Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote on the Nomination of Thomas S. Foley, of Washington, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Japan

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 8. The United States is beginning to take steps to maintain and protect our coral reef ecosystems. This resolution encourages us to continue to improve our stewardship of these treasures in the sea. Coral reefs are among the most biologically diverse and productive marine habitats. They occur throughout the world's tropical and subtropical regions and in the waters of two U.S. states, including my home state of Hawaii. Mr. President, coral reefs are vital to coastal economies, serving as the basis for coastal and marine tourism in several U.S. states and territories. Reefs also make substantial economic contributions by supporting subsistence and commercial reef fisheries. Coral reefs and the ecosystems they support are under increasing pressure, primarily from human activity. Of approximately 600,000 square kilometers of coral reefs worldwide, estimates are that 10 percent have been degraded beyond recovery and an additional 30 percent are likely to decline significantly within the next 20 years. We must strengthen our commitment to be stewards of coral reefs, to discourage harmful fisheries and other practices, to monitor and assess the health of these unique systems; and improve research of and education about coral reef ecosystems. Further, we must ensure that we balance preservation with sustainable use of our coral reef resources. We must identify factors contributing to the global decline of coral reef ecosystems and discourage overfishing and other practices that are harmful to coral reefs and human health. It is significant that this resolution is passed during the International Year of the Reef to focus attention on research and public awareness of coral reef issues. The resolution is an important step to promote preservation and sustainable use of coral reef resources worldwide. I appreciate the help of other Senators who have worked to see that our coral reefs are provided the attention that they deserve.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I regret very much that there are some who are disappointed with section 8109 of the appropriations bill that authorized the creation of the cruise ship industry. So, if I may, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters indicating support, first, from the Department of Defense, a letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, John Douglass; the Governor of Hawaii, the Honorable Benjamin Cayetano; the National Security Caucus Foundation; and representatives of our maritime industry, for example, Seafarers International Union, the Transportation Institute, the American Shipbuilding Association, the American Maritime Officers, the American Classic Voyages Co.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I believe the Record should note that up until the latter part of 1967, America controlled the seas. Most of the cruise vessels were American owned, American built. Today, the situation is slightly changed. Last year, over 6.2 million passengers worldwide--and 75 percent were Americans. The Caribbean and the Bahamas regions, which is the largest North American market, does not have a single American cruise vessel. Cruises are the fastest growing segment of the tourism industry. They bring in over $7.5 billion in revenues. And 113 vessels currently operate in the North American market--1 American. Of the 30 companies operating in the North American market, 3 companies--foreign companies, Mr. President--command over 70 percent of the market. These foreign ships are obviously built in foreign shipyards. They employ very cheap foreign labor and operate outside our regulations. They pay no U.S. taxes and are not available for U.S. emergencies. Shipbuilding subsidies in foreign countries in recent years ranged from 9 percent to 33 percent of the cost of the vessel's construction. At a 9-percent construction subsidy, an operator today could build a new $500 million, 130,000-ton cruise vessel in a foreign yard and reduce its cost of capital by an astounding $45 million. The United States, since the early 1980's, has not subsidized the commercial construction of ships. These foreign companies also take advantage of the lower cost of foreign labor. In fact, the Wall Street Journal recently ran an article reporting these foreign cruise companies pay workers on board their ships a paltry $1.50 per day--that's right, $1.50 per day before tips-- for 16 to 18 hours of work. We here in the United States have undertaken an aggressive campaign to stop the use of sweatshop labor, and we should hold these foreign-flag ships operating in the American market to those same high standards. But perhaps the main reason these vessels fly a foreign flag is to avoid U.S. tax laws. Although most of these foreign-flag cruise operations are located in the United States--and most of their passengers are Americans--they are protected by reciprocal international tax treaties. These reciprocal agreements allow the foreign-flag cruise ship companies to avoid the tax laws of the United States. For example, one large foreign-flag cruise operator recently reported earnings of approximately $1.8 billion in revenues for its cruise operations. While most of these revenues came from American passengers, this cruise line, under existing U.S. law, considers this foreign source income which is exempt from U.S. tax law. Because of this loophole, this one company did not pay any income tax on its cruise ship operations. Based on the companies' net income from cruise operations, this can be equated to a $158 million corporate income tax loss to the Federal Treasury. An existing operator of U.S.-flag cruise ships in Hawaii and on the inland waterways, however, is ready and willing to build new U.S. cruise ships and employ American workers. But since U.S. shipyards have not built a large oceangoing cruise ship in over 40 years, the first operator to do so faces a significant cost disadvantage. That is why the U.S.-flag cruise ship pilot project is so important. The pilot project will facilitate a series construction for two new cruise ships by requiring the operator to sign a binding shipyard contract with delivery of the first new vessel no later than 2005; the second by 2008. In order to replace a retired ship and develop market demand that operator will temporarily document an existing foreign-flag cruise ship for operation under U.S.- flag with U.S. crews while the new ships are constructed. This project is a milestone for our U.S.-flag cruise ship industry. After decades of dormancy in the oceangoing U.S. cruise ship arena, we now have a U.S. company that is willing to make a very substantial investment to try to rebuild our once proud U.S.-flag passenger fleet. Because this existing operator will make a very large investment in the development of new U.S.-flag cruise ships, which otherwise would not exist absent this significant investment, section 8109 includes a preference to ensure that other operators do not take advantage of this company incurring such ``first mover'' development costs and unfairly compete against the existing operator. I would note that Congress has provided similar incentives and preferences in other areas. The patent system is perhaps the most prominent example of such a restriction that protects, and thus encourages, investment in the development of new products and services that otherwise would not exist--even in highly competitive markets, such as the computer industry. The patent-like preference contained in section 8109 is for a very narrow segment of the highly competitive Hawaiian tourism market-- domestic inter-island cruises. These cruises account for less than 1 percent of overall Hawaiian tourism and an even smaller percentage of the North American cruise market. Moreover, Hawaii vacationers will have many competitively priced vacation alternatives to these new cruise ships. In addition, foreign-flag cruise ships, with their significant cost advantages in terms of low capital costs, low foreign labor costs, and freedom from U.S. income tax, will still be free to call in Hawaii, just as they always have. In fact, in 1995 alone 12 competing foreign-flag cruise ships operated in the Hawaiian market. Nothing in this provision will change that. I recognize that there is a vibrant small U.S. passenger vessel fleet. I want to assure you that they are not affected by this provision. These U.S. operators will be able to enter and compete freely in the Hawaii cruise trade, including inter-island cruises. Mindful of this segment of the fleet, we were careful to draft section 8109 to exclude vessels measuring less than 10,000 gross tons and having berth or stateroom accommodation of fewer than 275 passengers, these thresholds accommodate not only the entire U.S. small passenger fleet, but also any new vessels planned. Nothing in section 8109 will bar this vessel from entering the inter-island cruise market in Hawaii or in anyway inhibits its operation, once the plans are finished and construction of the vessel is completed. Mr. President, this pilot project will help reverse the dreadful decline of the U.S.