territories to minimize administrative burdens.
In addition, federal agencies have become more
responsive to the territories’ needs and, in
most instances, have established good working
relations
with
territorial
program
adminis-
trators.
Waivers
and
exemptions
to
program
many territory officials
believe
regulations,
technical assistance,
and other
mechanisms
to relieve administrative burdens
were cited as examples of the better working
relationship.
Nevertheless,
that federal policy is not well defined,
ing disenchantment and uncertainty about
future
relationship
with
the
United
caustheir
States.
They believe the United States should establish
a policy framework which specifies how territo-
ries should be treated within the federal sys-
tem and provides a basis for them to
greater
economic
self-reliance
and
development.
In
1980,
the
results
of
an
achieve
social
interagency
task
force on the territories led to a statement by
President
work
for
Carter
the
to
establish
territories.
a
Some
policy
frame-
initiatives,
such as elevating the role of the Department of
Interior's Office of Territorial
and
Inter-
national
Affairs,
were
implemented
after
the
Carter policy pronouncement; however, they did
not
relieve
many
territory
concerns.
GAO
believes policymakers in Congress and the executive branch are likely to face greater pressure from the territories to establish a policy
framework which addresses these issues,
(See
pp. 36 to 39.)
ISSUES RELATED
TO ORGANIZATION
As the territories have attained greater selfgovernment
and
autonomy
over
their
local
affairs, questions have been raised about the
federal-territorial
organizational
relationships,
such as:
Is the federal government
effectively coordinating its administrative and
policy efforts?
Is the Department of the Inte-
rior effectively addressing territorial
cerns and meeting its responsibilities?
conIs a
new federal structure needed to meet territory
concerns and carry out U.S. policy objectives?
Tear Sheet
ja0o020)
'