously opposed restrictions on these log exports 
and now exports them and is operating only today with logs purchased 
off export docks in Washington State because the Japanese are in a 
recession, and their market is down, and, as soon as their market goes 
back up, his mill will close along with dozens of other mills in the 
Pacific Northwest.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. I particularly urge 
my Republican colleagues who normally oppose restrictive rules to be 
consistent and oppose this rule. This is a gag order. One subject and 
one subject only will not come before this House, an important subject, 
whether or not the United States will be an industrial nation and will 
stand up to the unfair trade practices of Japan and whether or not we 
will husband these resources and put Americans to work.
  This is not an issue of small wood lot owners. It is an interest of 
the largest log exporting corporation in America. Those small wood lot 
owners would come out whole if we kept these logs, and the price of 
stumpage will never come down again. We are headed toward an indefinite 
shortage of logs. There will be no harvest on Federal lands for the 
indefinite future. They will make money beyond their wildest dreams of 
a few years ago. So, this is not going to disadvantage small wood lot 
owners, but it will disadvantage some very powerful log exporting 
interests, and it will disadvantage the Japanese and their restrictive 
barriers against our finished wood products.

                                                      May 9, 1994.
     Congressman Peter DeFazio,
     Longworth House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Peter: As I have told you several times in the past, I 
     am philosophically opposed to the limitation of log exports. 
     I also felt that the type of logs being exported were not the 
     kind we could use and I also thought that the exporting 
     companies would not sell their logs to us but would withhold 
     them from the market.
       I was wrong on all counts. We have been existing almost 
     entirely on export quality logs purchased from the exporters 
     since last July when the export market crashed. We would have 
     been all through by now if this hadn't happened. The size and 
     quality of logs has been similar to what we had been buying 
     on Government sales and the price we paid has allowed us to 
     operate at a profit.
       We realize that this is a short term phenomena and when 
     ever the Japanese decide to return to the market it will be 
     all over.
       I have read your proposed legislation and I agree it is 
     something that is sorely needed to tide us over until some 
     sense can be returned to the Federal timber sale program. I 
     still think that the ultimate solution lies in a sensible 
     sale of Public timber on a sustained yield basis.
       In the interim, you have my full support on your proposed 
     bill.

