the conflicts that have been discussed by some of the individuals who will testify today are very valid concerns of conflict of interest. Senator INOUYE. I suppose you do not have any idea in what bureau or department they should be placed?

Ms. HUTT. Somewhere not within science or Native American concerns. Somewhere, perhaps in museum policy, within the Department of the Interior. I believe that the Secretary needs to make a decision and to resite this in a neutral position where it can deal with policy, where it can deal with NAGPRA implementation without having the same office dealing with NAGPRA compliance also dealing with agency compliance. So it would have to be somewhere closer to the heart of the Secretary.

Senator INOUYE. I can assure you that we will be looking into this matter very seriously.

Your suggestions I believe are worthy of consideration by all of us and we will do so. Thank you very much.

Ms. Worl, you have suggested that there are some museumsand you cited one of them-that may be delaying the implementation of this act by just asking question upon question, in one case for 4 years.

How do we resolve that matter?

Ms. WORL. Well, I am not certain, but perhaps with the review committee that has oversight requiring additional reports from museums outlining the receipt of the repatriation request, followed up by certain periods where they are required to report on the progress to the committee. That might be one recommendation, Senator.

Senator INOUYE. There will be those in our democracy who will maintain that every effort must be made to make certain that every viewpoint is fully expressed. As a result, in our judicial system, we have appeal upon appeal. One who is found guilty of murder can guarantee himself an additional 15 years of life, or something like that.

But something has to be done because if it is an obvious ploy on the part of organizations to delay something has to be done. I can assure you that we will look into this very carefully.

On the matter of the definition of what is sacred, as I indicated in my opening statement-this has been a matter of great concern to us. What is sacred? How do you propose we define this term? Ms. WORL. I would have to write another dissertation. Senator, I think there are many ways of interpreting it. I think a problem we are having right now is that people who are in positions of having to define sacred have a world view that is very different from that of Native Americans. I think that even the study-even those who have studied this concept are very restricted. They remain restricted or affected by their own world view. Whereas Native Americans-they also have a very different world view and conception of sacred.

I think that we need-and you need-a body to help us relook at this. Also, the other dimension that I had brought in was the issue of religious renewal because I think there have been changes in Native American religious practices that are the result of the social and cultural changes within their society.

So I see a disjuncture between the definition of sacred as the requirements that Native Americans are required to show, that this is the way it was practiced in the 1700's, but today I might practice it a little differently. So you might have an object that was used in a certain way in the 1600s that is used differently in the present-day period. And the problem with NAGPRA is that it limits or constrains to the way the practices were in the earlier period. So that is an issue that I think we need to deal with. I think Native Americans are going to become frustrated as they are going to have to try to explain those practices and convince people that the cultural beliefs that the ideology, that the religious beliefs-remain the same, but the practices may differ, using even the same object.

Senator INOUYE. This matter that we are considering this morning was the first major item on my agenda when I assumed the chairmanship of this committee 12 years ago. At that time, I sensed that one of the major problems would be the definition of sacred because all of the attempts made by the committee and the Congress in defining this word were based upon European experiences or European standards.

It would be very simple to identify what is sacred in the Vatican or in a cathedral. But what is sacred in the Black Hills? I would hope that we will be able to get the minds of brilliant people together and come up with something that both worlds can live with. Otherwise this is going to be a cause of contention forever.

I can understand in some sense the feelings in Indian country of what could be considered sacred. But it might be very difficult to convince Europeans of that with their background and experience.

So if you or anyone here has any brilliant proposal to make on how we can address this matter, I would appreciate that very much.

Ms. Worl, you spoke of identifiable and unidentifiable cultural remains or human remains or cultural artifacts. During our consideration of this act—and you may know that the museum that we are looking forward to was given birth because of this matter-as a naive chairman when I learned that there were 14,500 human remains at the Smithsonian, my first question was, Where did they come from? The bulk of it came from the Army. They were collected by soldiers on the field, sometimes fresh from the battlefield. So they were sent to Washington with flesh remaining on them. They were not identified as being Cheyenne or Rosebud or Navajo. They came from this Indian territory.

