[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPROVING LAND TITLE GRANT
PROCEDURES FOR NATIVE AMERICANS
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
AND THE
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 19, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services
and the Committee on Resources
Committee on Financial Services
Serial No. 109-46
Committee on Resources
Serial No. 109-25
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
*24-401 WASHINGTON : 2006
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free
(866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio MAXINE WATERS, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
PETER T. KING, New York NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
SUE W. KELLY, New York, Vice Chair JULIA CARSON, Indiana
RON PAUL, Texas BRAD SHERMAN, California
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
JIM RYUN, Kansas BARBARA LEE, California
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
Carolina RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
VITO FOSSELLA, New York STEVE ISRAEL, New York
GARY G. MILLER, California CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio JOE BACA, California
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota JIM MATHESON, Utah
TOM FEENEY, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JEB HENSARLING, Texas BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina AL GREEN, Texas
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri
RICK RENZI, Arizona MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin,
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
TOM PRICE, Georgia BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK,
Pennsylvania
GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
Robert U. Foster, III, Staff Director
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
KEN CALVERT, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Islands
Carolina RON KIND, Wisconsin
CHRIS CANNON, Utah GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
GREG WALDEN, Oregon MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado JIM COSTA, California
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona DAN BOREN, Oklahoma
RICK RENZI, Arizona GEORGE MILLER, California
STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
HENRY BROWN, Jr., South Carolina PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
THELMA DRAKE, Virginia JAY INSLEE, Washington
LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico MARK UDALL, Colorado
CATHY McMORRIS, Washington DENNIS CARDOZA, California
BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana STEPHANIE HERSETH, South Dakota
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado
VACANCY
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on:
July 19, 2005................................................ 1
Appendix:
July 19, 2005................................................ 35
WITNESSES
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Boyd, Rodger J., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Public and Indian
Housing, Office of Native American Programs, Department of
Housing and Urban Development.................................. 10
Wells, Arch, Acting Director, Office of Trust Services, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Department of Interior......................... 12
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Ney, Hon. Robert W........................................... 36
Baca, Hon. Joe............................................... 38
Kildee, Hon. Dale E.......................................... 40
Boyd, Rodger J............................................... 42
Wells, Arch.................................................. 45
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Boyd, Rodger J.:
HUD Section 184 Month End Report, July 31, 2005.............. 48
Wells, Arch:
Written response to questions from Hon. Barney Frank......... 49
Written response to questions from Hon. Stevan Pearce........ 49
Written response to questions from Hon. Joe Baca............. 50
IMPROVING LAND TITLE GRANT
PROCEDURES FOR NATIVE AMERICANS
----------
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Financial Services,
joint with the
Committee on Resources,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:03 a.m., in Room
2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert Ney presiding.
Present from Committee on Financial Services: Lucas, Ney,
Kennedy, Feeney, Renzi, Pearce, Neugebauer, Frank, Lee, Baca,
Matheson, Scott, and Wasserman Schultz.
Present from Committee on Resources: Fortuno, McMorris,
Kildee, Grijalva, Cardoza, Costa, and Herseth.
Mr. Ney. [Presiding.] The hearing will come to order.
This is a joint hearing on improving land title grant
procedures for Native Americans.
One of the most important cornerstones to a strong
community is homeownership. It creates stability and serves as
a strong economic staple in our overall U.S. economy.
While the national homeownership rate has steadily risen to
an all-time high of almost 70 percent, there are sectors of the
population for whom homeownership remains unattainable. For
Native Americans, just to mention one group, the focus of
today's joint hearing, their homeownership rate is well below
50 percent.
Clearly more can and should be done to help all families
realize the dream of owning a home. Presently, the Native
American population is estimated at 2.5 million. While the
national poverty rate is 12 percent, the rate among Native
Americans is more than twice as high. Forty-five percent of all
Native American households are located on tribal lands, and
housing is one of the most pressing issues for Native Americans
living on tribal lands.
Our ranking member, Maxine Waters, and I and Congressman
Matheson, along with Congressman Frank's staff, went out and
had a hearing. It was unbelievable what we viewed out there
when it came to housing and the conditions.
Over 32.5 percent of the homes located on tribal lands are
overcrowded and 7.5 percent of the Native American homes lack
safe water and sewage systems. Less than 50 percent of the
homes on reservations are connected to public sewer systems,
and 16.5 percent of the homes on Native lands are completely
without indoor plumbing. About 40 percent of the tribal homes
are considered substandard when compared to a national average
of 6 percent.
Again last year, the Housing Subcommittee held our field
hearing on tribal land in Tuba City, Arizona, where again we
were able to witness first-hand the chronic housing
affordability and availability problems plaguing Native
Americans.
I want to thank Congressman Renzi for asking us to do that.
It was the first time that we could research that a House
subcommittee ever held a hearing on tribal lands. That was at
Congressman Renzi's request, and I appreciate both the majority
and minority participating in that hearing.
Approximately half of Native American households in tribal
areas pay over 30 percent of their income for housing expenses,
compared to 23 percent of all U.S. residents who pay more than
30 percent of their income for their housing expenses.
The Arizona field hearing gave us the opportunity to learn
that some of the housing problems in Indian Country can be
attributed to the unique relationships Native American tribes
have with the U.S. Government. Native Americans residing on
reservations are U.S. citizens, but their tribes are recognized
as domestic sovereign nations with treaty relationships with
the U.S. Government.
The fact that the Bureau of Indian Affairs holds much in
trust means the tribes are allowed only limited sovereignty
over their lands. The special relationship limits the types of
economic activities for which Indian lands may be used. We also
found out out there that sometimes it takes up to 1 year or 1
1/2 or 2 years to get the title cleared. Of course, if you are
trying to get a loan, that does not really work out, that time
period. In order for Native Americans to build a home on trust
land, they have to obtain a title status report, TSR, from the
BIA.
Today's hearing will focus on what processes the BIA has in
place to help produce a TSR for Native American lands in a
timely fashion, as well as how BIA affects HUD's ability to
help Native Americans achieve homeownership. It is important
that an efficient process is adhered to by BIA, as HUD programs
such as the Indian Community Development Block Grant Program
and the Indian Housing Block Grant Program are affected by
BIA's ability to issue this TSR.
Changing land status issues, diversity of tribal laws and
governments, lack of mortgage information and credit issues all
contribute to the challenges of mortgage lending in Indian
nations. The governmental programs delivered to Indian Country
should be highly flexible and adapted to the very unique and
specific circumstances in each tribal setting. Native Americans
must be able to take full advantage of partnering and
leveraging across institutions at levels throughout the United
States Government.
If we begin to succeed at these initiatives, then
opportunities I think will move into these rural areas.
Again, the minority rate period in the United States is
unacceptable in homeownership, and we have to raise that, and
again today's issue of Native Americans.
So I want to thank again the joint hearing, Chairman Pombo,
Mr. Frank, Mr. Kildee, Congresswoman Waters, and members from
both sides of the aisle on both committees for this hearing.
We will move to an opening statement from Mr. Kildee of
Michigan.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Robert W. Ney can be found
on page 36 in the appendix.]
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much.
I want to thank Chairman Oxley and Chairman Pombo, along
with Congressman Ney and Congressman Frank, for scheduling this
hearing today.
For several years I have heard that the primary barrier to
mortgage lending in Indian Country is that the BIA cannot
process titles in a timely manner. Tribes assert that the
process of attaining a certified TSR can take 6 months to
several years. This has had a devastating effect on HUD's
Section 184 program that requires a land title through the BIA.
