were going to notify us that it was to be released for sale. They had let the sale go through.

At this point, we are looking at what other legal options we may have to deal with Washington College for conversion of that property because there are some other legal titles associated with it from the original lenders of that material. We have been in contact with the original lenders of the collection to the museum. We have been able to do quite a bit, but the shirt-for all intents and purposes-is gone at this point and we do not know where that is.

Senator INOUYE. During your initial discussions with Washington College, did you advise the National Park Service or the Interior Department of your action?

Mr. GOUGH. We advised not only the National Park Service, but I remember sending a copy of the NAGPRA legislation to Washington College highlighting the appropriate parts indicating that a museum or an institution of higher learning was eligible and that it was a threshold question of if they have objects that may be subject to the law, they had to follow certain requirements.

So we did provide early notification. That was prior to the expiration date of November 16, 1995 when all of the surveys or inventories were supposed to be in under the law, originally.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much.

Mr. Stevens, like Ms. Worl, you suggest that the placement of the administrative responsibilities in the hands of the Department's chief Archaeologist creates a conflict of interest. Is that correct?

Mr. STEVENS. Yes.

Senator INOUYE. In my statement that I just made, I did not want you to get the idea that I want this office to remain as is and to have the responsibility. We are now presently discussing how to resolve this matter. So I do not know what the outcome will be.

But how do you propose that we address this conflict of interest problem?

Mr. STEVENS. Senator, I do not have the answer to that question today. I really think that we would yield to our commission study to make that recommendation. When you mentioned previously about the potential for bashing or for Interior people to be here, I think that was a good decision on your part. But I think that we have to carefully think this through and be assertive and patient so that we can do what is best for this entire process. That is why we have empowered the commission to make those recommendations. I think that is the direction we would like to go for that recommendation.

Senator INOUYE. And then my final question to all of you.

The act called for a 5-year period in which to set up an inventory. I believe 3-year extensions have been granted to about 60 museums. Is 8 years enough to establish an inventory? Or should we extend this further?

Mr. HALL. Senator, my thoughts are that that is enough time. I do not think any more extension should be granted.

The question that you raised about sacred-life is sacred and human remains are sacred. Enough time has been given. We want to bring our ancestors home for proper reburial.

Mr. MINTHORN. I would concur that 8 years is enough time. There should not be any more extensions.

It is true the words that I have heard from my older ones. When traditions are followed, the right things will happen. These museums and universities and Federal agencies hold objects that are part of our traditions and our way of life.

Thank you.

Mr. GOUGH. Senator, I would just say that the materials that we have discussed here today on behalf of the estate were lost after the expiration of the first deadline-after that 5 year time period. What has happened in the last 3 or 4 years-how much else has been lost that we may never be able to retrieve we cannot even give you an answer. We do not know how much more will be lost with further extensions. That is impossible to say.

Mr. STEVENS. On the technical parts of that, I agree. But I would like to emphasize the pain and suffering in the example I have given you that has directly affected my family regarding this. I think that the pain and suffering continues.

As I assert patience and understanding and assertiveness in this process, I think it has to be within reason. So I think that is more than enough time, if you consider that our ancestors continue to struggle while we do not finalize this process.

Senator INOUYE. Gentlemen, once again, I thank all of you for your testimony. I give you my assurance, as a member of this committee, that your recommendations will be placed in the hands of the committee and we will fully consider every one of them.

Thank you very much.

Senator INOUYE. Our final panel consists of the President of the Society for American Archaeology of Washington, DC, Professor Keith Kintigh; and the President and Chief Executive Office of Bishop Museum, Honolulu, on behalf of the American Association of Museums, Washington, DC, Donald Duckworth. Professor Kintigh, welcome, sir.

STATEMENT OF KEITH KINTIGH, PRESIDENT, SOCIETY FOR AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. KINTIGH. Thank you very much.

Senator Inouye, the Society for American Archaeology thanks the committee for this opportunity to comment. SAA is the leading organization of professional archaeologists in the United States. In 1990, the SAA led the scientific community in working on NAGPRA and helped form a coalition of scientific organizations and Native American groups that strongly supported NAGPRA's enactment. We have always urged our members to work toward its effective implementation.

Joining us in this testimony is the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, the leading organization of physical anthropologists in this country, which also supported the passage of NAGPRA.

Senator 9 years ago I stood before this committee to present SAA's testimony on S. 1980, the bill that became NAGPRA. Looking back, I agree with you that the act is largely working, although problems remain. But I think the committee can be proud of what NAGPRA has accomplished. As you mentioned, hundreds of sum

maries and inventories have been submitted to the tribes, repatriation occurs on a regular basis, and consultation has led to improved understandings among tribal people, museum personnel, and scientists.

However, in the interest of improving the implementation of NAGPRA, we introduce four issues.

First, coordination of the NAGPRA functions by the Departmental Consulting Archaeologist. The Secretary of the Interior delegates responsibility for NAGPRA coordination to the Departmental Consulting Archaeologist, or DCA, who manages the National Park Service's Archaeology and Ethnography Program. For the following reasons we believe that moving this administrative function to a different office would impede rather than enhance the implementation of NAGPRA:

Transfer of NAGPRA coordination functions would require a new, expensive, and redundant administrative unit.

po

No other administrative unit has the expertise necessary to coordinate NAGPRA. The Archaeology and Ethnography Program has coordinated NAGPRA for 9 years and only the DCA is in sition to articulate NAGPRA with other historic preservation law. And this is becoming increasingly important as the section 3 provisions of NAGPRA-those having to do with inadvertent discoveries and intentional excavations, mostly associated with development on Federal land are becoming more and more a deep concern to Indian people, especially in the West.