We are told that as a result, most of the remains that are now in green boxes at the Smithsonian are unidentifiable. So at that time I proposed that we build a grand monument in the center of the national mall, a mausoleum, to provide a permanent resting place for these unidentifiable remains.

But the reaction from Indian country was not what I anticipated. Many tribal leaders and religious leaders very seriously came up and said, "You cannot do that because in my tribe we do not bury the deceased, we place them above ground." Another would say, "In my tribe we do something else." Some Indians would say that they do not want the remains of their people mixed up with the remains of certain other Indian tribes.

So we abandoned that and developed this concept of a living memorial which would also serve as a museum.

How would you propose that the Government of the United States provide the final resting place for these unidentifiable remains? We understand that there are thousands of them.

Ms. WORL. Senator, I would offer two things. I would recommend that they be returned to the location from which they were taken, if that record is there.

Senator INOUYE. The only trouble is that they do not know where most of them came from. They may only know that they came from a geographic area, which may cover a territory as large as the Louisiana Purchase.

Ms. WORL. I would suggest that we could do some historical research to find out what wars were going on, what battles were occurring at which time. I think you could do a historical review and try to at least get a general area where the human remains were taken.

The point that I am trying to make is that the same soldiers that were fighting in those fields-if they were American soldiers, they were buried. If they were Native American soldiers, they were brought to the Smithsonian, or elsewhere. My recommendation is to have them returned to those sites.

Senator INOUYE. I am with you.

Ms. WORL. If possible. If we are able to learn through the historical records. If not, with my recommendation I am trying to avoid the long studies that have been done on human remains. I am trying to avoid the Kennewick Man. And I am just saying that the overarching policy should be to return the human remains somewhere home.

Senator INOUYE. I would like to thank both of you for your obviously well-researched statement and well thought-out recommendations. I can assure you that I will recommend to the committee that every recommendation be seriously considered. And thank you, Judge, for calling our act elegant.

Ms. HUTT. It is, truly.

Senator INOUYE. And thank you, Doctor, for considering this a good public policy.

Ms. WORL. Thank you, Senator.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Senator INOUYE. Now may I call upon the second panel, the Chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation of North Dakota, Tex Hall; a member of the Board of Trustees of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation of Oregon, Armand Minthorn; a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, Robert Gough; and the Vice President of the National Congress of American Indians, Ernie Stevens, Jr.

Gentlemen, welcome. May I first proceed by calling upon Chairman Hall?

STATEMENT OF TEX HALL, CHAIRMAN, THREE AFFILIATED
TRIBES, FORT BERTHOLD RESERVATION, NEW TOWN, ND
Mr. HALL. Good morning, Senator Inouye.
[Remarks given in Native tongue.]

That is your name in our language. Our tribe gave you that name, "One who helps people." I greet you as a relative of our tribe, on behalf of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Tribes.

Senator Inouye, I am also the chairman of the Aberdeen Area tribes, which is 17 tribes of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska, and I represent over 200,000 Native Americans today. I present my testimony on behalf of all those ancestors whose remains still to this day sit on shelves in museums and universities across this country. I want to express my deep concerns regarding the implementation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, otherwise known as NAGPRA.

Since 1985, the Aberdeen Area tribes have been active in the repatriation and reburial of our common ancestors. We brought home and buried more than 2,000 of our ancestors in 1989 alone. Since the inception of NAGPRA law, we have brought home an additional 3,000 of our relatives along with their personal burial property. We have reburied them and returned them to our Mother Earth so they may rest in peace.

We believe our ancestors are suffering. We believe their souls cannot rest. We cannot rest and will not rest until we have brought each and every one of our people home and given them a decent and dignified burial. It is their right.