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], our minority whip.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to report to the House it is my 
understanding, checking with our wise colleagues on our side on the 
Committee on Rules, that on all of the basic, substantive matters in 
which, for example, the Committee on Armed Services asked for a very 
broad range of amendments to be made in order, they were made in order.
  I just wanted to say to my colleague from Oregon [Mr. Kopetski], that 
if at any time we had ever had his help in voting against any of the 
gag rules and restrictive rules which we had opposed, I would be 
sympathetic. In this case I suggest to you this is a good educational 
experience for you. You might in the future join us in voting for open 
rules, but I would urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' tonight.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from 
Georgia for his very artful statement.
  I just want to stand up here and tell you a little bit about log 
exports in the Pacific Northwest. I want to make sure that all my 
colleagues know a couple major facts:
  This Congress has passed restrictions so that all Federal logs off of 
our Federal lands stay at home. And a few years ago, under the 
leadership of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] and the members 
of the Washington-Oregon delegation, we passed a second law that said 
all of our State logs stay at home.
  We basically said that all public logs off of public lands will stay 
home and be available to the industries of the Northwest. We drew the 
line there because we felt that the private property owners, the small 
wood lot owners of the Northwest who own this property and have one 
chance every 50 years or so to harvest it, had a right to sell it where 
they could make the most money. I mean, this is a basic private 
property right.
  I think we as a Congress should not get into the middle of this. We 
have got a whole short supply legislation. It is already on the books. 
It is very carefully drawn, so that when the Secretary of Commerce gets 
a petition, he holds a hearing, he hears all the evidence.
  What the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] is doing is prejudging 
the entire matter. He is saying that there is not to be any weighing of 
the evidence, there is not to be any hearings, there is not to be any 
administrative hearing, to determine whether in fact there is a 
requirement for this to be imposed. He just imposes it.
  That is why the entire Northwest delegation, I believe, opposes what 
the gentleman is attempting to do here today.
  I think the rule is a good rule. I think the rule should be supported 
by the House. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] was the 
one who felt very strongly that he did not want this issue to entangle 
his bill. We have got to get this Export Administration Act legislation 
through the Congress. There are some very important legislative 
provisions in the bill.
  So I want to say again to my colleagues, we have restricted all 
public logs. We have kept those at home. We have made a judgment that 
private logs, the private landowner, ought to be able to export those 
logs, if that is where the best market is.
  I think, frankly, what the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] does 
almost violates GATT, because in a sense, what it does is subsidize 
some of the mills in his area. What he wants to do, frankly, to get it 
right down on the table, is take logs from Washington State and move 
them down to Oregon. If I were in his shoes, I would probably be doing 
the same thing. But we would just like to keep our logs where they are 
and let our little wood lot owners and some of our major companies 
export them, if that is what they want. I hope that they keep a lot of 
those logs at home.
  In fact, when you look at the facts, when they cut down an area, 
about 50 percent of it is exported, and 50 percent of it goes to these 
little mills that the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] says he wants 
to help.
  So they are benefited by the fact that a Weyerhauser is exporting. 
Because when they export, they also provide logs to the local mills, 
because only 50 percent of it is exported. The other 50 percent stays 
at home.
  So I would urge the House to stay with the Northwest delegation and 
support the Committee on Rules, and protect private property rights 
again. This will be the test vote on whether you are for private 
property or not in this session of Congress.
  Thank you very much.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] the ranking member 
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 3937, the rule, 
and I want to join my colleague and friend from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
in supporting H. Res. 474, providing 90 minutes of debate and a 
preprinting requirement of H.R. 3937, the Export Administration Act of 
1994.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides time for a discussion of EAA issues 
by all committees with a jurisdictional interest in this legislation 
including Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, Judiciary, Public Works and 
Transportation, Ways and Means, and Intelligence.
  It also makes in order two omnibus amendments from the Armed Services 
Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee on the interagency process 
in controlling exports. As such, it provides both our committees with 
ample time to present their alternative approaches to reforming the 
present antiquated export control system.
  The bill we bring before you today enjoys bipartisan support and 
represents a good faith effort on the part of the many members of our 
committee to compromise their differences between proponents of license 
liberalization and advocates of greater national security controls.
  Some of the provisions in the bill reported out of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee have prompted our colleagues on the Armed Services 
Committee to propose an omnibus amendment that would greatly expand the 
role of the Secretary of Defense in the licensing and listmaking 
process, in some instances at the expense of State Department and other 
agencies.
  In an effort to bridge our differences with this committee over the 
role of the Departments of Defense and Energy in the export licensing 
process, I have actively participated in a process leading to a Foreign 
Affairs Committee substitute which narrows the key differences between 
our two committees.
  I stand ready to continue these efforts with my colleagues on both 
committees with the goal of ensuring a compromise effort that overhauls 
and streamlines our licensing system without compromising our national 
security or foreign policy interests.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule for this important 
legislation.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson].
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, this is, as the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
DeFazio] says, this is an issue that really should be roundly debated 
and should be voted on by this House.
  Now, we allow the Japanese to buy our raw products, to buy our logs, 
to buy our wood chips, when the Japanese totally deny us access to 
their markets. It is absolutely crazy for us to continue to do this.
  It is environmentally unsound for us to continue to do this. In my 
district, the Japanese are buying an immense amount of hardwood chips, 
which brings immense pressure on the forests. And, unlike what the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] said, the forests in Texas, the 
public lands, are not protected from exports. Hardwood off the public 
