tory completion-this issue is tied to that apparent conflict of interest, much of which could be solved by the resiting of the team.

As to evidentiary problems, this is one of the very few areas where I think amendment might be appropriate. I agree that the Freedom of Information Act can and has compromised consultation to achieve the goals of NAGPRA. We have seen one pueblo abandon a claim rather than desecrate a religious practice by making it public. In fact—if I might give to your staff-I have prepared a potential amendment to the law with regard to FOIA.

As to the evidentiary part of the law, NAGPRA allows claims to be supported by a variety of types of competent evidence that follows the civil standard of proof. Any amendment to that evidentiary standard I think would be ill-advised because it fits so neatly right now with what we know of the standards of civil proof in law.

As to the publication of notices, the law does not give the administrator of NAGPRA the editorial discretion over the publication of notices. Again, moving the NAGPRA team to a neutral location would resolve what has been perceived as a problem. Funding for a full-time staff member to actually publish the notices might facilitate this happening on a speedier basis.

As to cultural affiliation studies, NAGPRA is silent on study. It is not intended to be an excuse for study or to require study. The whole idea of a peer review group that has come up is one that concerns me because it would seem to invade the museum official or land manager function. We do not have precedent for invading that kind of managerial discretion. We do not need peer approval prior to making a decision. Rather, once a determination of cultural affiliation has been made by a museum official or Federal land manager, if there is a dispute, the elegance of this law is that the review committee, in their collective wisdom, can deal with that. The law is so internally elegant in the way that it deals with this proc

ess.

As to NAGPRA regulations dealing with culturally unidentified remains, that is something that I believe needs to be done and will be done. I think many of these other disputes and the questions as to the position of the NAGPRA team has detracted from the energies that might be applied to that necessary regulation that needs to be developed.

One thing that you might consider is that funerary objects known to be associated with individuals-where those individuals are unidentified because they are not culturally affiliated with a group having standing-the burial items should go with the individual with whom they are associated. That is consistent with property law.

As to grants, there have been some thoughts that the grants have been dealt with unfairly. I do not think the statistics on grants would prove that true. In fact, they have been handled rather equitably. In the beginning, the balance may have been in favor of museums struggling to comply with the law, and that balance has shifted to tribes struggling to deal with the repatriation and the logistical aspects of that.

On civil penalties, there has been a lack of civil penalty enforcement. Funding is needed for personnel in the NAGPRA implemen

tation team to field complaints, monitor compliance, and prepare civil actions to be prosecuted by attorneys in the Office of the Solicitor. An amendment could be considered which would allow for any funds obtained as civil penalty assessments to be retained by the NAGPRA team to fund their enforcement activities.

Finally, there was an issue as to one lawsuit involving what has become known as Kennewick Man. There is no private right to study on the Federal land and only those who meet NAGPRA requirements have standing to claim those remains. I am hopeful that this matter will be resolved in court in a manner that is consistent with this law. You have given the country a consistent law, a necessary law, and one that is balanced. Any amendments to this law should be heavily considered before unbalancing what is currently a very fine and workable law.

Thank you. I reserve any other comments if you have questions. [Prepared statement of Ms. Hutt appears in appendix.] Senator INOUYE. May I now call upon Dr. Worl.

STATEMENT OF ROSITA WORL, INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SEALASKA HERITAGE FOUNDATION, JUNEAU, AK MS. WORL. Thank you, Senator and Dr. Zell.

My name is Rosita Worl and I am currently serving in the capacity of Interim Executive Director of the Sealaska Heritage Foundation. The Foundation's membership includes the Board of Directors of Sealaska Corporation, which is the regional Native corporation for Southeast Alaska and was created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. Sealaska is also recognized as a tribe for the statutory purposes of NAGPRA.

Senator I also do sit on the Board of AFN, where NAGPRA is often discussed.

