Arizona project," and we've made an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation to house and develop or construct a repository in our community. And we will also be using our own resources to supplement that, because we obviously want to repatriate a lot of the cultural patrimony items from other institutions in the country dealing with NAGPRA and house these in our community.

For instance, recently, this past July, I visited the National Museum of the American Indian and viewed two of the only four in existence Pima blankets made of 100 percent cotton in that institution, and we want to at least try to get some of those blankets back to Gila River in review for our people, for our younger people.

But, in essence, that's basically my testimony. I appreciate the effort that you have done, Senator, and Senator McCain, and all the committee improving NAGPRA, even though it is a start and there has been some delay. Five years has been a long time. I recognize the bureaucracy that everyone has to go through, but I didn't really want to say anything against the National Park Service or the Review Committee. I think they've done a job required of them, and with a lack of resources, and I applaud the committee for at least looking into providing additional moneys to Indian tribes to fully implement this law.

Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Antone appears in appendix.] Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, Governor.

You mentioned in your testimony that an agreement was reached between your tribe and the Bureau of Reclamation

Mr. ANTONE. Yes.

Senator INOUYE. [continuing]. To construct a repository to house archaeological material. How did you reach this agreement?

Mr. ANTONE. Well, initially this was one of my ultimate goals when I got into office, to develop some type of museum and repository for our tribe. Right now, as you may or may not be aware, we do have an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation to receive water, one of the largest allocations under that law, 172,000 acre feet.

In part of the process of that, they are going to be doing archaeological work in the community developing for the distribution canals, and so forth.

Obviously, they are going to have to go through the NEPA process, and one of the things they are going to do is archaeological work, and so, rather than house all the material from Gila River and put them into Tucson, where the Western Archaeological Advisory Conservacy offices or institutions where they are housed now, we thought, "Well, why don't we build it in Gila River and develop a partnership with Reclamation?"

So we instituted that about 12 years ago, and so tentatively we have an agreement with that.

Also, we're one of the self-governance tribes, and we have included that in the recent AFA agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation.

Senator INOUYE. It will be just to house archaeological remains of Gila River?

Mr. ANTONE. No; it will be all CAP since day one when they started from the Colorado River all the way to Tucson.

Senator INOUYE. You mentioned that the lack of final regulations affected your repatriation efforts. How did it affect it? Slowed it down?

Mr. ANTONE. It slowed it down to the extent that, rather than dealing with the regulations, since they weren't there, we just developed agreements with Federal agencies. In that one case I mentioned about the Williams Air Force Base, a huge archaeological site, we developed an agreement based on some of the provisions in NAGPRA, dealing at least with consultation when they start working on their base, and as far as development, that they need to consult the tribe.

I'd be more than happy to provide you a copy of that programmatic agreement. In this case, it worked out very well.

Senator INOUYE. You worked with the Keepers of the Treasures; is that correct?

Mr. ANTONE. Not today, as of today. I was the first board member, I was the chairman of the board when it first came into exist

ence.

Senator INOUYE. But in your work with the Keepers, could you describe any barriers or impediments in the repatriation process from that standpoint?

Mr. ANTONE. The essence of Keepers is to promote cultural awareness and language and retention of language and cultural retention for Indian people. In my experience with Keepers, there were several things going on.

As you know, in 1992 also the amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act were approved, and also the NAGPRA was approved in 1990, and really I did not foresee any problems. I think the Agency and Park Service were trying to deal with the issues but, as stated before, the lack of resources.

I guess I have to say, as far as regulations, the 1992 amendments of the National Historic Preservation Act, even though they have some draft agreements right now or regulations, they are a little bit better, quicker done-I guess that's what I'm saying-than the NAGPRA regulations.

The Park Service has gone out and had several meetings with the tribes on the National Historic Preservation Act, and what I'm meaning is that that particular legislation which was approved in 1992 has been addressed a little bit more considerably as far as NAGPRA regulations.