lands, off the four National Forests in my district, are currently 
being exported to Japan, and Japan does not allow us to bid on one ton 
of paper, one package of plywood, or one board foot to lumber. That is 
extremely important.
  I would further like to say, and I think it is the real crux of the 
matter, the major timber companies of the Northwest closed their mills, 
they blamed the spotted owl, and then they sent their logs to Japan. It 
is an unspeakably stupid situation that Americans have placed 
themselves in.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I would just correct the record. I mean, most 
of our major companies have not shut down. There have been some small 
independent companies that have shut down, and that is a big pain and 
very difficult thing for me to accept. That is why we have kept the 
public logs at home off of our State lands to try and help them out.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is only in the 
west. That is not in Texas. I have been unable to get that provision 
added. But my district is full of small independent mills that have 
come there because of shortage of timber from your district, or from 
the Northwest.
  I would also like to say that the gentleman from Washington has 
represented this as being an issue on which the Northwest delegation is 
totally united. I would point out that certainly the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] and the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] 
would represent the Northwest as well, and certainly they are not 
together on this.
  But the important thing is that we blame the spotted owl, we blame 
environmental concerns, for the shortage of timber, for the shortage of 
jobs. And at the same time we do that, we are exporting an enormous 
amount of raw timber to Japan, who will not give us access to their 
markets. Therefore, I oppose this rule.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  As the gentleman from Texas just said, there is far from unanimity 
among northwestern Members of Congress. I am in opposition to this rule 
and its exclusion of a discussion regarding logging exports. Quite 
frankly, I was surprised to see that out of all the commodities that 
are affected by this legislation, only timber was selected out for the 
gag order. I certainly have to ask why that gag was put forward and I 
hope my inquiry will produce a plausible explanation.
  Could it be that the managers of the ultimate legislation are not 
aware of the constant controversy that surrounds timber harvest in the 
Pacific Northwest? Could it be that there is someone out there or even 
more importantly in here that does not know that large timber 
corporations are squeezing out independent mill operators and doing it 
through exports and underbidding for sales of Federal timber? Have some 
folks not heard that the Japanese are hoarding our raw logs in their 
harbors at the same time that they are trying to reform America's 
timber management policies?
  Could it be that some of our colleagues do not know that more than 
twice as many jobs are created in the manufacturing and processing of 
wood products compared to the number of jobs associated with the export 
of American logs?
  Perhaps some Members of the House do not understand that the 
injustice and the tragedy of the northwest timber crisis does not fall 
just on the land and the despoiling of the land, but in the small towns 
and small mills that suffer now as a result of earlier administration 
policies which ratcheted up timber harvesting at levels which simply 
cannot be sustained and which were in violation of United States law.
  It seems to me that the only winner on the silencing of the very real 
interests facing my State and the West is the large timber corporate 
interests that want us to set conservation policy on the needs of their 
bottom line.
  And so I call, as does the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], for 
at least the opportunity to present the case that the majority of our 
constituents urge us to make.
  If my colleagues are unaware of the timber problems out West, the 
floor of the House is an excellent place to get that information. I 
urge my colleagues to reject this rule and remove the gag on our 
concerns about the continued exporting of American raw logs to the 
countries of the eastern rim.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this unfair 
rule and urge my colleagues to vote it down. This rule makes every 
amendment in order except the one offered by the gentleman from Oregon 
[Mr. DeFazio], dealing with timber exports. We can and should defeat it 
and tell the Committee on Rules to come back with a truly open rule. It 
seems to me that if we want to do an open rule, let us do an open rule. 
If we want to do a closed rule, let us do a closed rule. But let us not 
do a rule which is wide open with the exception of one issue which is 
of great importance to one section of our country and to millions of 
our citizens.
  Mr. DeFazio's amendment is an eminently sensible one. It will allow 
us to deal with the antieconomic and antienvironmental practice of 
exporting our timber as raw logs, rather than creating jobs by 
processing them here at home. This amendment protects both workers and 
the environment. And I should tell my New England colleagues that the 
problem it deals with is not just in the Pacific Northwest--it is a 
growing problem for us in the northeast as well.
  More and more logs, especially of valuable hardwoods, are being 
exported from New England to Europe, Japan, and to Third World 
countries. Timber industry workers in Vermont have told us how logs are 
being shipped across the border to Canada, and then returning to us as 
processed wood products--undercutting their jobs. It is time to stop 
this. It is time for us to stand up to the big timber companies and 
tell them to stop exporting American forests and American jobs.
  I urge the Members of this body to support fair trade, to support 
environmental protection, and to support American workers. Vote ``no'' 
on this rule.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I, too, am very disturbed that 
the DeFazio amendment was not allowed to be made in order under this 
rule. We had an opportunity to address the concerns of the economy in 
California and elsewhere in the country by reducing the price of timber 
or lumber to the home building industry and to others and to address 
the question of workers in the northwest and to realize what this 
country has done in trying to settle the northwest dispute and bringing 
the settlement of that onto Federal lands which would reduce the cut 
and, therefore, we were hoping that some of the private companies would 
assist us in putting that timber onto the market so that those mills 
could stay open in Oregon and Washington. And we could realize the 
benefits elsewhere in the country in lower lumber prices.
  This is good for the home builders. It is good for the real estate 
industry. It is good for the carpenters. It is good for the laborers 
and people who work in that field. It is good for the people who are 
trying to find jobs in small mills, and it is very good for the 
American economy.
  But unfortunately, it was not allowed in. We should vote against this 
rule for that reason. As has already been pointed out here, this is the 
only commodity, the only subject matter of this entire bill where we 
can offer no amendment, no discussion of this, because of the nature of 
this closed rule. It ought to be voted against. The minority leader 
ought to vote with me because I have supported open rules all the time. 
I have been on the floor under an open rule longer than any member in 
history.