I have been involved with NAGPRA as a board member of the National Museum of American Indians and as a consulting tribal anthropologist to the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indians of Southeast Alaska. I have witnessed the benefits of NAGPRA through my participation in ceremonial activities in which cultural objects returned under NAGPRA to clans in Southeast Alaska have been used as they were originally meant to be.

On occasion I have written and discussed various aspects relating to the implementation of NAGPRA with our Alaskan congressional delegation. Thus I was very pleased when I learned that the Committee on Indian Affairs would be holding a hearing on the implementation of NAGPRA, and I am very honored to be here today. In the interest of time, I will over a few recommendations. However, before I begin my discussion, I would like to note for the record that Sealaska concurs in concept with the nine recommendations that were outlined in a memorandum dated April 14, 1999 to the chairman and vice chairman of this committee from the minority committee staff in reference to this oversight hearing. I would especially emphasize our wholehearted support for the recommendation to replace the NPS with another administering agency that would not have the inherent conflict of interest which exists in the Office of Archaeologist with the National Park Service. I have written to my delegation about this issue and I know that this specific concern has emerged throughout Indian country. I would

also like to concur with the observations offered so eloquently by my colleague, Sherry Hutt.

My first recommendation is to implement an oversight process that ensures that museums and other entities act on repatriation claims on a timely basis. I do not know if this is the function of the committee or who has this function, but my observation is that it has not been working.

To illustrate the basis of this recommendation, I would like to cite one example which substantiates this recommendation. We have one repatriation claim for over 40 objects of cultural patrimony from the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology that was initially submitted in September 1995. The clan submitted information to validate its claim. The existence of clans among the Tlingit and their patterns of communal ownership of property are well-established within the ethnographic literature and several legal cases, including the most recent and widely-published Whale House decision in the Chilkat Tribal Court. This repatriation petition was modeled on similar information that other museums have accepted and honored in their return of objects to clans. The University of Pennsylvania Museum, in this instance, continued to request information, including the use and origin of the objects. They then wanted tapes from clan elders. In the third year of the process, another tribe within the community made a claim for the same objects. The first claimant responded by submitting a list with the signatures of all of its members and a resolution stating that the clan would remain with the first claimant. We think that this should have settled the issue.

Although this repatriation was clouded with the conflicting claims, the museum made no attempt to resolve the issue and instead continues to ask for even more information.

We understand that this collection is the centerpiece of the University of Pennsylvania exhibits and the clan views the museum's continuing questions and lack of action over a 4-year period as a delaying tactic.

Recommendation No. 2: Congress should appoint a committee of Native American religious leaders and scholars and representatives from the academic community to define sacred, taking into consideration the social and cultural changes within Native American tribes and the phenomenon of religious renewal. I know the committee, in development of the act, has spent a lot of time on this issue. However, I continue to believe that it is going to continue to be an issue of conflict. I think that we should deal with it right up front rather than have each and every tribe having to redefine sacred, and then how sacred works with religious renewal.

I think there is a problem in not tying these two concepts together in the law well in such a way that I think we are going to continue to have conflicts. Because of the changes that Native Americans have experienced, their religious practices as they once practiced them-before the changes have changed as a result of the many and dramatic cultural changes. However, I think the core religious beliefs exist, but I think we are going to find some changed situations. My observation is that the museums are going to try to hold tribes to the practices as they were practiced before any of the disruption in the Native community.

Recommendation No. 3: Congress should adopt a policy to ensure the prompt reburial of culturally unidentifiable human remainsthe prompt reburial of culturally unidentifiable human remains. I am under the assumption that the evidence that will be required to substantiate claims for culturally unidentifiable human remains will be onerous, costly, and time-consuming. It is my recommendation that Congress should adopt a policy that would automatically return and rebury culturally unidentifiable remains to the site from which the remains were taken. The same sacred and spiritual beliefs surrounding culturally unidentifiable remains apply as they do to culturally identifiable remains.

I am sorry, Senator. I am having a hard time with all these words. It reminds me of the first time when I was trying to explain repatriation to our elders and clan leaders. I had them say "repatriation" continuously. I am having the same problem with this "culturally unidentifiable remains".

