truth. When they are speed corrected, they have a totally different meaning. That's just to illustrate my point again.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Chairman Taken Alive. If I may, I would like to call upon the chairman of the American Association of Museums and the president and chief executive officer of the Milwaukee Public Museum, William Moynihan.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MOYNIHAN, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MUSEUMS; PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MILWAUKEE PUBLIC MUSEUM, MILWAUKEE, WI

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and to testify on behalf of my own institution and the American Association of Museums.

I can say with some enthusiasm and great pride that the Milwaukee Public Museum is committed to implementing both the intent and the spirit of NAGPRA. It has been a commitment right from the beginning, and we'll see it through.

I thought it might be helpful to use our experience as an example from the museum world on just what we've been doing over the last few years.

As background, the Milwaukee Public Museum is an institution that's probably a mid-sized museum. We have a budget of $8 million yearly. We have a staff of 135 people, full-time equivalents, and about 4.5 million items in our collections-the entire collections.

We were, when NAGPRA was passed, a department of Milwaukee County, but, because of decreasing funding from Milwaukee County, the museum became a private entity. In the process, we lost $1.5 million worth of funding. We lost 27 percent of our staff. Our budgets were cut, and a lot of programs lost.

I think that's important background to get a sense of the commitment that we have made at the Milwaukee Public Museum, because our most recent estimates show that we will be committing well in excess of one-half a million dollars to implement the intent of Congress on this matter.

The task has been a daunting one. We've embraced it with enthusiasm, but it has been a daunting task.

We have approximately 50,000 items in our archaeology collection that are affected by NAGPRA, approximately 22,000 in our ethnology collections. Also, the institution has been collecting material for its 113 years of existence, so the records are uneven, depending on different professional standards over time, so we've had to go back and reconstruct records according to the questions we now have to answer that NAGPRA has brought to us.

Even given these circumstances, I think what we've done is laudatory. If there is any single accomplishment that has been most important to my institution, what NAGPRA has brought to us is a new and productive relationship with Native American groups.

We also have been conducting these inventories. We conducted the one by the deadline of 1993 by going beyond the law. We didn't just meet the minimum requirements. We went beyond and, I think, in the process built up a great deal of credibility and confidence in Native American groups that have dealt with us.

Since the 1993 deadline, we have been doing two things. One is dealing with the archaeology section, but also responding to numerous phone calls, site visits, and letters requesting further information. Again, I think we've gone beyond the law in the types of information and the completeness in our response.

We've also taken a leadership role whenever we could or whenever we were called upon to provide consulting help to area Native American groups interested in expanding their own museums, building new museums, care of the collection, or training professionals.

Like the museum world, in general, the lack of final regulations 5 years into the law and after two of the major deadlines had, in fact, passed caused problems for us. It caused ambiguities. It caused us to question a number of what should have been relatively straightforward decisions by calling colleagues at other institutions, by trying to come up with consistent responses, and it just caused more difficulty in our processes.

The other area that has caused difficulty is the funding area, as I said. We will have expended well in excess of half a million dollars. We have not been one of those museums who has been successful in receiving the NAGPRA grant.

Let me close by making the two recommendations that are in my written testimony. One may be not necessary any more. My written testimony called for the final issuance of the regulations, but I have not seen the final regulations. My understanding is there are still issues that are not completely addressed, and so they're not really final.

The Native Americans of this land and the museums need the final regulations finally after all this time in order to go about our business.

Second, I want to join my colleagues at this table and urge the Congress to urge the Department of Interior to increase the funding level available to Native Americans and available to museums to the $10 million level.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Moynihan appears in appendix.] Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Moynihan.

You've indicated that, because of certain problems such as funding, you have not been able to complete your inventory in the time allotted. How much more time do you think your museum will require to complete the inventory?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Right, Senator. We are one of the museums that has requested an extension. We didn't realize the extent of the problems of our records in terms of our archaeological collections. Our request is submitted for an extension of 2 years. our feeling is we can do it within that time, short of that. We're going to try to do it well before that, but we've asked for a 2-year extension.