A substantial portion of HUD's Section 184 program funding
for fiscal year 2005 was rescinded because the funds were not
fully used. As a matter of fact, under 184, $33 million was
rescinded, and under another title, $21 million was rescinded.
In 2000, Congress authorized the Indian Lands Title Report
Commission to make recommendations to the BIA to address the
title processing issue. The commission has yet to be created
because the Administration has yet to make its nominations. We
cannot wait any longer to address this title issue. We must
streamline the BIA's title system.
Among other things, this will require a review of the
following: BIA's trust management reform efforts relating to
land records, how land fractionation hinders the title process,
missing historical land ownership and title data, and current
procedures of the eight land title and record offices.
We must also explore alternative methods of expediting
Indian land titles through, for example, Indian Self-
Determination Act contracts or compacts. I am committed to
working with the committees of jurisdiction, the Administration
and the tribes, the sovereign tribes to develop a solution to
this problem.
I look forward to today's hearing.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dale E. Kildee can be found
on page 40 in the appendix.]
Mr. Ney. I want to thank the gentleman.
Next, the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Frank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
strong interest, not just in this particular issue, but in
housing issues in general.
I want to pay tribute to the leadership that my colleague,
the gentleman from Michigan, has provided on the whole question
of Indian matters.
The housing situation is one that we ought to be able to
improve significantly. I appreciate the acknowledgement in Mr.
Wells's testimony that there have been some problems.
Obviously, we cannot solve all the problems. I noticed, too, in
Mr. Boyd's, he said that these problems are not responsible for
all of the issues we face. Agreed, but we can clear this one
up.
It is simply unacceptable for there to be any significant
delay in issuing these TSRs. We should, I think, agree that
within a couple of months they are going to be as quickly done
as you can process the paper, unless you have one of those
unusual situations where there is a problem. I would think,
given that we are talking about a fixed number of areas of the
tribal trust lands that there ought to be a pattern that could
be followed very quickly.
So I am going to be asking if anything needs to be done
legislatively to speed this up, let us know. If not, I would
then hope that we would know very soon that these things are
going to be done in weeks at most, and even weeks seems too
long. Everybody is in favor of this. The notion that processing
paper should interfere is a problem, particularly when we are
talking about the market for the interest rate float, et
cetera. But I am told, as Mr. Kildee mentioned, that we have
delays that go into months and maybe years. There is just no
reason to do that. So if you need more people or if you need
more legislative authority, you have to tell us.
The processing of these documents ought to be just a
routine thing. That is not going to solve all the problems of
the world, but that is a very big one we can go forward in
solving. So I am delighted that we have had the hearing.
As we have often found, I think, the very fact that the
chairmen of both committees agreed to have the hearing should
be helpful. All the attention is focused. But I would hope that
out of this meeting will come an agreement that we are going to
move these things very, very quickly, and if there are any
obstacles to moving them within days, then I would like to know
what they are so we can go forward with it.
There is simply no reason why people who live in the tribal
trust lands ought to be in any way disadvantaged in terms of
housing. That is what I hope will come out of this hearing.
Mr. Ney. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his
concern and comments and also reiterate thanks to Chairman
Oxley and Chairman Pombo for the hearing.
The gentleman from New Mexico?
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
having these hearings.
In my district, we find continuously that economic
development is hindered because of the complex and often
untanglable mass of bureaucracy around the trust lands.
In the past we have begun discussions with Native Americans
in New Mexico about simply doing away with the trust status. I
am not sure why we need it anymore. I think if we begin to
unevolve that particular part of the problem, that Native
Americans might be able to get somewhere on their own for the
first time.
So we will be listening carefully to the comments. Thank
you.
Mr. Ney. Thank you.
The gentlelady from South Dakota?
Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
having this hearing today. I appreciate the statements that
have already been submitted, and I look forward to posing some
questions to our witnesses today.
A lot of this has already been said by my colleagues, but I
would just like to point out that in Indian Country and in
South Dakota, I represent nine sovereign tribes. The ongoing
perennial issues with regard to trust management more broadly,
as we all know, pose some problems. But as tribal leaders
across South Dakota and across the country are working towards
solid economic development plans for their tribes, for their
members, homeownership, adequate housing for that matter, is a
real and important part of their economic development plans.
To have the type of burden, the undue burden that has been
placed on many individual Indians seeking homeownership
opportunities because of the delays in clearing title is
something that would try anyone's patience. People can only be
patient for so long, not just the potential homebuyer, but the
lender certainly.
So I look forward to a discussion today that hopefully, as
Ranking Member Frank indicated, will help identify some ways,
whether it is legislatively if need be, to advance this process
in a way that is good for the nine tribes that I represent, as
well as other tribes across the country.
At the same time and in different areas, we address the
broader issues of trust management, fractionation of lands, and
the difficulty that I know that poses, but, hopefully, we can
address this issue in a more timely way because it is hindering
other economic development that is good for communities in
Indian Country and certainly good for individual Native
Americans seeking to become first-time homebuyers.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Ney. I want to thank the gentlelady.
The gentleman from Arizona is here.
Prior to your arrival, we publicly recognized and thanked
you for your interest in this when we went with the gentlelady
from California, Ms. Waters and her staff, and also for the
great cooperation which I think has led to this hearing on both
sides of the aisle.
The gentleman from Arizona?
Mr. Renzi. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much. I
appreciate your time today and your commitment.
I represent over 60,000 square miles in the State of
Arizona, 52 percent of the landmass of the State, which
includes the Navajo, the Hopi, the Zuni, the San Juan Paiute,
the Yavapai and Tonto Apache, the Yavapai Prescott Tribes, San
Carlos, White Mountain Apaches.
Last year, Chairman Ney and Ranking Member Frank were kind
enough to help me hold a hearing in Tuba City up in the Navajo
Nation. Many of you guys were aware of that and some of the
results that came out of it. I do appreciate those who helped
us pull together those entities and have a successful hearing
up in the Navajo Nation.
We saw devastating situations. We saw poverty rarely seen
across America, where in the Navajo Nation over 27 percent of
the people are in poverty conditions, which is twice the
national average. Almost 33 percent of the reservation's homes
are overcrowded, more than six times the national average. And
16 percent of the homes on the Navajo Nation lack indoor
plumbing.
So despite the statistics, we came away with hope, with the
idea of working together and trying to make a difference. Last
year, we passed legislation where we were able to guarantee the
loan program up to 95 percent under the Title VI. Those changes
have helped some of the lenders who do participate in Indian
Country loans to be more proactive.
At the same time, if you look traditionally at how Native
Americans come to homeownership, it typically in the past was
that you would inherit the land and then you would go out and
build your own home on the land. It is not traditionally as you
see in America now where it is so fluid that you actually go on
the Internet, get a mortgage, go out and buy a home somewhere,
and have 20 people beating down your door to give you a good
loan. That does not happen up on the Navajo Nation. It does not
happen in Indian Country.
And yet we have guaranteed programs where there is money
each year that is unused that we are giving back. We are giving
back money that could be used by our Native Americans, and we
are giving it back to the Government. We are giving it back
because there are not enough counselors and not enough people
up there on the Native American lands, on their soil, teaching
them how to engage in our traditional ways of homeownership, in
educating them, in moving them.
I was on a recent visit to Camp Verde and saw a Yavapai
Apache living, a family living in an old trailer behind the
brand-new house because the BIA recordation process had not
been completed. Native American families who are approved for
mortgages are ready to move into their new homes, but they have
to wait because mortgage companies will not transfer their
ownership to the new homes until BIA then gives them final
approval, secondary final approval. So you have people sitting
in trailers when their home is complete waiting for final
approval.
