Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's good work on this. The act we are approving today continues a strong policy of continuing local-to-local service. It also pushes the satellite industry to be as competitive as possible with cable. For the first time, the bill will allow satellite carriers to deliver significantly viewed stations from nearby markets as cable now is able to do. In any given community, the significantly viewed stations that the direct broadcast service will be allowed to carry are exactly the same ones that cable can carry. The act imposes a variety of limits designed to protect free, local, over-the-air broadcasting. For example, the only subscribers who can receive significantly viewed stations are those who are already receiving their own local stations by satellite. Nor can the direct broadcast service company offer a digital signal of a significantly viewed affiliate of, say, CBS to a subscriber to which it offers only the analog feed of the local CBS station or carry the significantly viewed CBS station with more digital broadband than the local station. There also are some pretty strong provisions in this. If the satellite carrier abuses this new regime by carrying an unauthorized station, it will be both subject to swift and severe penalties at the FCC and will forfeit its compulsory license under the Copyright Act which is conditioned on compliance with all applicable FCC rules regulations and authorization. I had been impressed with the satellite industry and how it has created this industry, but they also now need to be fair players in the marketplace. As Congress made clear when we passed the 1999 Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (``SHVIA''), it is far better for local communities if satellite carriers offer their customers local television stations-- including network stations--rather than TV stations from other cities. Put another way, local-to-local service is the right way, and--except when there is no other choice--distant network stations are the wrong way, to deliver broadcast programming by satellite. Local-to-local fosters localism and helps keep free, over-the-air television available to everyone, while delivery of distant network stations to households that can receive their own local stations (whether over the air or via local-to-local service) has just the opposite effect. The pro-local-to-local policy of the 1999 SHVIA has been an astounding success. The satellite industry has grown spectacularly since then, spurred--as the satellite industry has many times reminded us--by the availability of local-to-local service. In fact, in the past year, the number of cable subscribers has actually shrunk, while satellite carriers continue to expand at a rapid clip. Recognizing that local-to-local is not just good policy but good business, the DBS firms have expanded local-to-local service at a rate far faster than the industry predicted a few years ago. As to analog service, EchoStar recently announced that it was serving no fewer than 150 local markets, covering more than 90 percent of the television households in the United States. And for its part, DirecTV expects to offer local-to-local in at least 130 local markets by the end of 2004-- and has committed to offering local-to-local in every market as soon as 2006, and no later than 2008. I want to commend DirecTV for its commitment to provide service to all 210 Designated Market Areas. I hope that EchoStar is on a similar path and will provide more certainty as to when this might occur just as DirecTV has done. It is my hope that this service is provided sooner rather than later so that those satellite subscribers in Lafayette, Indiana will be able to receive their local affiliate station and achieve true local-into-local service. But there is still more: DirecTV announced just a few weeks ago that it plans to offer high-definition local-to-local service in many markets over the next few years. With the first of its new satellites, DirecTV plans to offer during 2005 more than 500 local high-definition channels, enabling it to offer local HD programming to the majority of U.S. television households. And with the launch of still more new satellites, DirecTV will be able to add even more local HD markets in the future. Of course, in the highly competitive world of multichannel television providers, there is little doubt that DirecTV's competitors will be driven to try to match--or exceed--DirecTV's local-to-local offerings. And that is all to the good. The Act we are approving today continues the strong policy of encouraging local-to-local service and pushing the satellite industry to be as competitive as possible with cable. For the first time, the bill will allow satellite carriers to deliver ``significantly-viewed'' stations from nearby markets, as cable is now able to do. In any given community, the ``significantly viewed'' stations that DBS will be allowed to carry are exactly the same ones that cable can carry. The Act imposes a variety of limits designed to protect free, local, over- the-air broadcasting: For example, the only subscribers who can receive significantly-viewed stations are those who already receive their own local stations by satellite. (Since cable always offers local stations, this rule ensures a level playing field.) Nor can a DBS company offer a digital signal of a significantly-viewed affiliate of, say, CBS, to a subscriber to which it offers only the analog feed of the local CBS station, or carry a significantly-viewed CBS station with more digital bandwidth than the local CBS station (unless the carrier offers the entire bandwidth of the local digital station). If a satellite carrier abuses this new regime--by carrying unauthorized stations--it will both be subject to swift and severe penalties at the FCC, and will forfeit its compulsory license under the Copyright Act, which is conditioned on compliance with all applicable FCC rules, regulations, and authorizations.