-flag cruise industry. It will jump start cruise ship construction in the United States, develop the U.S.-flag cruise industry, and help reduce U.S. shipyard dependence on DOD construction--all without Federal funds. The cruise industry is projecting that $7.5 billion will be invested in the construction of new vessels over the next 5 years--and not one cent of this investment will be spent in U.S. shipyards. This pilot project, however, will result in the construction in the United States of two state-of-the-art large oceangoing commercial cruise ships, representing a private capital investment in U.S. shipbuilding of approximately $1 billion. The pilot project will create thousands of American jobs in U.S. shipyards during construction and onboard the vessels upon completion and approximately 750 shipboard jobs on board the temporary vessel within 18 months. It will create some 2,500 shipyard and subcontractor jobs throughout the construction project. And upon completion of the new ships, over 2,000 permanent onboard and shoreside support jobs will be created. The pilot project will be supervised under DOD's MARITECH Program which Congress authorized in 1993 and has funded annually to facilitate advanced commercial shipbuilding in U.S. yards and the transition from depending on military construction to the competitive commercial market. Under MARITECH auspices two cruise ship design projects have been completed, led by the Ingalls and NASSCO shipyards. The pilot project would result in the actual construction of new cruise vessels in U.S. shipyards for the first time in 40 years. In addition to the commercial benefits of the pilot project, it is also of significant value to the Department of Defense. It will reduce the U.S. shipyards dependence on Defense funds needed to maintain an adequate industrial base. In fact, a recent letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research Development and Acquisition, John Douglass called * * * the construction of large, oceangoing cruise ships vital to transitioning U.S. shipyards back into the construction of cruise ships and to sustain this country's shipbuilding industrial base. The Navy is also interested in exploring the potential use of the hull design for these cruise ships as the hull design for future Joint Command and Control ships. Mr. President, the Governor from my State of Hawaii has also expressed his support for the provision and the bipartisan National Security Caucus Foundation called the project ``a perfect example of an appropriate commercial initiative.'' Support for the pilot project can also be found within the maritime industry--the American Shipbuilding Association, Seafarers International Union, American Maritime Officers, American Classic Voyages Company, Transportation Institute, and American Maritime Officers Service. This project will provide the incentive for U.S. expansion in the cruise market, so that once again we can take pride in new U.S.-built oceangoing, U.S.-flag cruise ships. It will help to employ thousands of American workers, put the best shipbuilding technology in the world into commercial use, and help the Nation sustain a viable shipbuilding industrial base--all at no cost to the American taxpayers. It deserves our support. The program that we have set forth, supported by DOD and supported by the whole industry, will once again reestablish our cruise industry. So, Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will adopt this amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a paper, prepared by several members of my staff, to alert lawyers on the question of monopoly be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise this moment to express my complete support for the conference report on the defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. As Chairman Stevens noted, this bill is within the budget allocation provided by the committee for defense funding. The amounts provided represents an increase of $5.4 billion, 2 percent above the amounts available during the current fiscal year. Mr. President, it is my view that this increase is very modest, and is fully justified under the circumstances. The increase is necessary to allow us to continue to modernize our forces, to protect readiness, and to fully fund a 2.8-percent cost-of- living increase for our men and women in uniform. And it allows us to protect the priorities of the Members of the Senate. This conference agreement is a compromise which I believe all Members should support. The bill was passed by the House with two controversial matters to which the administration strongly objected to--the B-2, and Bosnia. This conference report has dealt with those matters to the satisfaction of the administration. On the B-2 bomber, the conferees have provided the President with $331 million to begin the purchase of additional B-2 bombers. However, it is up to the President to determine whether to buy more aircraft, or to upgrade the existing fleet of B-2 bombers. Mr. President, I for one hope the President chooses to buy more B-2's. But here the choice is his. On Bosnia, the conferees agreed that consistent with the current plans of the administration all United States troops be removed from Bosnia by June 30th of next year. However, if the President certifies that it is in our national interest to maintain our presence in and around Bosnia, he can waive the restriction by consulting with and informing the Congress of his decision. And should the President decide to keep the forces in Bosnia, as Chairman Stevens noted, he shall submit a supplemental, if additional funds are required to pay for this deployment. Mr. President, this is an agreement which can be supported by both the Congress and the President. We should be grateful to Chairman Stevens and the House conferees for negotiating this very workable compromise. I would like to also mention the hard work of the staff under the staff director, Mr. Steve Cortese, and on the minority side, Mr. Charlie Houy. Mr. President, I think it should be noted that the staff worked long hours--in one instance throughout the whole night--to ensure that this conference report was completed before the end of this fiscal year. I believe that the Senate owes them its gratitude for their efforts. Mr. President, this is a good conference report. I urge all my colleagues to support its adoption. Once again, may I express to my colleagues my great pleasure in being able to serve them, together with Chairman Stevens. We are fortunate to have Chairman Stevens at the helm. Thank you, Mr. President. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. INOUYE. Yes.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the conference report was agreed to.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to commend my friend from Wyoming for his reasonable approach. But I must say that I would still have to oppose the whole amendment because this is a piecemeal handling of this very important proposition which we have before us. I would like to read for the Record a statement issued by the administration. It says: The Department-- The Department of the Interior-- strongly opposes denying any tribe the badly needed economic opportunity envisioned and authored by IGRA. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Indian gaming has provided benefits to over 120 tribes and their surrounding communities in over 20 States. As required by law, revenues have been directed to programs and facilities to improve the health, safety, educational opportunity and quality of life for Indian people. The amendment--Of the Senator from Wyoming-- would deny similar economic opportunities for additional tribes and communities. Accordingly, I hope most respectfully that the Senator would seriously consider withdrawing the amendment, and I can assure him in behalf of the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee that we will accommodate him to every extent possible. He can tell us what witnesses he wishes to be heard. In fact, I am certain we will be able to accommodate him as to when the hearings are conducted. Our first day of hearings will be on October 8, but if he wants 3 days of hearings I can assure the Senator from Wyoming that he will have 3 days of hearings, or 4 days of hearings. I can also assure the Senator that we will very seriously consider every proposition that he makes. So I hope that his amendment would be withdrawn. I thank the Chair. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, before proceeding with my remarks, I wish to state for the Record that there are two States in this Union that prohibit gambling of any sort--the State of Utah and the State of Hawaii. In the State of Hawaii, it would be a crime to conduct bingo games. There are no poker games, no slot machines and no casinos in the State of Hawaii. The same thing presents itself in the State of Utah. Yet, I find myself rising to express my opposition to the amendment proposed by the distinguished Senator from Wyoming. Though I am personally against gaming, and I would oppose any attempt on the part of the State of Hawaii to institute gaming in our islands, I find that I support gaming for Indians because of two reasons. One, our Constitution states that Indian nations are sovereign and that we have carried this out by treaties and by laws and by Supreme Court decisions. Indian nations are sovereign. Second, there were 800 treaties, Mr. President, as we stated a few days ago, and of those 800 treaties, 430 are still lying idle in the archives of the U.S. Senate. These treaties have been lying there for over 100 years. And we have found that, though these treaties are in correct form and appropriate because of changes in circumstances, the Senate has decided not to consider them, debate them, have hearings on them, or pass upon them. And 370 were ratified by this body. But, Mr. President, sadly, I think we should note that of the 370 treaties that we ratified, we have violated provisions in every single one of them. These were solemn documents and many of them had language and phrases that were very eloquent, very dramatic. Imagine a treaty beginning with words, such as, ``As long as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, as long as the rivers flow from the mountains to the streams below, this land is yours.'' Indians started off with 500 million acres of land. Over the years, because of our violation of provisions in our treaties, and because of our refusal to consider these treaties, Indians have 50 million acres left. This was their land. There were sovereign nations long before we came here. When they gave up this land, we promised them certain things, such as providing them shelter, education, and health facilities. And what do we find in their land? Unemployment averaging 57 percent. We pride ourselves with our low unemployment rate in our Nation of 5.2--5.2 for the Nation and 57 percent for Indian country. Some unemployment rates are as high as 92 percent, Mr. President. The health conditions in Indian country are worse than in third world countries--the worst statistics on cancer and the worst statistics on respiratory diseases. And if you look at the social life in Indian country, it is a scandal. We as Americans should be embarrassed and ashamed of ourselves. The suicide rate among the young people in Indian country is eight times our national norm. Some 50 percent of the young ladies in Indian country have considered suicide. If this Nation had lived up to the promises that we made many decades ago, I would not be standing here speaking against the Senator from Wyoming, because I am against gaming. Hawaii is against gaming. But, today, I find that I must speak in opposition. Mr. President, regretfully, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs is not able to be with us at this moment because of a very important and very urgent matter that suddenly came to his attention. He has asked me to express his concerns, and he has said that this statement I am about to present meets with his approval, and so it is a joint statement of the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and myself. Mr. President, 2 months ago, Senator McCain, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, and I introduced a bill to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. A hearing on this bill has been scheduled for October 8. It was not scheduled today. This has been announced, and it was announced over a month ago, long before this measure was up for consideration. So I would like to suggest to my distinguished colleague from Wyoming that the proper forum to consider his proposal would be before that committee. I can assure my friend from Wyoming that his proposition will be considered with all seriousness. We have consistently opposed efforts to amend the Indian Gaming Act in a piecemeal fashion. And this is what it is. We do so again today. At a time when the Indian Affairs Committee, the authorizing committee, is making every effort to make adjustments in the act which will reflect contemporary realities, this amendment only serves to undermine our efforts to assure that any amendment to the act is consistent with over 200 years of Federal law and policy. For the benefit of our colleagues here who may not be familiar with the context in which this amendment is proposed, allow me to share with you a few relevant facts. Last year the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on one important aspect of the regulatory act. While the Court did not strike any provision of the act, its decision left a vacuum of remedies when a State and a tribal government come to an impasse in negotiations which would otherwise lead to a tribal-State compact. These compacts, pursuant to the law, govern the conduct of class 3 gaming in Indian lands. The Secretary of the Interior has stepped into the void created by the Court's ruling by inviting public comments on whether an alternative means of reaching a compact ought to be established through the regulatory process until the Congress has the opportunity to act. The Secretary has not had and does not have any intention to establish regulations on his own. He is assisting our committee. He is assisting the Congress of the United States by inviting comments from all interested parties--Indian country, gambling interests, government officials, Governors, attorneys general, and present them to us. The decision will be made here, not by the Secretary of the Interior. This amendment is designed to preclude the Secretary from proceeding in what many believe is a constructive effort to advance the public dialog. If anything, we should be encouraging the Secretary to invite comments so that it will help us to expedite our efforts. But this amendment does not just prevent the Secretary from proceeding--it would also effect a dramatic change in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by federally preempting the laws of each State. I hope that my colleagues realize that this amendment, which looks innocuous and reasonable, will have that effect of telling the several States of this Union that, notwithstanding their constitution or their laws, this is the way business is to be carried out. Under the current law, the regulatory act does not touch any State's law or constitution. Mr. President, we did this very deliberately--when