Now, Native Americans typically have about half the income
as regular, average Americans, which is barely $20,000 up on
the Navajo Nation. In Tuba City last year we heard testimony
where the barriers were brought up with private mortgage
lending in Indian Country. A lot of it has to do with the
timely recordation of mortgage documents and the timely
retrieval of title status reports, as well as the lack of
public access to land ownership documents. Ninety percent of
the land within the Navajo Nation is held in trust by the BIA.
Mr. Boyd and Mr. Wells, I know you are tired of hearing
from me, but put yourself in the shoes of a young Native
American on the Navajo Nation. You have a job that actually
pays above $20,000. You have a wife and kids. You want to move
out of the cluster development where the methamphetamine is the
highest in the nation, and you want to get back to rural
America and back to your traditional roots. It takes an average
of 2 years for the title search to be done.
When a private organization wants to find out who owns
vacant lots on trust land, the BIA will not release ownership
information. The BIA has stated that the groups must get
written permission from the owners before the BIA will tell
them who the owner is.
This is BIA's version of the famous "Catch-22." It might
even seem comical if it weren't for the fact that absurd
policies like this contribute to the terrible conditions many
Native families find themselves in.
This kind of administrative bureaucracy has a tendency to
repress the spirit of all the Native Americans, and I represent
more of them than anybody else in Congress, to reach
homeownership. And homeownership in Arizona means better
marriages, better math scores, higher attainment in high school
in graduation degrees, lower crime, all the fruits of ownership
we see particularly come true when you release that
entrepreneurial and that independent spirit in Arizona so they
can have homeownership.
Mr. Chairman, I realize I am going on. I very much
appreciate you and the ranking member allowing us to have this
hearing today. I am looking forward to drilling into some of
these questions with the hope that this will begin to crack the
nut on some of the administrative repressive policies that are
in place. I want to work together to find solutions here.
Thank you so very much for coming over.
Mr. Ney. I thank the gentleman for his comments and
interest.
The gentlelady from California?
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me also thank you and
our ranking member for holding this hearing today.
I just say quite frankly that I am appalled and shocked as
I learn more about and read the huge statistics, first of all,
with regard to the need for decent, affordable housing for our
Native populations.
Secondly, the fact that we have authorized programs like
Section 184 which guarantee, of course, this American dream of
homeownership, yet it takes 6 months, a year, 2 years to
process title for this. I mean, it is hard to believe that we
are doing this. For the life of me, this is a bureaucracy that
I think needs to be shattered, and hopefully this hearing can
begin to do that.
We look and see the overcrowding issues in Native American
families, sometimes 18, 20, 25 individuals living under one
roof with as few as three bedrooms. So I think not only do we
need to get going on this and try to figure out how to expedite
this process, but I think Congress needs to appropriate and
authorize more funding when you look at the huge need, where
200,000 units were needed immediately. This was in 2003. I am
shocked to learn, well really I guess I should not be shocked
to learn, that 90,000 Native families are homeless or under-
housed.
I guess why I am so surprised and shocked is that we have
this effort that is on the books. HUD should be able to process
title more quickly so that we can begin to address these huge
and desperate housing needs of our Native American families.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing and hopefully
we will be able to begin to unravel the difficulties that our
Native American people are faced with and begin to make sure
that they, too, are afforded the opportunity of affordable,
decent, and safe housing for their families.
Thank you.
Mr. Ney. I thank the gentlelady.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Feeney, if you have an
opening statement.
Mr. Feeney. I thank the chairman.
I was motivated by my colleague from Arizona's passionate
discussion. I am here primarily because in my background; I am
a real estate and title attorney, and if there is any way we
can help cut through the roadmap. The truth of the matter is
that, given the desire and the motivation and a computer
system, in most places in the country you can pull up a title
report in about 35 minutes. You can have it off to the mortgage
company with the push of a button on a fax machine.
So there is no reason for extended delays. And if they are
happening, I am going to lend my expertise to cut them down.
I appreciate Mr. Renzi's comments.
Mr. Ney. Next, I want to recognize my aunt's and uncle's
Congressman, the gentleman from California, Mr. Baca.
Mr. Baca. Thank you very much, ranking member and minority
members.
It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss this very
important issue regarding Native American housing. We must
figure out how to cut the red tape, and to promote tribal
sovereignty at the same time as Native American land ownership,
which is very important. I state, Native American land
ownership.
I have always been a strong supporter of Native American
sovereignty. Through economic development and other
initiatives, Native Americans have been able to build schools,
roads, clinics, and other necessities. They have also been able
to make deals and contributions to surrounding communities.
All of us have benefited by their contributions in our
areas. They have built strong economic bases for a lot of us in
our communities in maintaining jobs in our area without
outsourcing. I continue to salute Native Americans for their
achievement and sacrifices for this country. Many of them have
served us gallantly in many of the wars and continue to do so.
By currying legislation and encouraging teaching about Native
Americans, they promote their history and establishing a
holiday to recognize respected Native Americans and their
culture. This is one of the things that I have done.
But we must also do more. Native Americans have a poverty
level that is more than double the Nation's rate, and I state,
Native Americans have a poverty level that is more than double
the national rate. Much of Native American housing is
overcrowded and substandard, and I state that. It is
overcrowded and substandard. Native American housing is
expensive. Approximately half of Native American households in
tribal areas pay over 30 percent of their income for housing,
compared to 23 percent of all other residents.
Native Americans lack sovereignty. Much of Native American
land is held by trust, and I state, much of Native American
land is held by trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Tribes
do not have the authority, I state, tribes do not have the
authority to sell, lease, or mortgage trust land without
Federal approval. Again, tribes do not have the authority to
sell, lease, or mortgage trust land without Federal approval.
We must address this problem.
Much land has been taken away from Native Americans.
Approximately 90 million acres of trust lands have been removed
from Native American lands since the late 1800s. We must
address this injustice. Native Americans face a lot of
bureaucracy in trying to build homes, and I state, bureaucracy
in trying to build homes. The process is very lengthy and
requires a great deal of work, time, and money. They should not
be affected like anybody else who wants to build a home. We see
these homes going up. We see no bureaucracy. We see them
happening. But when it comes to Native Americans, it seems like
it requires a lot more time, work, and money. This needs to be
changed.
It is my understanding that in California there alone is a
backlog of over 4,000 title status report requests. In fact,
one of the tribes that I am aware of this has had Title I
statute report requests processed in the past 2 years, and that
is a long time, with 50 requests pending, many of which are
from the year 2001 or even 2000. Meanwhile in the private
sector, title status reports can often be completed in 24
hours. That is double standards. Why is it that we can do it in
the private sector, yet we cannot do it in tribal land?
This is not acceptable. We can do better. I look forward to
being here today so that we can examine and address the
problems.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Baca can be found on
page 38 in the appendix.]
Mr. Ney. Thank you.
The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva?
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and ranking
member. I appreciate the opportunity and appreciate this
hearing very much.
Let me at the beginning associate myself with the comments
that Ms. Lee and Mr. Baca have just made. The issue of
homeownership is a national priority for this Administration
and this Congress. The consequence of the hearing today I hope
is to examine and change the process by which Native American
people can meet that goal of homeownership in this country,
which is a laudable goal and a necessary goal.
So in associating myself with their comments, let me stress
that the issue is also sovereignty, but the issue is to extend
the dream of homeownership to every American, and this
certainly includes our first Americans.