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill. I also join the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and regret that the heat of national elections has caused us to debate something that is not going to happen. We are here because it was John Kerry who implied that President Bush would reinstate the draft, and it was CBS News and its anchor, Dan Rather, who have chosen to keep telling the ``big lie,'' as noted in the editorial of Investors Business Daily. Fortunately, I believe Americans will know better. President Bush has not said he will reinstate the draft. There is good reason Americans are tuning out CBS News and will tune out this bill. Vote ``no'' on the draft.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act, introduced by my good friend and fellow Hoosier Mr. Hostettler. In recent years, judicial activism has continued to attack the traditions that have defined this Nation--our pledge of allegiance declared unconstitutional--and now it seems that marriage is its next target. In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act by a wide margin in this Chamber and in the other body. I cosponsored the Defense of Marrige Act. It was necessary to pass the Defense of Marrige Act to preserve the States their ability to decide for themselves how marriage is to be constituted within their respective borders. To remind this body of the definition of federalism seems elementary, but I fear that a lesson may be needed for those who do not support this legislation. The Defense of Marrige Act provides that for Fedreal law, marrige shall mean the union of one man and one woman. It further provides that the States do not have to recognize alternative unions established in other States. Since that time, 44 States of our Union have passed laws that provide that marriage shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. My State of Indiana has done so. Now, traditional marriage is under attack and the ability of States to protect traditional marriage within their borders is threatened . . . threatened by the judicial branch. The Marriage Protection Act, H.R. 3313, is a further step to insure that States maintain the ability to define marriage within their borders and that States are not forced, against the will of their citizens acting through their elected State legislatures, to accept the contortions of marriage legalized in other States. H.R. 3313 would prohibit the lower Federal courts and the Supreme Court from hearing cases that arise under the Defense of Marrige Act. Congress has clear Constitutional authority to establish the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts. In Article III, Congress is given the authority to establish the lower courts and to define the appellate jurisdiction under the regulation of Congress. This is part of the checks and balances that our Founding Fathers wove into the Constitution, to ensure that one branch does not exercise power beyond its bounds. It is unfortunate that circumstances have arisen that have created the need for H.R. 3313. One State in the Nation has declared that ``marriage'' can be applied to relationships other than one man and one woman; and our fear is that the Federal courts will take the action of one State court and apply it to all 50 States. H.R. 3313 is insurance that the action of this State in expanding the definition of marriage does not have to be recognized in other States unless the people of that State agree to do so. I commend the gentleman from Indiana's 8th district for introducing this legislation and I strongly urge its adoption. Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. The Marriage Protection Act would strip the jurisdiction of Federal courts to hear cases interpreting the Defense of Marriage Act or the Federal Marriage Statute. First, this bill is wrong because it will strip Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of their ability to hear and review Constitutional cases, something that Congress has never done in our history. The courts are an equal branch of our government. Any attempt to weaken their authority undermines a 200-year precedent and severely endangers the separation of powers that our government is based on. The fact that this kind of action has never been undertaken in the history of this great nation speaks to the absurdity of the bill. Second, this bill is discriminatory. It singles out one group of people and tells them their interests won't be heard by the highest courts in the land This sends a chilling message, not only to the citizens of this country, but to people all over the world that the United States is moving backward, not forward on issues of civil rights. Mr. Speaker, no legal crisis exists. This bill is all about politics . . . driving a wedge between people on the eve of party conventions and a national election. It's not only cynical, it's a disservice to the people we represent. What we do with this issue will be forever remembered. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. by casting a no vote, we say no to discrimination and state our unwillingness to upset the balance of the equal branches of government.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Harold Welter for receiving the Indiana Football Coaches Association ``2004 Broadcaster of the Year Award.'' For 39 years Harold Welter has been the voice of high school sports in Indiana's Kankakee Valley. If there was an important football game, boy's basketball game, girl's basketball game, and even sometimes a baseball game in the area, Harold was there broadcasting it on WKVI radio. Though Harold is a die-hard fan of his hometown Knox High School Redskins, he broadcasts each game in a professional and impartial manner that brings the action of the game to life for his listeners. He also regularly invites local individuals to be guest commentators on a night's game, a privilege I have had on one occasion. Harold has gone the extra mile promoting high school sports. He established a Saturday morning radio show now called ``Saturday Sportsline'' on WKVI which recognizes outstanding high school sports teams and athletes through in-depth interviews with coaches and players that let listeners learn more about our local sports heroes. This year, the Indiana Football Coaches Association recognized Harold's dedication to high school sports in Indiana by naming him their ``Broadcaster of the Year.'' It is a tremendous honor and well deserved. His sincerity and concern for the lives of young adults is admirable and recognized by all who know him. From his first job in radio at WRIN in Rensselaer, Indiana, to his many years of calling high school sports in the Kankakee Valley, Harold has kept his listeners tuning in. I am pleased to join other Hoosier sports fans in honoring Harold for his contributions to Indiana high school sports and congratulate him again for being named ``Broadcaster of the Year'' by the Indiana Football Coaches Association.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).

Mr. BUYER. I object.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment seeks to end any possible form of manipulation of our elections in November. Article I of section 4 of the Constitution specifies that elections, including those for Federal offices in the United States, will be conducted by the States and the Congress, and the States and the Congress can only regulate and oversee the electoral process in this country. For over 200 years this Nation has conducted elections fairly and impartially, ensuring that each person's vote will count. When problems have arisen over the years, by Constitution, authority was granted to Congress and the States to address them, and we have. Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965, and we have subsequently amended that act over the years. Just this last Congress, we enacted the Help America Vote Act to strengthen the election process. Recently, nearly a dozen Members of this House have written United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan requesting ``to have election observers to monitor the Presidential election in the United States'' on November 2. I suppose that through this letter, Members of this body were suggesting that we, the United States, need help, that the States cannot ensure the integrity of the election process and, therefore, we need the United Nations monitors to look over our shoulders to make sure we do it right in the United States. Now, if my colleagues can imagine on Election Day, you get up, you have your breakfast, you grab your coffee and your Danish, and you are going to go to the voting booth. When you show up, you are curious because you see a white van out there that says the U.N. beside it and little blue helmets. The United Nations has arrived; we are going to ensure the integrity of the American electoral process. The United Nations has sent monitors to Haiti, Nicaragua, Angola, Mozambique, and now what, the United States? I do not think so. This request by Democratic Members to have the U.N. supervise United States elections is rather foolish, nonsense, and silly. If anybody wants to come here to learn how to conduct a proper election, let them come to the United States. We are happy to teach anybody the foundations of our Republic and democratic values. This amendment prohibits Federal executive officials from asking the United Nations to come in and have any authority of our election process to assess the validity of the United States Federal elections. The authority to ensure the integrity of the United States elections rests with the States and the Congress by constitutional authority, and this amendment merely seeks to keep it that way. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds, and I would just say to the gentleman, please do not mischaracterize the amendment. I agree with you. We welcome people to come to this country to observe. What this amendment says, we do not believe that the United Nations should be here to assess the validity of the United States election process as monitors. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentlewoman's words be taken down. She said that ``you stole an election.''