we enacted the law. Instead, the act recognizes that each State's constitution, and State laws enacted in furtherance of the State constitution, may differ in many respects. There are 50 States, 50 different constitutions, and 50 different sets of laws. Over the course of the last 9 years, as a function of litigation on this very point, we have learned a lot about the various States' laws. For example, some States and their constitutions provide that the Governor is authorized to enter into contracts, agreements, or compacts with another sovereign. The Governor is authorized to do that. Other State constitutions would require the ratification of the Governor's action by the State legislature. Some States don't require that. Still, other constitutions provide that only the State legislature can act for the State in terms of entering into binding legal agreements. And there are other State constitutions that are silent as to these responsibilities. In some States their laws determine when the Governor can act on behalf of the State and in what circumstances the legislature must act. And the supreme courts of the various States have issued many opinions on these matters at great length. This amendment we are considering at this moment will now require that no tribal-State compact can be approved by the Secretary unless both the Governor of the State and the legislature of the State have approved this compact. This amendment will, therefore, set aside the constitutions of the various States, the laws of the various States, and would impose new requirements on each State, notwithstanding what their constitutions or law may provide to the contrary. This is a very substantial change in Federal law effecting rights that States jealously guard. I know of no Governor who has expressed a desire to have the laws of his or her State preempted by Federal law. In 2 weeks' time the authorizing committee will carry this dialog forward and provide an opportunity for all affected parties to weigh in with their views. We are hoping at that time the distinguished Senator from Wyoming will present his views to the Committee on Indian Affairs. And this amendment, Mr. President, will preempt that very important public discussion. Mr. President, I want to make very clear that I do not question the wisdom of the proponents of this amendment. I just believe that there are others--State and tribal governments--upon whom the effect of this amendment will be directly visited and who ought to have the opportunity to have their views known. So, once again, Mr. President, I call upon the Senator from Wyoming to withdraw this amendment and allow the authorizing committee to proceed with our work where his concerns and the concerns of his colleagues will have the benefit of full public consideration. Mr. President, it is true that there are 171 compacts that have been approved. It is also true that there are about 120 gaming establishments presently on Indian reservations. But it should be pointed out that less than 10 are making money. I am certain all of us know, or should know, that reservation lands are trust lands. Actually the titles to those lands lie in the hands of the Government of the United States. So, as a lawyer would say, they cannot be alienated. One cannot go to the bank and say, ``I want to borrow $1 million, and I will put up this parcel of land as collateral.'' You can't do that with reservation lands. So, in order to initiate or establish a gaming enterprise, these Indian governments have to go out to other sources for financing. When that happens, Mr. President, I am certain you realize that the rates that they would have to pay are much, much stiffer than what you and I would be required to pay to a bank. Yes, moneys are flowing in. But at this time Indians are not making that money. Operators are making that money. But those Indian tribes that are making a few dollars have applied those moneys to causes and to projects that we have failed to provide. They are building schools that we should have built. They are building hospitals that we should have built. They are building homes that we promised them. So, Mr. President, though I oppose gaming in any form, if this country is unable to or refuses to live up to the promises that we made by treaty, if this is the only way they can raise funds, so be it. Mr. President, I hope that this body will give their committee, the Committee on Indian affairs, an opportunity to conduct this hearing, receive the views of all of our colleagues, and act accordingly. So, with that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I very sadly find I must rise and respond to the statement just made by my friend from Washington. First, he stated that a promise of a hearing is a hollow one. I find this rather sad, because I have always considered any promise that I have made for hearings as a very serious one. In fact, the hearings that the Senator alluded to were held by the Indian Affairs Committee in an extra large committee hearing room, and we accommodated every witness that was submitted to us by the Senator from Washington. We invited every person that was on his list. Furthermore, we made it known to the attorneys general and the Governors of the several States. None wished to be heard. Every Indian country spoke up against the Senator's proposition. I don't think that was a hearing that was taken lightly. As to the hearings that will commence on October 8, I would like to point out, respectfully, that the bill that we will be considering is a result of over a year of consultation with attorneys general, with Indian leaders, with Governors. Before that, for 2 years Senator McCain and I traveled to the several States meeting personally, eyeball to eyeball, with attorneys general, with Governors. We spent hours, we spent days, weeks, months, meeting with these officials to discuss the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. We did not take our responsibilities lightly. We take it very seriously, especially in my case when I am opposed to gaming. I don't want to see people running gaming operations, people that I would not invite into my home. We take it very seriously. There was another matter that was brought up by my friend from Washington. He stated that Indian nations were purchasing parcels of land and having them placed into trusts by the Interior Department, and then establishing gaming operations. This is the law that was passed 8 years ago: Gaming regulated by this act shall not be conducted on lands acquired by the Secretary in trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe after the date of the enactment of this act, unless the Governor of the State in which the gaming activity is to be conducted concurs in the Secretary's determination. May I make this flatout statement, that the Interior Department has not approved any gaming activity on any land acquired and placed in trust if such gaming activity did not meet the concurrence of the Governor. That is the law of the land. One would gather from the discussions of the Senator from Washington that Indians are, helter skelter, buying properties all over this Nation, placing them in trust and then, in turn, establishing gaming enterprises. Yes, it is true that Indians are purchasing lands. They are trying to get back lands that belonged to them that were part of their reservations and taken away in violation of treaties and then placed in trust. But then they need the approval of the Governor, and, if the Governor has not granted this approval, there has been no gaming activity. That is a fact, sir. I can assure my colleagues that the promise we make of a hearing is not a hollow one. We will accommodate every witness that they submit to us. We will give them ample time to testify. If it means meeting a week or 2 weeks, we will do so, because the matter before us is an important one. Yes, there are tribes that are making money on this. There are tribes that are flourishing as a result of gaming activities. But there are only 8 tribes out of 121 casinos that are making money. The Nation at this moment is spending about $40 billion in gaming. Of that amount, $3 billion is being spent in Indian country, but the profits of less than 10 percent go to the Indians at this time. So, we have treated the Indians badly. Let's not exacerbate that. Mr. President, this is from the Secretary of the Interior: I respectfully request that you oppose this type of amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. I have recommended to the President that he veto similar legislative amendments placed in previous appropriations bills. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, as vice chairman of the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, I call upon my colleague from Florida to allow this settlement to have the benefit of a hearing in the committee. In the absence of a hearing in the Senate, there will be absolutely no legislative history associated with the action that the Senate would be taking in approving this settlement. I know of no other Indian settlement that has been ratified without full consideration in the authorizing committees. As you well know, the Congress is vested with plenary authority in the field of Indian affairs. We have always taken our responsibilities in this area very seriously--and I believe that it is incumbent upon us to have the benefit of a record upon which we can base a ratification of this settlement agreement. If the hearing schedule that the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs has established is full, I would be pleased to chair a hearing on this settlement in the very near future, and you can be assured of my personal commitment that committee action on the settlement will be expedited. With these commitments in mind, I ask the Senator from Florida to withdraw his amendment and allow the authorizing committee to do its work.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I commend my good friend from Kansas. I ask the Senator from Kansas to temporarily set this amendment aside because the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee is presently presiding at a very important hearing, and I believe he would want to be heard. It is not the intention of the committee to stall this but to accommodate Senator Campbell. So as soon as he is completed, we will try to resolve this matter.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, as the vice chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, I feel that I must object to this amendment. However meritorious its intent may be, it seems to me that there are serious legal ramifications to the proposal that we have not had an opportunity to evaluate. As Americans, we have come to rely on the constitutional protections that are accorded to property rights under the law. One of those rights is to be free in the use and enjoyment of our property--provided of course that our uses of property do not present any danger to the health or safety of the public. Even when land is held in trust by the United States for an Indian tribe, the principal restriction on the use of trust property is a restriction against alienation. In the modern era of self-governance and self-determination, this Government has long since abandoned the paternalistic stance of dictating to the tribes the details of everyday life on reservations. The principle which informs the fifth amendment to our Constitution-- that there will be no taking of property without just compensation--is precisely why we have spent so much time debating the issue of federally imposed land restrictions in the Congress. The Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma has owned the Huron Cemetery--held beneficial title to the Huron cemetery as a function of an 1867 treaty--for 130 years. And yet today, without the benefit of a hearing or any public consideration--and importantly--without the benefit of any consultation with the Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma, we are being asked to impose a restriction on the tribe's use of its own land. Mr. President, I am not aware that there is any emergency at stake here. I know of no reason why we must take this precipitous action on an appropriations bill. I believe if the good gentleman from Kansas were to introduce his amendment as authorizing legislation, we could all have the benefit of the kind of information that can be gathered in a formal hearing. We could be apprised of what legal liabilities may flow from the proposed amendment. The Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma can be afforded the due process of law which our Constitution guarantees to all Americans, before the Senate of the United States decides to dictate to this tribe, the manner in which it can use its property. Mr. President, I would be remiss if I were to fail to seize this opportunity to suggest that were we to adopt this amendment without the benefit of any hearings or any assessment of its impact--both as a legal matter and as a matter of policy--we will be establishing a precedent that we ought to think very carefully about. Are we going to vest ourselves with the responsibility of micro- managing the use of tribal lands across this Nation--50 million acres of land? Are we going to return to the days when this Government told the Indians that we were the ``Great White Father''--and we would decide what was best for them? I, for one, will not go down that road, and I hope that my colleagues will not do so either, until and unless, there is some overwhelming and compelling reason for doing do. Personally, I don't believe that the use of the Huron cemetery by the Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma presents that compelling a case--nor do I know why we would or should address this matter today. Mr. President, let us proceed cautiously and deliberately, as the American public desires us to do--let us examine carefully what is at issue, and take action, only after we have done so, and only after we are informed of all of the facts.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, thank you very much. Mr. President, this is a battle day--an important day in Indian country. And I am certain that Indian country applauds the resolution that has been reached concerning sections 118 and 120 of this bill. So, Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in applauding and commending the distinguished Senator from Washington for making this day possible. I am well aware--and I am certain that all of us are well aware--of the controversy that sections 118 and 120 have engendered over the past 2 months. It has been a difficult time for all of us. Indian country has been vocal in its opposition to these provisions-- and I believe rightly so--for these sections go to the very essence and the very foundation of our relationship with Indian governments. As my chairman, the distinguished Senator from Colorado, Senator Nighthorse Campbell, has indicated, section 118 will cause us to revisit the commitments this Government made to Indian nations in over 800 solemn treaties. Most Americans are not aware that our relationship with the Indian country is based upon treaties, the Constitution of our land, decisions of the Supreme Court, and the laws of this land. These 800 treaties enable the United States to exercise dominion and control over 500 million acres of land which once belonged exclusively to our Nation's first citizens. As Chairman Campbell has indicated, section 120 would have stripped tribal governments of one of the most fundamental attributes of their sovereignty. So, in the days ahead, I hope we can focus our attention on the concerns that sections 118 and 120 were designed to address in a venue that will enable the full participation of those who would be most directly affected by these provisions, the tribal governments and the citizens of Indian country. For it is my sincere belief that the solutions to these matters can be found in Indian country and that the tribal government leaders will join us in this effort, and that is the way it should be. If we are to legislate, it should be only after we have given careful and thoughtful consideration to these matters. We should have the benefit of all affected citizens, Indians and non- Indians, and whatever we come up with ought to have the benefit of some consensus. With this in mind, I have given my personal assurance to the chairman of the Interior appropriations subcommittee, the Senator from Washington, that we will seriously and deliberately address these matters in the authorizing committee. We have received assurances of the chairman of that committee, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. In the interim, I am pleased we have been able to reach agreement and that we have done so in a manner that will enable us to work together in partnership with Indian country as well as other affected citizens to assure the best outcome within the context of our history, our laws and our policy. So, Mr. President, once again, may I applaud and commend my friend from Washington, Senator Slade Gorton.