Thank you.
Mr. Ney. Thank you.
The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson, who was at our
hearing. We appreciated that.
Mr. Matheson. I would just like to say, first of all, Mr.
Chairman, thank you for initiating that hearing. I thought it
was real helpful. I want to acknowledge also my colleague, Mr.
Renzi. for his leadership on this. I have really enjoyed
working on Native American housing issues with him. I look
forward to this hearing.
Thanks so much.
Mr. Ney. With that, we will go on to the two witnesses.
First is Mr. Rodger Boyd. Mr. Boyd is the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for the Office of Native American Programs, known as
ONAP, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Prior to
his position, he was Program Manager in the Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund for the Department of
the Treasury. As a program manager, he designed and directed
the fund's congressional-mandated Native American Lending
Study.
Throughout his career, Mr. Boyd has worked with Indian
tribal governments, Federal agencies, and the private sector to
explore and develop economic development opportunities for the
Native American communities with the goal of establishing self-
sustaining economies.
Mr. Arch Wells was appointed acting Bureau Deputy Director,
Office of Trust Services for the BIA, in 2004. As the Bureau
Deputy Director, Mr. Wells is responsible for all activities
associated with management and protection of trust and
restricted lands. This protection involves the oversight of
national programs including land title and records offices,
minerals and energy management, and forestry and fire
management.
Previously, Mr. Wells served as the acting Director for the
BIA's southwest region in Albuquerque, New Mexico, beginning in
2002 to 2003. Prior to that position, he served as Trust
Resources Protection Manager for the BIA's southwest region
from 2000 to 2002.
I would also, before we proceed, note that without
objection all members's opening statements will be made part of
the record for members who were not here at this particular
time.
We will begin with Mr. Boyd. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF RODGER J. BOYD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, PUBLIC
AND INDIAN HOUSING, OFFICE OF NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Financial Services and Resources Committees, for inviting me to
comment today on the BIA's title status report process and its
impact on homeownership and the implementation of HUD's Indian
Housing Block Grant and Indian Community Development Block
Grant Programs.
As mentioned, I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the
Office of Native American Programs in the Office of Public and
Indian Housing. I am responsible for the management, operation,
and oversight of HUD's Native American programs.
These programs are available to over 562 federally
recognized tribes throughout the country. We serve these tribes
directly or through their tribally designated housing entities,
or TDHEs, by providing grants and loan guarantees designed to
support affordable housing and community and economic
development activities.
For more than 5 years, the Office of Public and Indian
Housing has been in discussions with various departments to
formulate a memorandum of understanding to develop an expedited
process for land title searches for homeownership in Indian
Country and to better coordinate our respective programs.
Agency representatives signed an MOU in September 2004.
Since the MOU signing, an interagency task force has
participated in a series of meetings that have generated
meaningful discussions and a greater understanding of the
impact that the title status report or TSR process has on
Federal loan guarantee initiatives in Indian Country.
The Office of Native American Programs can see where
progress has been made to improve the TSR process in some
regions. However, there continue to be inconsistencies in the
time it takes to process the TSR request from region to region.
The BIA has informed HUD and USDA that the newly developed
residential lease regulations will be released later this
summer.
I am optimistic that the new leasing regulations and the
resulting guidelines will provide a uniform process that
supports mortgage financing. The creation of a centralized
process will enhance the leasehold lending process by
eliminating the different policy interpretations that occur on
a regional basis.
HUD has received feedback from lenders who are concerned
about the length of time it takes to process leasehold
transactions. The discussion has focused on the potential costs
to the borrower, who is subject to interest rate fluctuations
due to market conditions while waiting out the process.
The homeownership rate among Native Americans lags behind
that of the rest of the country. Although there are a number of
contributing factors, the lack of a resale market on
reservations is a major consideration. Streamlining the TSR
process and increasing the level of homeownership and credit
counseling will support the evolution of a more vibrant housing
market in Indian Country.
In addition to our work looking at options with other
agencies on the memorandum of understanding, HUD has worked
with a Northeast tribe and the Department of the Interior's
solicitor's office in Washington to create mortgage lending
based on tribal assignment law. The solicitor's office has
issued an opinion that the assignment law would not require
secretarial approval.
A national title insurance company is prepared to issue
title opinions on the assignments, creating the necessary
mechanism to perfect a lien on the assignment. The tribe must
develop an approved process to record the assignments that meet
the title company's requirements. ONAP is cautiously optimistic
that the assignment law option can assist tribes that have the
capacity and expertise to implement such a program.
The TSR process has minimal impact on the Indian Housing
Block Grant and the Indian Community Development Block Grant
Programs. The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act of 1996 recognized and simplified the
department's system of housing assistance to Native Americans
by eliminating several separate HUD programs of assistance and
replacing them with a single block grant made directly to the
tribes or tribally designated housing entities. This Act
recognizes the right of tribal self-governance and the unique
relationship between the Federal Government and the respective
Governments of Indian tribes.
NAHASDA, as it is called, significantly changed the way HUD
provides housing funds to Indian communities. The Indian
Housing Block Grant Program offers maximum flexibility to
tribes or their TDHEs to design, implement, and administer
their own unique housing programs. The department is no longer
involved in the day-to-day operations of the housing program
and our involvement with tribes, and the Bureau regulating
lease issues for the housing developments is limited.
Also, development projects using Indian Housing Block Grant
funding are typically larger in scale and require more
planning, which allows more time for interaction with the BIA.
Although there have been some delays, the impact is not as
great as seen in the Section 184 program.
Tribal governments and a limited number of tribal
organizations are the only eligible participants in the Indian
Community Development Block Grant Program, and new housing
construction is limited under this program. In most cases, the
development of community facilities, including health
facilities, would be on tribal land and there would not be a
need for tribes to issue a lease to themselves.
Decisions to acquire fee land, former reservation lands,
and other parcels of land to be put into trust are tribal
decisions. The status of such lands would not ordinarily affect
the viability of an economic development project so long as the
tribe has control over the land sufficient to accomplish its
proposed goals and objectives as stated in its application.
In summary, the TSR process has room for improvement, but
it is not solely responsible for the current homeownership rate
in Indian Country. HUD has seen an increase in cooperation with
the BIA and looks forward to working with the Bureau to develop
solutions that streamline the TSR process. HUD is committed to
supporting homeownership education programs and is working with
the BIA and USDA to develop some successful models that
demonstrate the benefits of a collaborative interagency
initiative.
Thank you for providing the department the opportunity to
testify about this issue.
[The prepared statement of Rodger J. Boyd can be found on
page 42 in the appendix.]
Mr. Ney. Thank you.
Mr. Wells?
STATEMENT OF ARCH WELLS, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF TRUST
SERVICES, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Wells. Thank you.
In saying that I am heartened to hear the field experience
that sits in this room, it is where I come from.
Mr. Ney. That is okay. We are still not used to it
ourselves, so you are in good company.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wells. Good.
So good morning Chairman Oxley, Chairman Pombo, members of
the committee. My name is Arch Wells. I am the acting Director
for Trust Services for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I come out
of the Southwest. I have at least 28 1/2 years of experience in
Indian Country.
I am heartened to hear the interest in getting this
resolved. I, too, have witnessed a lot of what you have
witnessed. The gentlemen from Arizona and New Mexico, you come
from my stomping grounds. You have obviously seen what I have
seen, so I am glad to be here.