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have had a very interesting discussion here about open rules. It 
sounds like we will have more support for open rules from the other 
side, which is terrific. The subject of this, however, really goes 
beyond just the timber discussion.
  I think to get back, to what this rule is about and the complexity of 
the subject here, we have got a major confrontation between national 
security and free enterprise. They came into conflict. We have six 
committees of jurisdiction and we have three executive agencies out 
there. We have the Department of Defense squaring off against Commerce 
and the State Department refereeing. This is a very complicated 
subject. This debate has gone on a long time. It is going to go on a 
lot longer.
  I think that the Committee on Rules has crafted as good a rule as was 
possible. I am not sure of all of the ins and outs of the timber 
problem. I am sorry for the concern. Now Members know how we feel quite 
often over here.
  I do urge my colleagues on our side of the aisle, because of the 
overriding concerns on national security and the need to get rid of 
unnecessary entanglements to profitable enterprise, to support this 
rule so we can get on with general debate and the amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me just say this is a 
bipartisan modified open rule with broad support.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER (Mr. Hastings). The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 188, 
nays 157, not voting 89, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 330]

                               YEAS--188

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (NJ)
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Chapman
     Clement
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Darden
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dunn
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutto
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Klein
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lehman
     Linder
     Livingston
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Morella
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Sundquist
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thornton
     Towns
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watt
     Weldon
     Whitten
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--157

     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Archer
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bilbray
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Camp
     Castle
     Clayton
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Filner
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Grandy
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hyde
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kreidler
     Lazio
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Maloney
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moorhead
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Orton
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Rush
     Sanders
     Santorum
     Schenk
     Scott
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Snowe
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Swett
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Upton
     Vento
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Waters
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--89

     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Baker (LA)
     Barton
     Bentley
     Berman
     Boehlert
     Burton
     Calvert
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Edwards (TX)
     Everett
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Geren
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kyl
     Lancaster
     Lewis (FL)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Obey
     Owens
     Oxley
     Parker
     Petri
     Quillen
     Ridge
     Rostenkowski
     Sabo
     Sangmeister
     Schiff
     Sharp
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Solomon
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Synar
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Washington
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                              {time}  2008

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote.

       Mr. Houghton for, with Mr. Calvert against.

  Messrs. RICHARDSON, ORTON, McHALE, and HUGHES, Mrs. KENNELLY, Ms. 
PELOSI, and Mr. POMEROY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. ISTOOK changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________