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, as my distinguished friend from New Mexico suggested, the matter before us is a very complex one. The history that we will be considering in the days ahead, when we debate this matter, is also a complex one filled with tragedy and filled with sadness. It is true, as stated by my friend from Washington, that many of the tribes are not treaty tribes. But I will explain why I believe it is not so. Mr. President, when the first European came upon this land, anthropologists have suggested there were anywhere from 10 million to 50 million native Americans residing in the present 48 States. Today, the number is less than 2 million. The history of our relationship with our first citizens is not a very happy one, Mr. President. In the early days, we looked upon them and counted upon them to help us in our wars. The record indicates that if it were not for certain tribes belonging to the Iroquois Confederacy, General Washington and his troops at Valley Forge could very well have perished. These Indians traveled hundreds of miles carrying food on their backs so that our troops would be fed. Well, that was a long time ago, Mr. President. But this is part of our history. There was a time when Indians sent ambassadors here because they were sovereign nations, just as sovereign as Britain or France or China or Japan. And we treated them as sovereigns. So sovereign nations conferring with other sovereign nations usually come forth with an agreement which we call treaties. Our history shows that we entered into 800 treaties with Indian nations. Of that number, 430 never came to this floor. They are somewhere in the archives of the Senate of the United States. For one reason or another, we decided not to act upon these treaties, treaties that were signed either by the President of the United States or his designated representative. They were solemn papers, documents that started with very flowery words such as: ``As long as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, as long as the rivers flow from the mountains to the oceans, this land is yours.'' It is true, as I indicated, that not all Indian nations are treaty nations, because 430 of the 800 treaties were not ratified, were not even discussed, were not debated, were not considered. But most of the remaining treaties are treaties that were signed in perpetuity. It is true that there are some that were not signed in perpetuity. But most of them had the flowery language: ``As long as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, that is yours.'' Then we decided that the 370 remaining treaties may have been a mistake. And, Mr. President, this is a chapter that many of us would try to forget and it is almost difficult to believe. But we proceeded to violate provisions in every one of them. Ours is a proud Nation. We always point to other nations and say, ``You have violated a treaty. You have violated START II. You have violated the nuclear proliferation treaty,'' and we convince ourselves that we always fulfill every provision in our treaties. Yes, today we do so. But there was a time when we disregarded these solemn promises. After the treaties were signed, we decided that Indians were a nuisance. That is a harsh word to use, but we established a policy of extermination. We may not have used that word, but the actions we took were extermination. We often hear about the trail of tears. We have had hundreds of trails of tears. For example, the Cherokees were rounded up in the Carolinas--thousands of them. They were rounded up in the summertime, and in the wintertime, with their summer attire, some in shackles, had to travel across the country to Oklahoma. It is no surprise that over half of them perished. These were the trails of tears. Oklahoma, Mr. President--we hate to admit this--is a dumping ground. There are tribes there that cannot trace their ancestral land in Oklahoma. What are the Apache doing in Oklahoma? What are the Seminoles doing in Oklahoma? What are the Cherokees doing in Oklahoma? They were sent there, and oftentimes sent to areas that no one wanted. Yes, if we found gold on certain land, that treaty was violated. So, Mr. President, this is a very complex issue. After the Indian wars--and we oftentimes look back to those days with great pride; there were great soldiers, great generals, like General Custer--at the end of the Indian wars, as a result of wartime death, disease, and such, the Indian population of the land had come down to 250,000--250,000. Yet, with this background, with this history, I think we should recall this footnote. In all of the wars that we have been involved in since World War II of this century, native Americans have put on the uniform to participate in the defense of our freedoms, our liberties, our Constitution, our people, and our land. They have sent more men on a per capita basis than any other ethnic group. More men from Indian reservations served in Desert Storm on a per capita basis than any other ethnic group. In fact, we oftentimes look at that great statue of the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima on Mt. Suribachi. It should be noted that of the five Americans that are raising the flag, one is an Indian. That has been the contribution of Indian men and Indian women throughout our history. They have done so notwithstanding their strange and tragic history in the back. So I think they have earned the right to say, ``Let's not break any more treaties.'' Enough is enough. Mr. President, like my distinguished friend from Washington, my friends from Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Alaska, I look forward to this great debate where we can finally with some definitiveness and with some depth discuss our relationship with the first citizens. In closing, I will read part of the statement of Governor Stevens of the State of Washington when he asked the tribe in the Pacific Northwest to sign the treaty of Point Elliott. The Governor used some extraordinary words: There will be witnesses. These witnesses will be tides. You Indians know that the tide goes out and comes in, that it never fails to go in or out. You people know that streams that flow from the mountains never cease flowing. You people know the sun rises and sets and never fails to do so. Those are my witnesses. And you Indians, your witnesses and these promises will be carried out and your promises to me and the promises to the Great Father made to you will be carried out as long as these three witnesses continue.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. INOUYE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would make very minor changes to the antidumping provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930. This bill will clarify Commerce Department authority to allocate costs in antidumping cases consistent with sound accounting principles and commercial reality. Although the antidumping law generally affords the Commerce Department wide latitude in determining proper cost allocations in antidumping cases, developing case law in this area severely limits the ability of the Department to calculate accurate dumping margins. Specifically, these cases interpret the current antidumping statute to prevent the Department from relying on cost allocations based on revenues, even though revenue-based allocations are widely accepted in the accounting profession and often are most appropriate in particular fact situations. This bill would not require a particular kind of cost allocation in any given case. Rather, the proposal would clarify the Department of Commerce's authority to use any appropriate cost allocation methodology, including a revenue-based methodology, consistent with generally accepted accounting principles and the particular facts of the case at hand. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would make very minor changes to the antidumping provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930. This bill will clarify Commerce Department authority to allocate costs in antidumping cases consistent with sound accounting principles and commercial reality. Although the antidumping law generally affords the Commerce Department wide latitude in determining proper cost allocations in antidumping cases, developing case law in this area severely limits the ability of the Department to calculate accurate dumping margins. Specifically, these cases interpret the current antidumping statute to prevent the Department from relying on cost allocations based on revenues, even though revenue-based allocations are widely accepted in the accounting profession and often are most appropriate in particular fact situations. This bill would not require a particular kind of cost allocation in any given case. Rather, the proposal would clarify the Department of Commerce's authority to use any appropriate cost allocation methodology, including a revenue-based methodology, consistent with generally accepted accounting principles and the particular facts of the case at hand. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my chairman today, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, as a cosponsor of legislation to provide for an amendment in authorizing legislation that will enable the National Indian Gaming Commission to adjust the manner in which fees are imposed on the gaming operations that are subject to regulation under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. Mr. President, it has been 9 years since the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was enacted into law. In the ensuing years, there has been a substantial increase in the number of tribal government-sponsored gaming operations, as well as a significant shift in the number of operations that are engaged in the conduct of class III gaming operations. The bill we introduce today might be considered as companion legislation to a bill introduced earlier this week by Senator John McCain, and a bill that Senator Campbell is developing for introduction in the fall. All three measures are intended to reflect the contemporary realities of tribal gaming and the need for a regulatory framework that can respond to the growth in Indian gaming. Mr. President, we proceed with this separate legislation because of the pressing need to assure that the Commission is adequately funded, and that the Commission has the capacity, independent of Federal appropriations, to address a far wider array of regulatory demands than we could have anticipated in 1988.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I share the concerns of my colleagues from Alaska and Hawaii regarding the new airline ticket tax formula. I, like Senators Murkowski, Stevens, and Akaka, am distressed that a bill that has so many important provisions that will benefit the Nation and citizens of Hawaii, badly misjudges the need for and importance of air transportation in both Alaska and Hawaii. Hawaii, unlike any other State in the Union, is completely isolated from any other landmass. In terms of interisland/intrastate travel, my State is totally dependent on air transportation. Maintaining the stable, low-fare air transportation system we currently have is essential to the State of Hawaii. Similarly, we must also maintain a low-fare environment to stimulate the influx of tourists. Tourism is Hawaii's No. 1 industry. Given this utterly unique feature of our State, I am most disappointed that this bill imposes not only a segment tax on our citizens who must travel between the islands to conduct daily business and to visit family members, but also imposes the segment tax, an excise tax and a departure tax on passengers coming from any other State in the Union to Hawaii. According to the local carriers in the State of Hawaii, in 1998, interisland customers would pay an additional 16 percent in taxes, increasing to 54 percent in 2003. No other State, other than Alaska, will face fare increases as significant as those which the new legislation will impose on the residents and tourists of Hawaii. We must recognize that Alaska and Hawaii are unique and must accommodate these States' dependence on air travel in legislation that impacts the primary means of commerce on our States. I am pleased that Senator Murkowski plans to introduce legislation to rectify this situation and I will strongly support him in those efforts. tiaa/cref

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, for nearly 3 years, the people of Guam endured war time atrocities and suffering. As part of Japan's assault against the Pacific, Guam was bombed and invaded by Japanese forces within 3 days of the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor. At that time, Guam was administered by the United States Navy under the authority of a Presidential Executive order. It was also populated by then American nationals. For the first time since the War of 1812, a foreign power invaded United States soil. In 1952, when the United States signed a peace treaty with Japan, formally ending World War II, it waived the rights of American nationals, including those of Guamanians, to present claims against Japan. As a result of this action, American nationals were forced to seek relief from the Congress of the United States. Today, I rise to introduce the Guam War Restitution Act, which would amend the Organic Act of Guam and provide restitution to those who suffered atrocities during the occupation of Guam in World War II. There are several key components to this measure. The Restitution Act would establish specific damage awards to those who are survivors of the war, and to the heirs of those who died during the war. The specific damage awards would be as follows: First, $20,000 for death; second, $7,000 for personal injury; and third, $5,000 for forced labor, forced march, or internment. The Restitution Act would also establish specific damage benefits to the heirs of those who survived the war, who made previous claims but have since died. The specific damage benefits would be as follows: First, $7,000 for personal injury; and second, $5,000 for forced labor, forced march, or internment. Payments for benefits may either be in the form of a scholarship, payment of medical expenses, or a grant for first-time home ownership. This act would also establish a Guam trust fund from which disbursements will be made. Any amount left over in the Fund would be used to establish the Guam World War II Loyalty Scholarships at the University of Guam. A nine-member Guam Trust Fund Commission would be established to adjudicate and award all claims from the Trust Fund. The United States Congress previously recognized its moral obligation to the people of Guam and provided reparations relief by enacting the Guam Meritorious Claims Act on November 15, 1945 (Public Law 79-224). Unfortunately, the Claims Act was seriously flawed and did not adequately compensate Guam after World War II. The Claims Act primarily covered compensation for property damage and limited compensation for death or personal injury. Claims for forced labor, forced march, and internment were never compensated because the Claims Act excluded these from awardable injuries. The enactment of the Claims Act was intended to make Guam whole. The Claims Act, however, failed to specify postwar values as a basis for computing awards, and settled on prewar values, which did not reflect the true postwar replacement costs. Also, all property damage claims in excess of $5,000, as well as all death and injury claims, required congressional review and approval. This action caused many eligible claimants to settle for less in order to receive timely compensation. The Claims Act also imposed a 1-year time limit to file claims, which was insufficient as massive