I am here today to provide the Department's testimony on
the BIA's role in assisting individual Indians in the pursuit
of homeownership. I will begin by providing some background
information on the current process and procedures for obtaining
a title status report, known as TSRs, and the BIA, and comment
on this process.
The BIA has land title and records offices, or LTRO,
located within eight of its regions, those being Anchorage,
Alaska; Muskogee, Oklahoma; Aberdeen, South Dakota; Portland,
Oregon; Sacramento, California; Billings, Montana; Anadarko,
Oklahoma; and Albuquerque, New Mexico, where I hail from. Each
LTRO is responsible for recording all title and encumbrance
documents for Indian lands within their respective regions and
they issue certified TSRs to provide a record of ownership.
A TSR is a compilation of the information in the LTRO
ownership. It is a compilation of all of that data. It is a
legal description of recorded liens and encumbrances on a
designated parcel of land. The production of TSRs for mortgages
is our LTRO offices' top priority. We are striving to get those
things out the door as fast as possible. We strongly support
programs that improve or develop housing on Indian lands for
Indian people, as does HUD, as stated by Mr. Boyd.
The current procedure requires that all requests for a TSR
for mortgage purposes first go through the agency
superintendents at the relevant BIA office or through the
regional director on behalf of the tribal member. The certified
title is required by the lending institution as part of the
lending institutions effort to verify that the loan applicant
has acquired a leasehold interest on tribal land or that the
loan applicant has total ownership on trust land and that the
title is clean and clear of any liens against the property so
the loan application process can move forward unimpeded.
Once the mortgage has been approved using the BIA-generated
TSR, the document is sent to the LTRO for recording purposes
with a request for a second certified TSR, as Mr. Renzi noted.
HUD requires the subsequent TSR showing the mortgage as an
encumbrance to the title before the loan is guaranteed. That is
a requirement. Some lending institutions also require this
additional TSR before releasing the funds.
There are very few differences in the production of TSRs
from location to location. When there are, often those
differences are dictated by the particular lending institution
or Federal agency providing the loan. Requirements and standard
operating procedures vary from Federal agency to Federal
agency. The BIA LTROs strive to accommodate these differences
as we support the mission to provide home loans to Indian
people. Private lending institutions also have varying
requirements and procedures. Consequently, our process for
providing TSRs may vary to accommodate the lender.
Due to increasing workloads within the LTRO program over
the years, we found that some offices have provided an
uncertified title status report showing the mortgage as
reflected in the LTRO records as an encumbrance to the property
in lieu of the certified report. There has been some heartburn
over that. On April 13, 2005, BIA issued a directive requiring
that all LTROs provide certified title status reports when
requested by the agency superintendents or regional directors.
BIA has qualified and dedicated personnel within the LTRO
program to examine our records and produce TSRs. We are the
sole source for Indian trust land records. Because Indian trust
land records are to a degree confidential, lending institutions
and other Federal lenders are completely dependent upon the BIA
for all certified TSRs, thus creating a significant workload.
Since the inception of the Federal loan programs, the
mortgage requests for TSRs have been a high priority for the
LTROs. We have made significant changes to our title program,
as Mr. Boyd noted, over the past 3 years aimed at improving our
ability to deliver in an accurate and timely manner in all
aspects of our Indian land title operations, including the
processing of TSRs. We have additional changes planned in the
near future which will improve the quality of the data in our
title system, thus improving our overall product.
One of the improvements to the BIA title system is the
recently completed conversion to the Trust Asset and Accounting
Management System, known as TAAMS for processing titles at all
LTRO program offices. The system has greatly improved our
ability to provide title information to tribes and Indian
people. That, I might add, is getting us closer to the
computerized system noted by the gentleman on my right.
The quality of the data has been significantly improving.
We have been conducting a comprehensive data cleanup, which we
expect to be completed in 6 to 8 months. Without clean data, we
are nowhere, I might add that. So there is a huge effort
onboard right now to get the data cleaned up.
The BIA currently has an efficient process of providing
TSRs upon request within a reasonable time frame. In the recent
memorandum of understanding, noted by Mr. Boyd again, between
the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture,
and the Interior, the BIA's realty and LTRO programs agreed to
provide the necessary products and services within 30 days to
keep the process moving forward to assist Indians in becoming
homeowners. Lenders can utilize the information in those TSRs
to assist in assuring that the lands are free of liens and are
available for mortgaging.
The BIA's process has remained fairly constant through all
of these years. However, lenders often do not take the time to
learn the process or provide sufficient notice that a loan is
being processed, so we do have a disconnect we need to work on.
The BIA needs a reasonable lead time to provide a certified
TSR. Thus, a key part of an efficient process includes early
notice from the borrower or the lender.
When this takes place, our LTROs are able to produce TSRs
in a time period comparable to the private sector. Some of the
BIA regional offices have started providing training to lenders
in order to facilitate a timelier processing of TSRs. I intend
to roll that out to all of the BIA regional offices to make
sure all 12 regions are working with the lenders in a training
effort to try to bridge this gap.
In conclusion, anytime a mortgage is approved, it has the
potential to improve the quality of life for Indians. As stated
earlier, requests for title status reports for mortgage
purposes are and will remain a high priority for the BIA. Over
the past decade, our legacy title system has served us well in
spite of its shortcomings. Now with our recent conversion to a
new real-time title system, it has already shown increased
efficiency and cost savings.
As we continue to enhance our title system, streamline our
business processes, and develop adequate budgets through
performance measures to address our workloads, we hope to
eliminate any situation where we have failed to provide timely
title service to meet the needs of our Indian clients.
I would also like to add, in a nutshell, lenders must
recognize that, one, obtaining a TSR should be part of the
lender's overall effort to verify the condition of title; and
two, a TSR is a summary of the information from the current
records of the BIA at the time of the issuance of the TSR, so
there is no confusion on what a TSR truly provides.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Arch Wells can be found on page
45 in the appendix.]
Mr. Ney. Thank you.
The question I have, based on the hearing, lenders said
they were growing weary of how long it takes and that they were
not able to commit, obviously, to interest rates and things
like that.
So my one question is--I hate to use the word "privatize,"
but if we privatized this--we buy a house through standard
process and it takes 2 days; you pay about $600--if we
privatized this, would it work, where you have private
attorneys, would that work or not?
Mr. Wells. I would like to take a first crack at that, if I
could.
I would love to say yes, but I do not think it would
because they are going to be relying on the same data that we
are relying on.
We are just now becoming automated with the TAAMS system.
It is a huge conversion from pen and paper-type data into an
automated system, and it involves a monumental cleanup effort.
The private entity would be faced with the same daunting
task that we are faced with and have less corporate memory to
understand it.
Mr. Ney. Okay. From today forward, how long would it take
to clean up the data so it is ready? You are in the process of
automation and corrections.
Mr. Wells. We are on track right now for an 8-month
timeframe to get all of that cleaned up at eight LTROs.
Mr. Ney. So are you telling me that 8 months from now we
will not ever have to have a hearing because it is going to go
through in 2 days?
Mr. Wells. I wish that would be the case. I am not saying
that, but all the data is going to be cleaned up if we can get
all the lenders and the other Federal entities in concert, one
way of doing business, and Mr. Boyd noted we are going through
a new regulation change associated with the fiduciary trust
model.
It is not only the regulation change on TSRs, but it is a
regulation change on how we do business in all of realty. We
should be able to streamline the system. That is one of the
primary reasons we are doing the regulation change.
Mr. Ney. So having the private sector clean up the data
would not help. You are convinced that the way you are doing it
will be the fastest way to clean the data up.