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say to the gentlewoman who spoke, who used the word ``cheating,'' I hope she would choose another word because she is definitely impugning the integrity of a lot of her Democratic colleagues in the State of Florida who supervised the election. Number two, I think I must infer from that sense of outrage I am hearing from the other side that you are just as concerned about the systemic design to disenfranchise the absentee military vote, which I hope you are just as outraged about. But what this amendment is about is we welcome America to observe the integrity of our electoral process. We do not ask, though, for the United Nations to come as monitors at our polling stations in this country. That is what this amendment is about. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Miami Herald report, when they did their analysis and actually looked at the Civil Rights Commission, stated that in fact that report was overstated. They also in the Miami Herald's report analyzed and said there was no widespread evidence of what the gentleman just said in the well. In fact, the evidence points just the opposite, that the election in Florida, the officials were mostly permissive, not obstructionists when unregistered voters presented themselves; and, in fact, during the 18 months of litigation that followed the election of 2000, only two people in the State of Florida testified that they were not able to vote. Now, of the 176,000 votes that were discarded ballots in the State of Florida, there were 65,000 that were undervotes, meaning people who went to vote, but they did not vote in the Presidential column. They voted for maybe State rep or State senator or for sheriff, but they did not vote for President. Then there were 111,000 that were overvotes. Yes, when I was in Florida, yes, I saw thousands of ballots whereby people actually in the Presidential column, for one reason or another, decided that they would forget the one person, one vote. What they actually did was vote for three, four, five, six, seven people in the Presidential column. So, by their own hand, they spoiled their very own ballots. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I think this is an area we have to be pretty careful about. This is a very serious question, and, in fact, it raises grave constitutional questions that are unsettled, the principles of separation of power. But with that aside, it also gets kind of confusing. So let us go back to not only our own Constitution, but also the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions under Article 5 say if one captures an individual and they know who they are, then they are automatically by the capturing power given POW status. If there is any doubt with regard to their status, under the Geneva Conventions, the capturing power then is to conduct what are called Article 5 tribunals. What has happened here is when there is no doubt of the status of the individual, the executive branch has made the decision, then obviously they are not a POW; so they are not afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions. And if they are not afforded in a tribunal Article 5 because their status is not in doubt, there is a term of art that has been used. They are called an enemy combatant, but they also can be called security detainees, unprivileged belligerents, unlawful combatants. This is a very dangerous area what this amendment tries to do. It tries to dance into the area of the executive branch and say we cannot classify individuals as to these types of things. Mr. Chairman, we are in a very unsettled part of the law. I have made a couple of notes with regard to the speakers who spoke before me who said that we need to rein in the doctrine. That is false because this is a doctrine that has been used very sparingly. In the 3 years for which we have had the war on terrorism, there is only one United States citizen that has been classified as an enemy combatant and has been detained, and if we were to only use the ``criminal process,'' what we then do is jeopardize our intelligence. And we are operating a war predominantly in the dark world. It is an intelligence war against a secret enemy, and for us to jeopardize that by going to the public domain is foolish on our part. Doing this on an appropriations bill, number one, using the word ``foolish,'' that is foolish. We should not be doing that. The gentleman would like to entertain greater discussions on this. Let us take it through the authorizing committees, and let us, in fact, do that. The other said that it is unchecked executive authority. That is false. It is not unchecked because we have the checks and balances, and that is why this case was taken to the Supreme Court. I also would like to note that there is nothing, nothing, in current law requires resorting solely to criminal prosecutions. In the recent Hamdi decision, the United States Supreme Court did not directly address the Padilla scenario, but a majority of the Justices clearly agreed that ``there is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.''

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).

Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the chairman of the subcommittee of the appropriations subcommittee in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for bringing a bill to the floor that is responsible and yet still attempts to address the many water-related infrastructure needs throughout the Nation. I am concerned, however, with the prohibition on any new starts in this bill, including new studies contained in title I of the bill. In the past 2 years, there has been severe flooding along the Wabash River in my congressional district. The Tippecanoe River and the Wabash River merge just above the greater Lafayette region. During the 2003 Labor Day weekend floods, more than 150 people were forced from their homes. During the more recent floods over the Memorial Day weekend, which were much more widespread, roads, culverts, bridges, and homes were significantly damaged. In both instances, the President declared the flooding a national disaster, making flood victims eligible for FEMA grants and loans. Thus far, over 240 families have applied for assistance after the 2004 flooding. I had requested funding through the Army Corps of Engineers to assist in preparing a master plan for flood damage reduction and control associated with the Wabash River. This master plan would also help with economic redevelopment of the riverfront area of the greater Lafayette region affected by river flooding. Because of the new start prohibition, the funding is not included in this measure. Mr. Chairman, I understand the difficult budget pressures on the subcommittee, but I ask that the gentleman work with me to ensure that consideration is provided for this worthy endeavor in the future.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan's belief in the ideals of individual liberty reassured America to believe in itself and inspired people all over the world. Like a flower perfect in its bud and as it is in its bloom, it spreads its seeds before it dies. So did Ronald Reagan as he spread the seeds of liberty and its attributes to the people of the world through the pursuits of freedom. His critics viewed him as a throwback in time, almost antediluvian; but what Ronald Reagan possessed were principles and ideals that were ageless. They served as guideposts for our country in time. I will always remember his courage to take a stand in the face of adversity, especially the evils of tyranny. He understood that liberty is protected by the vigilant who must be ready to prepare and defend freedom, thereby preserving peace. I will always remember his charm and smile. They were infectious. He was always able to stay above the fray, undetracted and undeterred with his calm demeanor and balanced temperament. I believe his optimism inspired people in more ways than this body could ever articulate. To Ronald Reagan, one cannot believe impossible things, for it oppresses the soul and forks hope. He dared Americans to dream big and made it fashionable to be a dreamer of dreams. His sentimentality reflected his care and concern for people. I thank the Reagan family for permitting the state funeral so that people can mourn their President. On behalf of my constituents in Indiana, I extend their thoughts and prayers of many Hoosiers to the Reagan family.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. First of all, we are all outraged by the criminal conduct of a few. War is not simple; war is not easy. By its nature, it is chaotic. It is an effort to find humanity in a very inhumane environment. That is the reason for the creation of the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war. The United States is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. The United States has not violated the Geneva Conventions. The United States is enforcing the Geneva Conventions and our laws under it. That is an important message for the world to know. The United States sets the standard for the world. So we here in this body need to speak in a unified voice in the message to the world that we support the Geneva Conventions for bringing humane treatment to individuals, whether they are prisoners of war, whether they are detained civilians, whether they are detained personnel. It does not matter what status. Sure, you get into the technicalities of the law, but what is important is they be treated humanely. There is no justification whatsoever for these ``softening up'' of individuals for interrogations. What occurred was wrong. This did not occur whatsoever in the first Gulf War. I participated in interrogations. I was at the Joint Interrogation Facility. There was never even a hint nor even a rumor with regard to the mistreatment, abuse, or maltreatment with regards to prisoners. What occurred here is wrong, and every American should be outraged. What is important is that we recognize there was a failure of the chain of command within the 800th MP Brigade and that individuals need to be held accountable. The question is, where does it go from there, whether that accountability function is strictly just of soldiers, or does it in fact move to civilian leadership in the Pentagon? What I do know about facts is that facts are very stubborn things and that facts will hold the test of time. So beyond the rhetoric, beyond any form of allegation, beyond the spin, facts. Mr. Speaker, it is important for this body to speak in a unified voice; let all of the investigations come through, let the sun shine in, let the world know and the facts will determine where the accountability lies.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. No, I do not.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I accept the correction, and I thank the gentleman. Just the point I want to make to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), I know he is a very strong advocate, along with my other colleague for the Federal civilian workforce. I stand here an advocate of the military, and there is a tremendous pay gap; and every time we try to close that pay gap for the military, it has been hard because we come here to the floor, in the 12 years I have been here, and he says he agrees with me, but we have got to move the Federal civilian at the same time. And I just want him to know it is very hard.

Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland for clarification.