Senator INOUYE. I will be asking all of the witnesses, as I did in the first panel, to submit to us in writing your views on the recent Hawaii case, which would have an impact upon your efforts.

For example, I'd like to know what you think about exempting information on Native American human remains from public disclosure. I'd like to know what your position would be on the appointment of guardians so that all of these human remains might be protected, and whether this act should be amended to make certain that Native American human remains have a legal standing in court, because under the ruling of the court, it does not have legal standing, and this would cause, I would say, major concern in this community because of the uncertainty involved.

So I will be asking all of you to, if you will, share with us your thoughts on this.

I'd like to now call upon

Mr. ANTONE. Senator?

Senator INOUYE. Yes.

Mr. ANTONE. Could I just add one comment to what you mentioned earlier about unidentified human remains?

Senator INOUYE. Yes.

Mr. ANTONE. I guess in our situation, Arizona law, in that law basically it says that the closest tribe where the human remains were uncovered, that tribe would be the tribe to repatriate those human remains, if they desire.

There have been cases in Arizona where that has occurred, because ultimately the purpose of repatriation is to bring back the ancestors and rebury them, no matter where they are at. Even though they are not identified, they are human beings. They were human beings.

And so in our situation we've always, even though they were unidentified and we didn't know what tribe they came from, we took them in and reburied them because they deserved that.

Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

May I now call upon the chairwoman of the Pawnee Tribe, Elizabeth Blackowl.

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH

BLACKOWL,

CHAIRWOMAN, PAWNEE TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, PAWNEE, OK, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT PEREGOY, ESQUIRE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND, WASHINGTON, DC

Mrs. BLACKOWL. Good morning, Vice Chairman Inouye and members of the committee. I am Elizabeth Blackowl, president of the Pawnee Tribe of Oklahoma. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Pawnee Tribe about our efforts to implement Federal repatriation laws.

I will summarize my written testimony.

Mr. Vice Chairman, the Pawnee Tribe commends you and ChairIman McCain and other members of the committee for your dedicated leadership in passing NAGPRA. It is difficult to express in words our heartfelt sentiments involved in repatriating our beloved ancestors.

For example, we were deeply moved by Senator McCain's presence at the Fort McNair ceremonies held last June. We were honored to have him with us when the remains of six Pawnee scouts and U.S. Army veterans were repatriated from the Museum of Natural History. Our tribal representatives were very touched by the good words that he shared with us on that day.

With you, Senator Inouye, we appreciate your continued leadership and support in our repatriation efforts, and we appreciate your sponsorship of this law.

I am here to testify that NAGPRA can work. Since 1989, our tribe has repatriated and reburied 1,100 relatives from Federal and State museums. This was accomplished in four ceremonies, beginning in 1990. Three of these burials occurred under Nebraska and Kansas_repatriation laws. The fourth reburial was done in 1995 under Federal law, NAGPRA, and the National Museum of the

American Indian Act. We reburied 400 ancestors and their burial objects.

These dead were repatriated from four State and Federal museums. They were reburied with tribal rights and with military honor for the U.S. Army veterans.

The Pawnee Tribe currently has a repatriation claim pending with the Museum of Natural History. This claim was initiated in 1988. A part of this 7-year claim is still pending at the Smithsonian. It is part of an appeal recently decided by the Native American Review Committee of the Smithsonian Institution. This was the first appeal decided by that committee, and we commend the Review Committee for their fair and timely way the handled our appeal.

We started to see results under NAGPRA, but improvement is really needed. Our experience tells us that there are three specific issues that must be addressed.

First, Federal repatriation budgets are drastically under-funded. The 1995 repatriation cost $80,000, although we did receive a $7,500 grant from the Forest Service. In fiscal year 1994 and 1995, the National Park Service received 337 proposals from tribes and museums, totaling $30 million, but was only able to fund 83 grants for $4.3 million. This is a $25 million gap. The current level of $2.3 million is clearly inadequate.