Senator INOUYE. Do you have any information about the larger museums, how much time they would need? Or do they need any time?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I'm sorry, Senator. I don't know.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Moynihan, I noted that when this process is over, when all of the existing tribes-and I use that word very definitely-existing tribes are satisfied that their ancestral remains

have been returned, there will still remain unclaimed and unidentified thousands of human remains, which everyone would conclude are Native Americans. What do you think we should do with them? Should the Secretary of the Interior promulgate regulations to address this problem?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I'd like to respond on behalf of my own institution. I don't know the position of the American Association of Museums on this. I think it would be very important that we come up with a process that does not put the onus on an individual museum to determine where, in fact, remains should go.

I think there ought to be a process to return all the remains. Senator INOUYE. It will be, I think, a major problem for all of us to address. We would like to work together with the leaders of Indian Country and leaders of the museum community to come up with something, because otherwise you're going to have on these shelves thousands of skulls and skeletal remains with no home, and I think all of us agree that we should treat these remains with the respect that they are entitled to and provide them with a final resting place.

So I look forward to receiving your thoughts and your recommendations in this area.

As to copies, we do not have too many, but we would be very happy to share the 35 pages with you.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Thank you, sir.

Senator INOUYE. Once again, on behalf of the committee and on behalf of Chairman McCain, I would like to thank all of you for your patience in staying with us this morning and providing us with your wisdom, and, as we in Hawaii would say, your manao, because they are most helpful to us.

Apparently it would appear that, as a result of the recent court decision, amendments may be necessary to the act so that remains will be given adequate protection.

I would like to announce that the record will be kept open for 2 weeks. If you have any addendums, any supplemental information you would like to share with us, or if others in the audience would like to express their words, please submit them to the committee.

With that, thank you.

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHorse Campbell, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

Mr. Chairman, thank you for providing me the opportunity to make a brief statement and thank you for holding this hearing on the status of the implementation of the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act [NAGPRA].

As an original cosponsor of NAGPRA, while serving in the House, I strongly endorse the goals and objectives embodied in this statute. As I recall, this legislative initiative took many years to develop and went through many modifications prior to its enactment in 1990.

Central to the development of NAGPRA was to provide Indian tribal governments with the authority to reclaim vital elements of their respective cultures: Funery objects, ceremonial objects, and bones of their ancestors, which are today housed and stored in museums and other repositories around the country. Enactment of NAGPRA is in many ways a vital element of our ability to preserve our native cul

tures.

It has been 5 years since NAGPRA was signed into law by President Bush. While there has been progress in the implementation of NAGPRA, it seems progress has

been rather slow and incremental.

I do have some concerns regarding the implementation of NAGPRA. First, it is apparent that the costs associated with the implementation of NAGPRA are partly responsible for its slow implementation. Considering the tough budgetary constraints Congress currently finds itself in, funding may continue to be difficult. However, last year Congress did appropriate approximately $3 million for the implementation that would allow museums and other institutions to complete their inventory process. I am interested to know what specific progress was made in this regard and to hear estimates on what further appropriations will be needed. I am also interested to know what other Interior agencies have been doing to comply with NAGPRA. Nonetheless, I would like to see NAGPRA continue to be funded at an appropriate level which will ensure continued success.

Second, I would also like to hear more about the actual implementation process. I realize implementation and funding go hand in hand. However, I am interested in what mandates have been accomplished, and to date, what it has yet to do, and what difficulties have been encountered.

Finally, the Repatriation Review Committee was kind enough to provide me with a copy of their report on NAGPRA. In this report the committee addresses the need to clarify the definition of "Indian tribe." I would like to hear more regarding the problems being encountered because of the current definition and what recommendations the committee has to alleviate these problems.

I am hopeful this hearing will enable the members of this committee to accurately understand what has been done to implement NAGPRA, and importantly, what more needs to be done to uphold our commitment to the Indian people, while maximizing the resources that are committed to the implementation of NAGPRA. I look forward to the testimony provided this morning, and I thank you all for your time. (49)