This country has honored all unidentifiable remains of military personnel symbolized so well by the tomb of the unknown solider and buried them. I believe unknown Native American human remains deserve the same treatment and respect.

Recommendation No. 4: Ensure that all museums and entities which receive Federal funding comply with NAGPRA. We recently learned through a news article in early April that the Stockton Parks and Recreation Department had a Tlingit 46 red cedar totem pole. It had decided to remove, cut into manageable pieces, and to send it to a landfill. We had received no notice from the Parks Service until we found out about it in the newspaper and we immediately contacted them. I do not know how often this occurs elsewhere, but I think there should be some mechanism to ensure that this kind of incident does not happen again.

Recommendation No. 5: Congress should expand NAGPRA to the international level in concert with Federal aid packets to other nations. We have heard disturbing news that Russia has been selling ethnographic pieces from museums to private collectors. Although this information is unsubstantiated, we have reason to believe it is probable.

As you are aware, Russia presumed to own Alaska prior to the United States. During their tenure in Alaska, its representative removed many significant ethnographic objects from Alaska, which we believe should also be returned.

Recommendation No. 6: Amend NAGPRA to exempt private collections donated by private collector museums from repatriation claims. Though this is a very difficult recommendation for myself to make because I would love to have the opportunity to have access to those collections as well-however, it is my thinking and from discussions I have heard from private collectors, they had once thought about donating their collections to museums, but once NAGPRA was enacted, they decided that they were not going to do that. I think these collections-I would much rather see them in public institutions than forever from the view of Native Americans and the people who need those objects.

Recommendation No. 7:-and I suppose you will hear this often-Congress should appropriate additional funding to fully implement NAGPRA, to support efforts by tribes to conserve and care

for repatriated objects—including the development of tribal museums-to support efforts by museums to engage tribes in museum programs centered on tribal collections including education about tribal collections and in museum practices to preserve and exhibit collections.

Senator I believe that NAGPRA is good public policy. I think it is good public policy that is benefitting both the Indian community and the museums as well. I think we should move forward in it. I think we are finding out that there are some changes that can be made to improve the act, some that may not necessarily require an amendment to NAGPRA, but I do also think that there are going to be some amendments required.

Thank you, Senator.

[Prepared statement of Ms. Worl appears in appendix.]

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony.

I especially am intrigued by the definition you have given to the act, Judge elegant and unambiguous. Dr. Worl, I am glad that you believe that this is good public policy.

I would like to ask a few questions.

Judge I interested in your proposal that we appoint or establish an office of a prosecutor and to fund that office from moneys that might be received in enforcement actions.

I can assure you we will look into this very seriously. But where do you think this prosecutor should be located? In the Justice Department?

Ms. HUTT. Actually, I think the Office of Solicitor within the Department of the Interior might take this assignment.

What I was really speaking to is someone within the NAGPRA implementation team who would manage that kind of prosecution, sort of from the client's standpoint, who would both look for violations in an investigative vein, field complaints, and prepare these for prosecution. Then they may be prosecuted as civil actions by officers currently in the Solicitor's Office, Department of the Interior. That is what I was thinking.

So in terms of funding a position, it would be a management of litigation position to ensure that these things are being followed through on and that they are being evaluated.

Senator INOUYE. You have noted in your testimony, Judge, that the National Park Service has an archaeologist with the responsibility of administering provisions of NAGPRA, but at the same time has another role of determining the cultural affiliation of objects. You suggest that these duties pose a conflict of interest. How do you propose to address this matter?

Ms. HUTT. The NAGPRA implementation team sits within the Office of Archaeology and Ethnography within the Office of the Departmental Consulting Archaeologists. That office performs many valid functions in the furtherance of science. To have the implementation team housed within that office is where the conflict exists. The only way to deal with that conflict is to take that team as a unit-almost as a line item-and move it to a neutral position, one within the Department of the Interior, but not within an office that has functions which would cause it to be in conflict. I think