134 



Mr. Faleomavaega. I'm not intending to make the BIA the 

 whipping boy of our hearing this morning, but consistently it seems 

 that this has always been the constant theme in the years that I've 

 served on hearings dealing with Native American issues. 



I understand that they've made, the past four years, a very dih- 

 gent effort to reorganize the BIA. I don't know where we are with 



that. 



And adding more complications to the process is the fact that we 

 have a new Administration, and we have new players. Let's keep 

 our fingers crossed that hopefully, with the new Administration, we 

 will get a better set of policies at least more consistently as com- 

 pared, perhaps, to what we've had to deal with in the past. 



Mr. Schlender? 



Mr. Schlender. Yes. I'd like to point out to yourself and to the 

 Committee that I don't blame the Bureau of Indian Affairs for 

 some of the concerns that have been raised here. 



The fact that our funding comes in at 39 percent less than what 

 we put it in for, I put the blame for that on the President and on 

 the Office of Management and Budget. 



It's been our experience that the Bureau of Indian Affairs is the 

 one that has the best understanding of what the trust responsibil- 

 ity is, particularly in comparison to the many other agencies that 

 we have to deal with in the federal government. 



For example, we deal with hydro relicensing projects in the 

 states of Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. And the Federal En- 

 ergy Regulatory Commission has consistently obviated the tribe's 

 ability to put conditions on the relicensing projects that are going 

 forward. 



And so they have no understanding of what the trust responsibil- 

 ity is to Indian tribes. 



The National Park Service has taken it upon itself to give its 

 own interpretation as to what treaty rights is. 



In the area of Isle Royal, we have endeavored to try to have a 

 dialogue with them regarding fishing around Isle Royal, comnier- 

 cial fishing, something that tribal members do in Lake Superior. 

 And the National Park Service has said that they don't recognize 

 the treaty rights. 



The tribes in our state have chosen not to sue the Federal Gov- 

 ernment, but instead have chosen to sue the states. But if the Na- 

 tional Park Service is going to reflect the opinion of the Federal 

 Government, then certainly a suit like that would have to go for- 

 ward. 



The Bureau of Indian Affairs has been very good in terms of pro- 

 viding litigation support to tribes in the midwest. We have risen 

 up to the top of their list in terms of getting litigation support. And 

 that's been very helpful to the tribes in its fight against the states 

 that do not recognize the treaty rights of the tribes. 



The Department of Labor has sued our organization, and it clear- 

 ly is against the weight of case law and opinion that says that in- 

 terference with the infrastructure, the intramural rights of tribes 

 to be self-governing strictly in the area of treaty rights, the Depart- 

 ment of Labor has chosen to ignore that. 



It's cost us more than $40,000 to get a win in the trial court 

 level, and we're facing an appeal with the Department of Labor 



