Daniel Inouye

The NALEMP annual appropriation was first drafted in 1993 by Senator Ted Stevens and Senator Daniel Inouye.

I strongly urge that the Committee take action to assure that laws relating to Native American languages not only include Native Hawaiians in their wording, but also include Native Hawaiians as actual beneficiaries.

It is and has always been Federal law and policy that Indian tribes recognized by the Federal Government stand on an equal footing to each other and to the Federal Government.

The Department affects almost all sectors of our Nation's economy and literally touches all of our lives.

Of course a lot of what the military can use today traces its roots back to science and technology investments.

My approach is to advocate the diplomatic approach, which is symbolized by this wampum belt.

Who was one of my great inspirations for this diplomatic approach? Because we have a choice.

We have the diplomatic approach, which is the carrot and carrot approach, where everybody wins.

In 2009, the late Senator Daniel K. Inouye... supported simple and unconditional bill language like that in S. 248

We may have our roots in Japan, but we are committed to the United States and we are prepared to fight for this country.

By allowing the DREAM Act to sit idle, we extinguish hope for a lot of people and deny too many the opportunity I was given.

. . . If [the FCC] identifies such unforeseen instances in which a lack of agreement results in a loss of local programming to viewers, the Commission should take the regulatory steps needed to address the problem.

Ricky and former Chairman of the Committee, Senator Inouye, were great partners.

I implore you to honor treaty obligations and to exempt all tribes and programs serving tribes from the current and any future sequestration.

He told us that in his view, all tribes have a prepaid health plan, and that it was paid for by our ancestors who ceded their lands to the United States.

No single enactment has had a more profound effect on more tribal communities than has the Indian Self-Determination Act.

The television marketplace is moving toward more consumer choice among video distributors, more package options...

Senator Inouye and the late Senator Stevens wrote the FCC stating that the Commission did indeed have authority to intervene.

The best way to protect consumers in the long run is to do away with the retransmission consent regime altogether.

I agree with the Chairman that consumers should be the focal point of our discussions.

I believe that the retransmission consent regime enacted in 1992 is one of the great Washington public policy accomplishments of the last two decades.

Broadcasters should be allowed to negotiate for fair value and carriage of their signals.

Viewers would be harmed in those 'instances in which [retransmission consent] agreements are not reached.'

I commend Chairman Rockefeller for convening this hearing to consider the impact of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 on the modern television marketplace.