The most serious complaints about NAGPRA coordination result from inadequate funding, as we have heard, not from administrative location. A move in itself will not solve the funding problem. There is just a lot of work that needs to be done.

Contrary to common belief, the Archaeology and Ethnography Program does not determine cultural affiliation. They do not do that even for National Park Service collections. Those determinations are made by the units that actually hold the collections.

I agree with Judge Hutt that allegations that the NAGPRA grant program is unfairly administered are just unfounded and the statistics, I believe, show that.

The NAGPRA review committee has not recommended movement of the NAGPRA functions but has worked with the National Park Service Archaeology and Ethnography Program.

Finally, while Native American groups argue that their interests are not adequately considered, within the scientific community, there is a widespread belief that it is in fact scientific interests that are routinely ignored. But I think together we have to recognize that NAGPRA was a legislative compromise intended to balance legitimate traditional Native American concerns with the scientific community and the broader public interest in our shared American heritage. I think the Departmental of Consulting Archaeologist and his staff have consistently attempted to fairly maintain that bal

ance.

The second issue is that of Federal agency compliance. SAA and AAPA join the review committee, tribes, and museums in expressing dismay about the lack of compliance by some Federal agencies. Most obvious is the failure of some agencies to complete inventories. Where they are made, however, agency determinations of

cultural affiliation are often made without adequate tribal consultation and also without adequate efforts to compile and adequately weigh scientific or traditional knowledge. We ask Congress to employ the means at its disposal to induce or compel agency compliance. While new appropriations are badly needed, punitive measures may also be required.

The third issue is extensions for museums to complete inventories. Interior is apparently planning to arbitrarily deny requests by six museums with very large collections that have asked for extensions to complete their inventories. Where museums have made good faith efforts to comply with the law, denial of extensions is contrary to the objectives of NAGPRA and I believe will place a heavier burden on the tribes to achieve the repatriation that would be just.

The fourth issue is the interpretation of cultural affiliation. Cultural affiliation is a cornerstone of NAGPRA because it provides legitimacy for most repatriation claims. A critical problem is the expansion, in practice, of the statutory definition of cultural affiliation beyond any legally defensible limits. While the law requires evidence demonstrating cultural affiliation, frequently little or no evidence is presented. Procedural shortcuts and distortions of the definitions have already led to problems such as that of the Kennewick Man and have the potential to lead to many more problems, disputes, and ultimately, lawsuits.

In conclusion, we offer five recommendations:

The overwhelming obstacle to the effective implementation of NAGPRA is the lack of funding for ongoing tribal programs, for museum programs which continue as well apart from the inventory process, and for agency repatriation programs. These are all ongoing funding problems that will remain into the foreseeable future. The committee should discourage the transfer of NAGPRA coordination from the Archaeology and Ethnography Program and move to increase that program's funding.

The committee should forcefully work to bring Federal agencies into compliance with the law.

The committee should encourage the Department of the Interior to reconsider requests for inventory extensions based on a case-bycase evaluation of each museum's efforts to see if they have been in fact in good faith.

Finally, we ask the committee to strive to improve agency and museum adherence to the letter and the spirit of NAGPRA, particularly in making their determinations of cultural affiliation.

We thank you for your consideration and stand ready to work with your committee or other groups within Congress or Native American groups on any amendments that you feel may be required.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Duckworth.

STATEMENT OF W. DONALD DUCKWORTH, PRESIDENT AND CEO, BISHOP MUSEUM, HONOLULU, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MUSEUMS, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. DUCKWORTH. Vice Chairman Inouye, it is a pleasure to appear before you in any capacity. In this particular instance, I am honored to be here as President and CEO of Bishop Museum, as you well know, a Hawaii-based not for profit corporation, which includes the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, which is Hawaii's State Museum of Natural and Cultural History. I am presenting testimony on behalf of that institution and on behalf of the American Association of Museums, for which I serve on the Board of Directors.

I have submitted my longer written testimony for the record.

The Bishop Museum is committed to repatriation, as it has been since 1990 when a representative of the institution, Dr. Elizabeth Tatar testified before this committee on behalf of Bishop Museum in favor of the passage of what we now know as the NAGPRA Act. I would like to comment briefly on our experiences over the past 9 years as we have worked very hard to implement both the letter and the spirit of the law. I would also comment very briefly on the national situation for museums with respect to the law and the activities associated with it.

Since the passage of NAGPRA in 1990, Bishop Museum has repatriated 4,252 Native Hawaiian human remains and funerary objects. This number, the result of NAGPRA-mandated inventories, is nearly double what we were able to estimate as our holdings when we testified in 1990, and they represent all the Native human remains and funerary objects that were retained in our collections by the museum. These inventories were carried out in consultation with Native Hawaiian organizations and verified by Native Hawaiian claimants as part of the repatriation process.

We are pleased to report that we have completed the repatriation under the law of all Native Hawaiian human remains and funerary objects.

In 1990, we estimated the cost of repatriation to be roughly $388,000. The actual costs are expected to reach $1 million, most of which have been for personnel costs, including consultation. About 64 percent of the cost has been provided from museum operating funds, the remainder from other various sources, contracts and otherwise.

Before and after the U.S. Navy contracted inventory-which was for a portion of our holdings which were not our property, but held for the U.S. Government, Department of Navy-the process for every inventory, including consultation and repatriation, has been carried out without incident and to the satisfaction of all involved. The number of consultations increased in time to include more members of Hawaiian organizations, elders, and families.

The relationship of the museum to these organizations did and has indeed improved as we had hoped it would at the outset. In some cases, claimants have grown to understand and appreciate the role of the museum as a caretaker and have indeed-after taking the materials repatriated-lent them back to the museum for safekeeping or in some instances withdrawn their initial claims.