Tribes from all across this Nation, Senator Inouye, have worked in unity for the passage of NAGPRA along with yourselves so that their ancestors and sacred objects would be returned to us. Yet since 1990 we have watched the steady erosion of the NAGPRA protections granted to tribes. We have followed the activities of the NAGPRA review committee operate on a meager budget. We have spent thousands of dollars sending representatives to NAGPRA meetings where their concerns and questions were ignored and minimized by the committee.

We watched as NAGPRA deadlines for Federal agencies, museums, and universities came and went. We watched as the review committee granted one extension after another to these agencies. We watched as the same committee invented repatriation requirements for tribes. We also stood behind and beside the Minnesota tribes as they sought to obtain written permission from a long list of other tribes before they could bring their relatives home.

They had the full support of the State of Minnesota in their repatriation efforts. Even so, they were delayed for almost a year while they sought to fulfill this extra demand by the review committee. Four distinct categories of unaffiliated human remains were created by the NAGPRA review committee at their June 1998 meeting. Two of the categories discuss archaeological populations. The committee then attempts to classify whether these unaffiliated human remains are part of archaeological population which is extinct or whether they have living descendants. If it is determined by the review committee that there are no living descendants, science will then be allowed to carry out their experiments on our ancestors.

Senator Inouye, we believe that all unaffiliated human remains taken from our collective homelands are our ancestors. We believe the disposition of these old ones is subject to NAGPRA law. We firmly believe we should be allowed to bring our relatives home,

rebury them, and reunite them with our Mother Earth, where they may finally rest in peace.

When the Federal Register requested comments on the published recommendations for the disposition of our relatives on these socalled unaffiliated remains, our hearts were happy. Under these recommendations, decisions for repatriation or burial will be left in the hands of intertribal regional coalitions, whose joint_claims would be based upon their collective aboriginal homelands. But apparently this was not to be, for now we hear talk from the Department of Interior of brokering a compromise between science and tribes.

Members of the committee, these unaffiliated remains are our ancestors, our relatives, and there will be no compromise from tribes on this issue. Tribes can work together. Joint intertribal claims are provided for in the law. To date, we have completed at least six joint intertribal claims and reburial.

Let me list a few incidents which show how the NAGPRA law needs to be changed and corrected.

No. 1, there was a 1995 memorandum of understanding between the Great Plains Region of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Smithsonian. This MOU purports to outline procedures for the transfer of our ancestors and their personal property from the Great Plains Region to the Smithsonian Institute. ÑAGPRA states that all Federal agencies must repatriate Native remains excavated from lands they manage and which are funded with Federal dollars-no exceptions. This MOU was signed post-NAGPRA. Tribes were not consulted. The Smithsonian has no repatriation deadline. The Smithsonian has no restriction on scientific studies.

This concerns us. The Smithsonian Museum already holds many of our relatives captive in their repositories. The Missouri River survey was an enormous archaeological project carried out with Federal dollars on Federal lands. The remains of many of our ancestors were moved to the Smithsonian and other museums across this country for study during this project and they remain there still. The homelands of the Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux Tribes now lie beneath the waters of the Garrison dam. We have given much already to the Missouri River Basin survey. Now we want our relatives returned home for our reburial.

No. 2, is the University of Nebraska and Smithsonian Institute remains of a body were washed out on a creek in Nebraska. The tribes were not informed. Nebraska tribes were told remains would be buried. We believe this is not so. Remains were spirited off to the Smithsonian Institute. A University of Nebraska professor conducted invasive scientific study on our Ponca, Pawnee, Arikara, and Wichita ancestors. The same professor published his speculated findings in a professional paper entitled "In the Wake of Contact: Biological Responses to Contact."

The same professor obtained Federal grant dollars by stating he had Ponca Tribe's permission for study for the ancestral remains, which the Ponca deny. The same professor amused his students by displaying a baby's skull on his hand and making it talk. The same professor had sole access to a lab where the remains of Omaha ancestors were stored along with Taco Bell wrappers and other trash.