Mr. Wells. I am convinced that the way we are doing it will
get the job done, and we are using private contractors. There
is no way that the present staff can do all of this. The way we
are doing it with private contractors, trying to provide our
corporate memory to them to get over the rough spots, is about
the fastest way we are going to get there.
Mr. Ney. And the estimates are within 8 months from now and
the data is up. How long would it take to get the title done?
Mr. Wells. I am saying with 30 days it should be done.
Mr. Ney. Thirty days.
Mr. Wells. Within a 4-week timeframe.
Mr. Ney. The gentleman from Massachusetts?
Mr. Frank. I want to follow up on that.
Mr. Wells, you say that part of this is coordination among
the various Federal agencies to agree on a common mode of
dealing with the land title questions. Is that right?
Mr. Wells. That is correct.
Mr. Frank. How many agencies are we talking about?
Mr. Wells. Primarily three.
Mr. Frank. HUD, BIA, and what is the third?
Mr. Wells. Agriculture.
Mr. Frank. Now, where are we in getting that agreement? Can
we have it in an hour? If not, why not?
Mr. Wells. The agreement was signed in 2004.
Mr. Frank. So we have the agreement.
Mr. Wells. The agreement is in place.
Mr. Frank. And are the procedures carrying out the
agreement in place?
Mr. Wells. I am going to defer to Mr. Boyd on that.
Mr. Frank. Mr. Boyd?
Mr. Boyd. What we have been doing recently is to look at
different case studies, developing case studies, if you will,
around the country. One of them is in New Mexico, actually, and
we are working with the State finance agency, the Enterprise
Foundation and a number of tribes, and BIA's title plant out of
Albuquerque to begin to really sit down and begin to assess
what we really have to do to streamline this process. So we are
taking it on a case-by-case basis.
As I mentioned in my testimony as well, what we are doing
is looking at other options. One of them is the assignment law
that we have been working on with a tribe in the Northeast and
the Solicitor's office at Interior.
Mr. Frank. But this agreement we are talking about, is the
agreement now in effect?
Mr. Boyd. Yes, it is.
Mr. Frank. I guess, you know our frustration, doing this on
a case-by-case basis troubles me. Why don't we have just one
model that we execute?
Mr. Boyd. When we look at the BIA's total process, we have
found out that throughout the country there are maybe a couple
of different agencies that are responding on a timely basis. We
are thinking that that could very well be a model.
Mr. Frank. What agency, BIA?
Mr. Boyd. Yes.
Mr. Frank. So you said BIA, some agencies are on a timely
basis, but others apparently are not?
Mr. Boyd. Yes, sir. That is true.
Mr. Frank. Why aren't they? Mr. Wells, do you know which
ones they are? It is so frustrating. Why can't they just
process the paper? What is the reason people are not responding
on a timely basis?
Mr. Wells. It would be wonderful if everybody could respond
on a timely basis. One of the reasons they cannot respond on a
timely basis outside of the two regions that were just
mentioned, fortunately Southwest being one of them where I come
from, is because we have this huge uphill battle to do the data
cleanup. We also have a massive probate initiative.
Mr. Frank. All right, let's take these one at a time. What
is the data cleanup issue?
Mr. Wells. The data cleanup issue is the issue where we are
converting all of the hard-copy data that is in all the files
for a century's worth of material over to an automated system
called TAAMS, which is the Trust Asset and Accounting
Management System.
Mr. Frank. Why does that have to hold up the individual
case?
Mr. Wells. Because it is the same individuals that are
doing all of that data conversion that have to do that.
Mr. Frank. Okay. So it is a manpower shortage.
Mr. Wells. It is a manpower shortage.
Mr. Frank. If you had more people, then you have the same
people doing the data cleanup who would be doing the processing
on the individual cases. So if you had more people to do the
individual cases, then people would not have to wait so long.
Is that correct?
Mr. Wells. I would add one qualifier to that.
Mr. Frank. What is that?
Mr. Wells. More qualified people.
Mr. Frank. I will stipulate to that. Yes, I will stipulate
to that. I am not asking you to hire unqualified people. I
appreciate that.
All right, so how many people would it take? I would like
this in writing. How many people would it take for the BIA to
hire so there would be no more delays due to the fact that
people were busy with the data cleanup, in the whole country?
Mr. Wells. I do not have that number right off the top.
Mr. Frank. Right. I would like to have that.
Mr. Wells. We can get that to you.
Mr. Frank. Okay. And then the other thing, you said
something about probate.
Mr. Wells. Yes, sir.
Mr. Frank. What is that issue?
Mr. Wells. All right. Probate also has a tremendous
backlog. I do not want to open that can of worms here.
Mr. Frank. Why not? No, no. We are here to open cans of
worms, Mr. Wells.
Mr. Wells. Okay, we will open that can of worms.
Mr. Frank. The problem is that the worms are giving us
problems. That is exactly why we are here. Please.
Mr. Wells. It is like a court scenario.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Frank. A what scenario?
Mr. Wells. A court scenario. I should not have said it.
Mr. Frank. No, excuse me. That bothers me. We are here to
try to fix the problem, and no, you should not be withholding
or worrying about opening cans of worms. The victims of the
unopened cans of worms are why we are here. And no, that is
totally inappropriate. We are here to fix this problem.
What is the probate issue?
Mr. Wells. The probate situation is that there have been a
myriad of probates that have not been tackled over a long
period of time. We are all about getting the backlog cleaned
up, because you cannot do new probates without getting the old
probates cleaned up. You do the new probates without getting
the old probates cleaned up and the old probates affect the new
probates.
Mr. Frank. Again, is it a case of not having enough people?
Mr. Wells. Pardon me?
Mr. Frank. On the probate, this is because the land has
been split up. Is that the problem?
Mr. Wells. Fractionation is part of the problem. The Indian
Land Consolidation Act is spurring a lot of this along.
Mr. Frank. Again, is it a manpower shortage, a person-power
shortage? A qualified person-power shortage?
Mr. Wells. Absolutely, no question about it. I have 144
people strictly working on probates. That is not near enough. I
have had to extract those people out of the realty function
that do what you are talking about doing on TSRs.
Mr. Frank. All right. This, I think, we are getting
somewhere. So, in other words, what we have is basically the
Native Americans who want to take advantage of these programs,
who want to be able to participate, they are being it seems to
me doubly victimized. First of all, they are victimized
historically because we let things get screwed up. And now they
are being victimized because the people who should be helping
them process the documents to buy their homes are too busy
unscrewing things up. So it seems to me we owe people just to
hire some more people. Again I will ask you, as I did in the
first case, please let me know how many people we would need to
fix it up. I think that is something we will address.
Mr. Wells. We will do that.
Mr. Frank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wells. Thank you.
Mr. Renzi. [Presiding.] I thank the ranking member.
We will move to the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Pearce.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you.
I am frankly pretty underwhelmed by the factual data
presented in both reports. It seems if you have a shortage of
people, your report should have documented that.
In the past when we processed one of these TSRs--say I am a
Native American and bought a property and 2 weeks later someone
else wanted to buy that property from me, would that
transaction be all categorized and clean so that the next one
could go through? Or is it going to take another 2 years?
Mr. Wells. I do not think it would take 2 years.
Mr. Pearce. How long would it take?
Mr. Wells. Let me ask my learned crew back here for a
minute, if you could hold for a second.
Mr. Pearce. By the way, you are already one-thirty-fifth
into the 35 minutes that it would take on the initial
transaction, according to Mr. Feeney's expertise.
Mr. Wells. I bet so.