disruptions still existed following Guam's liberation. In addition, English was then a second language to a great many Guamanians. While a large number spoke English, few could read it. This is particularly important since the Land and War Claims Commission required written statements and often communicated with claimants in writing. The reparations program was also inadequate because it became secondary to overall reconstruction and the building of permanent military bases. In this regard, the Congress enacted the Guam Land Transfer Act and the Guam Rehabilitation Act (Public Laws 79-225 and 79-583) as a means of rehabilitating Guam. The Guam Land Transfer Act provided the means of exchanging excess Federal land for resettlement purposes, and the Guam Rehabilitation Act appropriated $6 million to construct permanent facilities for the civic populace of the island for their economic rehabilitation. Approximately $8.1 million was paid to 4,356 recipients under the Guam Meritorious Claims Act. Of this amount, $4.3 million was paid to 1,243 individuals for death, injury, and property damage in excess of $5,000, and $3.8 million to 3,113 recipients for property damage below $5,000. On June 3, 1947, former Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes testified before the House Committee on Public Lands relative to the Organic Act, and strongly criticized the Department of the Navy for their ``inefficient and even brutal handling of the rehabilitation and compensation and war damage tasks.'' Secretary Ickes termed the procedures as shameful results. In addition, a committee known as the Hopkins Committee was established by former Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal in 1947 to assess the Navy's administration of Guam and American Samoa. An analysis of the Navy's administration of the reparation and rehabilitation programs was provided to Secretary Forrestal in a March 25, 1947 letter from the Hopkins Committee. The letter indicated that the Department's confusing policy decisions greatly contributed to the programs' deficiencies and called upon the Congress to pass legislation to correct its mistakes and provide reparations to the people of Guam. In 1948, the United States Congress enacted the War Claims Act of 1948 (Public Law 80-896), which provided reparation relief to American prisoners of war, internees, religious organizations, and employees of defense contractors. The residents of Guam were deemed ineligible to receive reparations under this Act because they were American nationals and not American citizens. In 1950, the United States Congress enacted the Guam Organic Act (81-630), granting Guamanians American citizenship and a measure of self-government. The Congress, in 1962, amended the War Claims Act to provide for claimants who were nationals at the time of the war and who became citizens. Again, the residents of Guam were specifically excluded. The Congress believed that the residents of Guam were provided for under the Guam Meritorious Claims Act. At that time, there was no one to defend Guam, as they had no representation in Congress. The Congress also enacted the Micronesian Claims Act for the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, but again excluded Guam in the settlement. In 1988, the now inactive Guam War Reparations Commission documented 3,365 unresolved claims. There are potentially 5,000 additional unresolved claims. In 1946, the United States provided over $390 million in reparations to the Philippines, and over $10 million to the Micronesian Islands in 1971 for atrocities inflicted by Japan. In addition, the United States provided over $2 billion in postwar aid to Japan from 1946 to 1951. Further, the United States government liquidated over $84 million in Japanese assets in the United States during the war for the specific purpose of compensating claims of its citizens and nationals. The United States did not invoke its authority to seize more assets from Japan under Article 14 of the Treaty of Peace, as other Allied Powers had done. The United States, however, did close the door on the claims of the people of Guam. A companion measure to my bill, H.R. 2200, was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Robert Underwood. The issue of reparations for Guam is not a new one for the people of Guam and for the United States Congress. It has been consistently raised by the Guamanian government through local enactments of legislative bills and resolutions, and discussed with congressional leaders over the years. The Guam War Restitution Act cannot fully compensate or erase the atrocities inflicted upon Guam and its people during the occupation by the Japanese military. However, passage of this Act would recognize our Government's moral obligation to Guam, and bring justice to the people of Guam for the atrocities and suffering they endured during World War II. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to expound upon a provision in the Transportation appropriations bill to forgive the State of Hawaii from its obligation to repay $30 million owed to the Airport Revenue Fund for ceded land payments to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs [OHA]. Current law states that airport revenues can only be used for airport purposes. The U.S. Department of Transportation's inspector general found in September of 1996, that the approximately $30 million in ceded land payments made from the Hawaii Airport Revenue Fund were not in compliance with the law. In April of this year, the U.S. Department of Transportation affirmed the decision, and is seeking the repayment of those moneys. A continuation of the status quo--continued ceded land payments from the Airport Revenue Fund--was not possible. It was counter to the U.S. Department of Transportation's position and policy. I did not have the support of my colleagues to legislate its continuation. At this time, forgiveness of the $30 million debt was possible and achievable. I thank my colleagues for allowing for the congressional forgiveness of an airport revenue diversion in order to aid the State of Hawaii and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. However, I would like to make clear that as a result of the U.S. Department of Transportation ruling and the pending legislation, the removal of the Airport Revenue Fund for use by the State of Hawaii as a source of compensating the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for use of ceded lands upon which the airports sit, should not equate to a like reduction in the State's obligation to OHA under State law. This forgiveness provision should not be construed as a forgiveness of the State's obligation to OHA. The airports continue to sit on ceded lands. The State's obligation to compensate OHA for the use of the land upon which the airports sit should also continue. The only difference would now be the source the State will draw upon to satisfy its obligation. I have viewed my role as aiding in alleviating the accumulated debt to reduce the pressure, and thereby allow the State and OHA to return to the negotiating table to work toward a mutually acceptable course of action that accepts as a premise, the existence of an obligation. To ensure that my intent is clear in this regard, I have requested the inclusion of the following provision in section 335: Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect any existing statutes of the several states that define the obligations of such states to Native Hawaiians, Native Americans or Alaskan Natives in connection with ceded lands, except to make clear that airport revenues may not be used to satisfy any such obligations. Mr. President, in light of the unique history of Hawaii's ceded lands and the obligations that flow from these lands for the betterment of the native Hawaiian people, I believe that this is more than a fiscal matter, this is a fiduciary matter--one of trust and obligation. Section 335 ensures that the State of Hawaii and OHA would not be required to return funds already in their possession. It is my expectation that this will calm the waters and clear the way for reasoned negotiations as the State, in good faith, looks to satisfy its obligations from other sources.