Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Oversight be discharged from further consideration of the Senate Concurrent Resolution (S. Con. Res. 67) to authorize printing of the report of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Speaker. As was announced, this was a resolution dismissing the election contest filed by Mr. Robert Anderson against the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Charlie Rose, for the seat in the Seventh Congressional District in North Carolina. As chairman of the Committee on House Oversight, I appointed a task force from the committee, comprised of the gentleman from Ohio, John Boehner, as chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana, William Jefferson, and the gentleman from Michigan, Vern Ehlers, to hear the matter. The task force heard allegations of election irregularities and fraud but concluded that there were not sufficient credible allegations that, if proven, would change the outcome of the election. The task force met on August 3, 1995, and voted unanimously to dismiss the contest. I believe the House clearly should so indicate to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose], since October 25, 1995, the full committee agreed unanimously to recommend dismissal. I do want to thank the minority for lifting the hold on unanimous consents so we could present this resolution this evening.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for immediate consideration of the resolution (House Resolution 538) dismissing the election contest against Charlie Rose.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, Mr. Speaker. This is, as the last was, a contested election. A task force was appointed, as a matter of fact, the identical task force to the one that investigated the North Carolina allegations, the gentleman from Ohio, John Boehner, as chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana, William Jefferson, and the gentleman from Michigan, Vern Ehlers, as members. It was in the State of New Hampshire, in the Second District. Mr. Haas's claim was based on the application of a New Hampshire statute which required that a candidate file an oath stating that they were not ``a subversive person.'' This statute had not been applied to candidates in New Hampshire elections since 1966, when the State Attorney General notified the Secretary of State that the United States Supreme Court had ruled such oaths unconstitutional. Therefore, on March 15, the task force voted unanimously to dismiss the contest, and on May 10 the full committee agreed unanimously to recommend dismissal.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for immediate consideration in the House of the resolution (H. Res. 539) dismissing the election contest against Charles F. Bass.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution just agreed to.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, having indicated that he was going to offer a number of unanimous consents including the dismissal of some contested elections, it is my understanding that there is some problem on the minority side in approving UC's, and so I am hopeful that we will be able to dismiss these contested elections in the near future by unanimous consent.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, yielding myself such time as I may consume, I do want to thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the chairman of the Committee on Resources, which has jurisdiction over the repatriation issue, for his willingness to assist us in bringing this to the floor in the expeditious manner in which we have been able to do so. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 1970, legislation by the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] takes the law that was passed in 1989 that established the Museum of the American Indian, which incidentally we have seen the conclusion of the architectural contest which will produce a marvelous museum on the mall between the Capitol and the Air and Space Museum, universally applauded for the architectural rendering, but all of us understand that any edifice is there for what it contains, and this is the American Indian Museum. But that act, passed in 1989, is in part in conflict with the act passed in 1990, the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act. What this legislation does is conform the National Museum of the American Indian Act passed in 1989 with the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act passed in 1990. To a certain extent it codifies what the Smithsonian was already doing with Native American remains. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1970) to amend the National Museum of the American Indian Act to make improvements in the Act, and for other purposes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, yielding myself such time as I may consume, I would tell the gentleman from California it is probably appropriate, but this gentleman from California is looking for the author of the bill. But knowing our schedules and how difficult it is oftentimes, I will tell the gentleman if he yields back, I will yield back.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, yielding myself such time as I may consume, I do understand the concerns of the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]. This is an area in which we are beginning to learn our way as to what is, or is not appropriate. For example, during its meeting on September 19 the Committee on House Oversight unanimously approved an amendment which is included in the bill, and the amendment clarifies the definition of ``interactive computer services,'' to ensure it applies only to providers of Internet software and information services that are available to the public. The line between private and public continues to be explored as we move legislation, and we will be very careful as we examine legislation, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] indicated, to make sure that what we intend to do, we do, and no more. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation passed the Committee on House Oversight on September 19, 1996, by unanimous vote, and we will probably see additional legislation in the near future dealing with what all of us now are becoming more and more aware is a fundamental change in the way in which Americans, indeed many people around the world, communicate. The Federal Elections Campaign Act, as it was written, would not allow folks to provide equal access to the Internet, even though it would have been done on a universal availability basis for any candidates in a particular election. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. White], who is chair of the Internet Caucus, quite wisely introduced legislation which would allow this to occur, notwithstanding the fact that under other circumstances it might appear to be a corporate contribution which is banned under the Federal Election Act. I think all of us would agree that the ability to enhance communication and provide information that would otherwise not be available to voters through access to the Internet is indeed something that should be allowed, and H.R. 3700 does just that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3700) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to permit interactive computer services to provide their facilities free of charge to candidates for Federal offices for the purpose of disseminating campaign information and enhancing public debate, as amended.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] said, the bill came out of committee unanimously. There are a number of Democrats who are bipartisan supporters. He indicated the bill is not perfected because it does not have broad enough scope. I will tell the gentleman, I looked forward to the legislation he will introduce in the 105th and would be pleased to be a cosponsor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann]. (Mr. NEUMANN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], who, when we talk about desire for reform and cleaning up the process, takes a back seat to no one.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with is a piece of legislation that deals with the violation of law, that a felony has been committed. I find it interesting that the gentleman from Wisconsin could not utilize any examples in talking about a violation of this potential law on our side of the aisle. Perhaps his problem is we have examples on his side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey].

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin well knows the Speaker ruled that out of order, yet he continued to read. The comity of the House is threatened by the gentleman from Wisconsin, yet he speaks of potential crimes. And he does it by willfully violating the rules of the House.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.