Mr. Pearce. Just in asking back and forth.
Mr. Wells. Thirty days.
Mr. Pearce. Thirty days.
Mr. Wells. That is an estimate.
Mr. Pearce. Why, once you have done the data, why don't you
store it in the fashion that makes it accessible and easy so
that we do not have to recreate the wheel every time? Is there
some cultural bias inside the institution that hates solutions
or what?
Mr. Wells. No, it is not a cultural bias. It is the fact
that we are now moving it all into an automated system.
Mr. Pearce. I mean, you knew, according to a GAO report in
1998 you had 113 man-years backlog, and the fact that you are
now creating a TAAMS system, to me, if you are sitting here
solving the same problems over and over again, that is more
than a people shortage. That is a cultural problem. It is a
mental problem inside.
Wal-Mart bought a large retailer in Canada. My daughter
went up there. And just by reorganizing on the shelf, the stuff
that was there, the items began to fly out of the door, and the
old employees from the Canadian firm said stop, stop, you are
going to sell all the inventory. Well, that is the function of
retail management.
I think maybe you all have a culture that just says just
send us more people, but we do want these convoluted old
processes, because you say in your report that the lenders
should become more familiar. That is, we should give the
lenders the same change that we giving to the borrowers and
maybe we would all then walk at the same speed because we have
weighted everybody down with the same kind of a process.
I am sorry, but when you describe that the lenders do not
come in and learn the convoluted processes, that is a cultural
problem; that is not a problem of not enough people. It is a
cultural problem inside the organization that says we are going
to demand that these people on the Indian reservations never
get a breath of fresh air, never get economic development
because we are going to make it so convoluted that only very
few lenders will learn the process, and we are going to make
them learn the process, rather than simplifying it to the 35
minutes that Mr. Feeney suggested.
You say in your report that the TAAMS has greatly, greatly
improved the processing. How much has it lowered the time to
process the papers?
Mr. Wells. It is still being loaded-in right now.
Mr. Pearce. But your comments say that it is greatly
improved. How can you say it is greatly improved?
Mr. Wells. It is no longer 2 years or 4 years or 6 years.
Mr. Pearce. That is my question. How long? It has decreased
from 2 years to how long?
Mr. Wells. I will get you the matrix. I do not have it
right in front of me, but I can get that to you.
Mr. Pearce. That is the reason I am saying I am very
underwhelmed by the amount of detail that you put into these
reports and the effort that you put in. We are dragging the
committee here trying to solve very difficult problems. The
gentleman that just spoke in front of me has commented that we
appear to be asking the questions all from our side, and I
agree with his concept that we have sort of avoided unraveling
this.
How many tribes have taken over the administrative duties
of the BIA and real estate actions under the Indian Self-
Determination and Educational Assistance provision?
Mr. Wells. I do not have that off the top of my head. I
know in the Northwest, it is four, but I only know that because
I have just recently worked with it.
Mr. Pearce. Would the BIA be open to, not you personally, I
know you cannot speak for the BIA, but would you personally be
willing to accept requests from individual tribes saying, look,
we do not need tribal monitoring anymore. We do not need trust
status. We have an articulate, good, open governance. We have
educated people who are knowledgeable.
And those tribes who would make application, for just you
to distribute all the trust land to them, that belongs to them
under your trust? Not the ones who are a little nervous and the
ones who are concerned, would you personally think that would
be one way to start unraveling this complex array of problems?
Mr. Wells. Are you describing a compact situation?
Mr. Pearce. I am just saying, just give the land to the
people it belongs to; take it out of trust; write them a deed;
hand it to the tribe and require that they administer their own
problems instead of having this trust status. That is what I am
asking.
Mr. Wells. I personally cannot do that.
Mr. Pearce. I did not ask. I said would you favor it?
Mr. Wells. What I would favor is a compact situation which
is clear to what you are describing right now. They take over
all the responsibilities. They do it all. We, in fact, have
tribes that do that, Flathead being one of them who actually
took over the LTRO title duties.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you.
Mr. Renzi. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico.
We move to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think I would hope that both of you would take away from
this hearing a sense of urgency. We take this matter very, very
seriously here. I have been in Congress now 29 years. I have
been working on Indian matters 29 years. Very often when the
Indians are not getting good service, it is in many instances
because of a lack of a sense of urgency. I think that is
responsible for you two to take that back to your agencies and
try to disseminate that sense of urgency.
My wife is a realtor. Among her responsibilities in selling
a home is to make sure that they clear the title. That really
is one of the less complex parts of her job, clearing the
title. Now, in Michigan to clear the title, of course, you go
to the Register of Deeds. They really have a really up-to-date
automated, very, very modern function. They have to perform.
The Register of Deeds in Michigan has to turn over those titles
and get that cleared very quickly, maybe because they are
elected. They run for a 4-year term, and they really have to
put it out. And when one does get defeated, it is because maybe
they have not had that sense of urgency that I think that
really you should carry back to your agencies.
I do not mean you two specifically. I have been here 29
years, and I have felt very often sometimes an improvement in
the sense of urgency on Indian matters and a diminution of that
sense of urgency. But I think they have been left out very
often.
Let me ask you this question, Mr. Boyd. If the BIA can
expedite the TSR, is HUD prepared to expeditiously complete the
process, your responsibility?
Mr. Boyd. Absolutely.
Mr. Kildee. How long after you get a TSR do you complete
your responsibility?
Mr. Boyd. It is almost instantaneous. I mean, once the TSR
is cleared by the Bureau and the transaction takes place
between the borrower and the lender, that completes a great
requirement that we have. The next step, then, is leading
towards the guarantee itself. That is literally within a matter
of days, we have to get that TSR cleared.
Mr. Kildee. So once you get it, how long does it take you
then, how many days to process?
Mr. Boyd. Twenty-four hours.
Mr. Kildee. Twenty-four hours.
All right, within BIA, what is the average length of time
that it takes you to process a TSR?
Mr. Wells. What we are shooting for is 30 days.
Mr. Kildee. I do not know what you are shooting for. They
have been shooting for many, many years. They have always
promised me. I have served under so many BIA Directors, I have
lost track.
Mr. Wells. Six hours from beginning to end on a national
level.
Mr. Kildee. What was the time again?
Mr. Wells. Six hours to complete the TSR. Six hours.
Mr. Kildee. Six hours to complete the TSR. One day here, 6
hours here, that is 1 1/4 days then. Where does the delay come
in? I got straight A's in math. I am trying to figure this out
now. Where does the delay come in? One day for one; 6 hours for
the other. The Postal Service? We have not learned a whole lot
here today.
Mr. Wells. The delay comes in because, as I noted, it would
take 6 hours to do the TSR from start to finish. Getting to the
TSR due to the backlogs that we have built up is the delay.
That is the 30-day timeframe that we are referring to.
Mr. Kildee. Thirty days. Now we are up to 31 days, rather
than 1 1/4 days; 31 days.
You say that you are trying to work with the lenders so
they will be able to access you and know what they are supposed
to do. How intense is your training to the lenders, and what
does it consist of?
Mr. Wells. It has started in only one region so far, and it
consists of going to the lenders, not bringing them in, but
going to the lenders, explaining to them what we go through to
do a TSR, what a TSR in fact is, and what the process is, and
the timeframes that they need to give us to get geared up to do
the TSR, and that encompasses that backlog issue which I just
mentioned. They also understand that we have a limited supply
of people to do all of the same type of stuff. They need to get
in the pipeline as soon as possible so that we can get the TSRs
elevated.
