Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. He is doing a good job.

Mr. THOMAS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. THOMAS. Perhaps we could have a data bank collecting nexus. Then we could examine them.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. THOMAS. My parliamentary inquiry is: Is mentioning the word ``data bank'' and then talking about what you want to put in any data bank you so conceive, is that an appropriate and parliamentary nexus?

Mr. THOMAS. I fully understand the intent and purpose of the gentleman from California, and all of us, I think agree that we come here not to praise data banks but to bury this particular one, and I know he must, because of the rules of the House, walk a very fine line in talking about the subject matter in front of us. I would urge him that I would not want to continually ask this parliamentary inquiry. But were the gentleman's statements referring to any data bank, including data banks collecting information about the record of this Congress, germane to the subject matter in front of us?

Mr. THOMAS. May I be heard on the point of order Mr. Speaker? I thought the Speaker had already ruled that a discussion of data banks in general as a concept for collecting data is not necessarily germane to a specific data bank which is the subject of this bill.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to this point of order with the understanding that apparently Members are no longer held to the rule of germaneness. The current dialog is nowhere near the intersection of nexus with the legislation, in this gentleman's opinion. I would ask a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton], a member of the House subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas, apparently within the rules, propounded a question about the fact that this bill is being brought up under a procedure that we did not have in previous Congresses. Apparently it is clearly within the scope of germaneness, as ruled by the Speaker, for me to indicate that there are a lot of things that we are doing in this Congress that we did not do in previous Congresses. For example we are auditing the books in this Congress. That was not done in previous Congresses. We have placed Members of Congress under the laws that apply to everyone else. That was not done in previous Congresses, and so there are a lot of things that we are doing in this Congress that were not done in previous Congresses. Mr. Speaker, I do want to say that the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler] has been very interested in this subject matter, and were it not for the primary in her State and district, the gentlewoman would be with us today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], someone who has had an interest in this for a long time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the Speaker knows well my point of order. It is the subject matter and the content of the bill and the question propounded by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett], which has no relevance or germaneness, as we say in our rules, to the subject matter before us.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, this gentleman is constrained once again to request that the Speaker, in this gentleman's opinion, understand that the simple mention of a data bank does not make the discussion germane to the bill in front of us, to the extent that it would allow the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark], who quite rightly is pushing the envelope as he is trying to do, to discuss the sales of Medigap policies and potential unscrupulous salesmen who might sell these products. If, in fact, the Chair rules that that is germane, then these rules have no meaning at all, in the opinion of the gentleman from California.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, continuing my point of order, it is for employees only. The question is about nonemployees. How can it be germane?

Mr. THOMAS. The gentleman from Texas is at a disadvantage. He arrived on the floor not hearing the gentleman from California's opening statement, in which the said he was not opposed to this legislation. There is no opposition to this legislation. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would be more than willing to engage in a discussion of the shortfall of the Medicare fund, which was not adequately reported by this administration in any form that allows us to understand it. But that is a debate that will take place at another place and another time. The purpose of this debate under the rules is to discuss the matter in front of us, and all this gentleman from California is trying to do is to maintain decorum and order in the house and request that the Speaker enforce the Rules of the House so that we may have an orderly debate and not traverse the countryside in any and all directions by any individual who may have an honest and earnest attempt to discuss this issue or may be motivated by other reasons.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 377 is to provide an additional $580,000 for expenses associated with the investigations and studies by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. $400,000 of the $580,000 is for the procurement of consultants in cases pending. This resolution is obviously with some precedent. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is really the only committee in the House that cannot determine its own agenda ahead of time. It is, by its very nature, a reactive committee. We have in the past supported resolutions of this nature. As a matter of fact since 1982, seven resolutions have come to the floor. This resolution is necessary so that the committee can carry out the investigations, the studies, and the responses to Members' requests for explanations that are part and parcel the nature of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues support House Resolution 377. It is simply affording the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct the resources necessary to do its job.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Oversight be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 377), providing amounts for further expenses of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the second session of the 104th Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit has 229 pages. What he did not tell you that is in those 229 pages was that we just voted on a measure for $3.5 billion, almost 100 Members of the House said no, it is in there. There are a number of other items that are in there that have been defeated. What my colleagues have got to do is understand that interesting dialog about the fact that Gunderson is not in here for the milk provision. I will tell my colleagues where the gentleman from Wisconsin will be. He will be at the table during the conference. Our colleagues will not be. If my colleagues voted yes for Solomon, they have to vote no on the motion to recommit because he is going to be at the table and my colleagues are not.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I imagine people trying to follow this who do not understand the dairy programs or agriculture programs are somewhat thoroughly confused right now. I will try to simplify it. This is about whose ox gets gored, or, more appropriately, whose milk cow dries up. Let me ask a question: If you have ever seen the University of Wisconsin basketball team, and they pan the student body, are those students wearing powdered milk hats, butter hats, or cheese hats? Guess what happens in this program supported by the Committee on Agriculture? Powdered milk phases out immediately; butter phases out immediately; cheese does not. Now, I am not standing up here saying that I do not have a cow in the corral. Since 1961, California decided on its own, without trying to affect the rest of the country, we wanted to fortify our milk. Up until recently, we did what we wanted to do and left the rest of the country alone. What has occurred over the last several years is that California cannot do what it wants to do anymore. Here is a Federal court order telling California that they cannot enforce their own milk solid standards. There is no guarantee in the committee bill that we can do what we want to do. There is a guarantee in the Solomon bill. We do not want to impose it on the rest of the country; we just want to do what we want to do. Fundamentally, you have heard it over and over again. Senator Lugar has said it is crazy. This program in the Committee on Agriculture goes toward more control, when the whole thrust of the agriculture bill in all the other areas is towards less control. The Secretary of Agriculture has said $1 billion more. We have already heard the negotiations on the floor. ``Can we move some of the money that is going to the producers under this to help the WIC Program or to help the Food Stamp Program?'' Already the negotiations are beginning. You do not need to go into that kind of horse trading if you support the Solomon-Dooley amendment. It is an excellent, excellent revision to an otherwise good bill.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I go back to the discussion of this loan versus the other loans. When it was created in the 1980's, not in the 1930's, it was tied to the actual price of the product. All of the other loan programs were tied to artificial cost-of-production models, which do not have any relation to the real world. It is ironic that the gentleman chose the loan program that is tied to the real-world price of the commodity, and all the other loan programs are tied to fictitious numbers.