Congress needs to appropriate at least $10 million annually to implement NAGPRA in a meaningful way. Let us not forget that we are talking about the reburial of our ancestors.

Second, our repatriation claim at the Museum of Natural History was delayed and burdened with unnecessary Government studies. These studies were unrelated to the Pawnee claims. This resulted in excessive and unnecessary cost to the tribe and to the Federal Government.

To remedy this problem, we recommend that the committee direct the Smithsonian and other affected museums to: No. 1, refrain from excessive delays in corresponding with Indian tribes; No. 2, refrain from conducting unnecessarily and unduly expensive new studies, especially under the guise of documenting or inventorying the remains at issue; and, No. 3, to consult with Indian tribes to make the process less technical and expensive and to streamline claims.

Third, the failure of the Secretary of the Interior to finalize NAGPRA regulations until this week has caused problems. This included delays and increased cost to the Pawnee Tribe in our claim at the Nebraska State Historical Society. Because these overdue regulations were just recently published, the hearing record should be kept open so tribes can comment on these regulations.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. On behalf of the Pawnee people, we thank you and your committee for your leadership in this important human rights issue, and the Pawnee Tribe is willing to assist the committee in any way possible.

Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Ms. Blackowl appears in appendix.] Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

I would like to first note that Walter Echohawk is not here and that Mr. Robert Peregoy is with you.

I would like to also congratulate you on the successful repatriation of your Pawnee scouts. Could you tell us how long that process took?

Mr. BLACKOWL. I'll have to refer that question to Mr. Peregoy. Mr. PEREGOY. The repatriation process with the National Museum of Natural History took approximately 3 years, as far as I can tell, Senator Inouye, and was quite costly. It cost the Pawnee Tribe and the Native American Rights Fund about $51,000. Senator INOUYE. Did you say $51,000?

Mr. PEREGOY. Yes; $51,000. That includes other repatriations that were done with the Federal Government under NAGPRA, because problems with excessive delay, as well as what we consider to be very unnecessary studies that were conducted by the Museum of Natural History were really unrelated to the Pawnee claims at issue. That's one of the serious areas of attention that we feel is required, that the museums are conducting studies that aren't called for under the act, under the guise of inventorying and documenting remains where the act, on its face, states that the cultural affiliation is to be determined based upon existing information.

Senator INOUYE. At the beginning of the process, was there any question as to the identification of the four Pawnee scouts?

Mr. PEREGOY. I am not aware of the specifics if there was an issue in terms of the identification of those six Pawnee scouts, but with the one repatriation that was handled this year under NAGPRA with the Federal Government, there was a question at the beginning.

The Museum of Natural History had responded initially to the Pawnee's claim that they only had the remains of two Pawnees, and at that time we knew that there was a substantial more number than that, and so Native American Rights Fund, in conjunction with the Pawnee Tribe, found it necessary to hire additional experts and historians to document our claim at that time.

We documented that there were 80 Pawnees held by that museum, and had we taken the museum's number up front, we would have left 78 of the tribal ancestors of the Pawnee people on the shelves in those warehouses, and it cost us approximately, as I said, $50,000 to go through that process to do this kind of documentation.

Senator INOUYE. So finally how many remains have you received?

Mr. PEREGOY. Under NAGPRA, 400 from State and Federal museums, and a total-the Pawnee Tribe, over the course of the last 6 years, has repatriated 1,100 ancestors and reburied them.

I think it is very significant to note, Senator, that the presentday Pawnee Tribe consists of 2,500 people, and 1,100 of that 2,500 is about 44 or 45 percent, so that is a very significant number. That's almost one-half of the living Pawnee people today who have been repatriated from these museum shelves and reburied, and that is a very significant number.

If you extrapolated that to the United States population, that would be approximately 120 million people in museum shelves. It is very significant to the Pawnee society, and that's one thing that, frankly, irks NARF and the Pawnee Tribe, and I think that you