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) '