Mr. Kildee. Well, my final statement will be, take back
that sense of urgency. I think that is very, very important.
These are people out there. Homeownership is very important in
this country. We are lagging behind in Indian Country, so
urgency is needed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Renzi. I thank the gentleman.
I have just a few questions, and then we will move on.
Mr. Boyd, in the year 2000, Congress passed and the
President signed the establishment of the Indian Title
Commission. Five years ago it was established. There is no
commission. There is no report. There is no recommendation.
I and my office, and I know several other Congressmen's and
Congresswomen's offices have recommended individuals to serve
on that commission. I have nominated a Navajo gentleman,
Chester Carl, who has served on the Navajo Housing Authority
for many years.
What is the status of the commission?
Mr. Boyd. To my knowledge, I know that names have been
submitted to the White House, and that is about as far as I
know.
Mr. Renzi. Is it the White House that is holding it up?
Mr. Boyd. I am not sure, sir. I know that we have submitted
names.
Mr. Renzi. I will need a status on it.
Mr. Wells, I do appreciate your coming out from the
Southwest and your backbone. I can feel your desire. I also
appreciate your candor when you said there is significant
workload. We both know there is a possibility you could break
through, uncorrupt your database, your baseline database, get
it in, get the new $1 million, $1 trillion TAAMS system up and
running, and you could get this thing going. You possibly
could. That is why we are going to have to follow up with this
kind of a hearing.
But let me say this to you. Right now, if you and I went
out and bought a home and they did a title search, when we get
our lender approval and guarantee, we can move into the home.
We do not have to wait for the second one to come around. There
is another report that is done to make sure there is no cloud
on the title in between the time we were approved and the time
we close. You are right, but we can move in.
And when you go out in Indian Country and you see the folks
just sitting there, the houses are empty and they are being
vandalized, or the copper tubing, as you know, coming from the
Southwest, they are going in and ripping out all the plumbing,
all the copper tubing, and then we are left with houses where
families were approved, the first title search was done, and
now the house is vandalized and we are left nowhere. And you
are seeing it all over the country like I am.
This duplication has got me absolutely frustrated. Go
ahead, Mr. Wells. Your thoughts?
Mr. Wells. I think it is an understatement to me to say
"frustrating." I am really torqued about it, coming from where
I am, and that is one of the reasons why you sense the
expediency and the ownership that I have right now to get to a
clear way of doing business and an expedited way of doing
business.
Mr. Renzi. You talked about changes in the future.
Mr. Wells. Yes, sir.
Mr. Renzi. What about the double, can we get rid of it? Can
we move them in and then go to the final cloud, looking, you
know, just to make sure?
Mr. Wells. That is one of the reasons why we need to work
very closely with HUD to do this. I want to get rid of having
to do two and sometimes three TSRs. I want to just do one and
just get it cleared right there.
Mr. Renzi. Homeownership is the release. You talked about
no move-up market, Mr. Boyd. Homeownership becomes the economic
incentive. It becomes the release for people to borrow against
their home and then buy businesses; borrow against their home
and send their kids to college. It is the fundamental economic
engine in America, particularly in small town and rural
America, and yet it is bound; it is hamstrung on the Native
American reservations.
I think, Mr. Boyd, in your testimony, I was trying to
listen closely, you even went and talked about something I am
going to drill into later, which is business leasing, which can
take 2 and 3 years. If we wanted to be partners together and
open up a business on the Navajo Nation, it would take 3 damn
years to get approved. That is a whole different can of worms,
Mr. Wells, as you referred to it. Okay?
So here we are trying to buy our homes which can take 1
year or 2 years for title searches, nevermind the fact of
trying to open a business. And it feels like, Mr. Wells, is
that BIA and the Government of America is actually a repressive
body on the Native American trust lands that do not allow them
that economic release.
Go ahead, yes.
Mr. Wells. Same feeling I have, coming from the same neck
of the woods that you do. That is one of the reasons why all of
the realty regulations are being rewritten so that we can begin
to streamline this process and standardize it so we do not feel
that.
Mr. Renzi. Is the multiple TSRs that we do, the two, and
you have enlightened me on three, is that regulation procedural
or administrative? What is that?
Mr. Wells. As far as I know--
Mr. Renzi. It does not conform to industry standards.
Mr. Wells. It is procedural.
Mr. Renzi. Procedural?
Mr. Wells. I am going to defer to Mr. Boyd because HUD
requires that that occur.
Mr. Renzi. Mr. Boyd, you know what we are talking about
right now? Okay? We are talking about double, triple TSRs
before you can move in that leaves houses vacant and
vandalized. Is that procedural?
Mr. Boyd. Part of it is procedural. One of the things,
Congressman, that as we look at the process in total, initially
it begins with the lender and the borrower sitting down. What
the lender is now requiring from the potential borrower is a
clear TSR. The individual then has to go, working with their
tribe and with the BIA, then they get a TSR.
Mr. Renzi. Okay.
Mr. Boyd. Once they get that, they come back. They get the
mortgage, and then we wait for BIA to record that. Once they
record it, then we will do the guarantee.
Mr. Renzi. Okay. I am going to come back for a second
round.
I move to the gentlelady from South Dakota, Ms. Herseth.
Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Boyd, in your written statement you indicated that the
TSR process has minimal impact on IHBG and ICDBG programs. But
isn't it true that last year $54 million from Section 184, the
loan guarantee program administered by HUD, went unused and was
rescinded?
Mr. Boyd. That is correct.
Ms. Herseth. How long have those funds been going unused,
and what steps has the department taken to better serve tribal
needs under that program that was authorized?
Mr. Boyd. The breakdown was a combination of Title VI and
184, so the total amount that was rescinded was $33 million. At
the time, certainly I think that, and what we have done just
recently to correct that situation, and part of it had to do a
lot with marketing. A lot of it had to do with getting out and
being more proactive with tribes and with the lenders.
What we have done over the past couple of years is that we
have begun to more aggressively work with tribes by having
individuals from our respective six area offices to do more
training, to actually in a sense, if you will, to help create
housing deals to take place. In other words, lend the expertise
to the tribe and act as the intermediary between the lenders
and the tribes to structure new deals.
As a result of this, especially in 184, the comparison of
growth in the program has been tremendous. From 2004 to 2005,
we increased the amount of home mortgages on reservations by
130 percent. Right now in fiscal year 2005, we project that we
will do about $80 million to $100 million worth of mortgages in
Indian Country. So we had a learning curve, but I think that we
have a better handle on it, and we are being a lot more
aggressive.
Ms. Herseth. I appreciate the update. If you could perhaps
keep us posted, maybe with each quarter of the rest of the year
based on what you are projecting and the increase based on the
improved marketing and being more proactive.
Which leads me to just make a comment about the need to be
proactive. When we established a commission 5 years ago and you
have Members of Congress who are trying to be proactive in
submitting names for nominations, as Mr. Renzi mentioned, I
would just like to reiterate the points made there, and the
committee's efforts and staff, our offices's efforts to try to
advance the ball, but we need your assistance as well.
Mr. Wells, let's get to the automated system and the
efforts to streamline this process. Is this related to the
Cobell litigation?
Mr. Wells. To some degree.
Ms. Herseth. And do you feel that you have adequate funding
once you anticipate that within 8 months, bringing us to about
February or March 2006, to fully integrate this new automated
system into each of the eight locations around the country?
Mr. Wells. I would say no.
Ms. Herseth. No, you do not have adequate funding to
integrate it?
Mr. Wells. Correct.
Ms. Herseth. So even though by March you will have cleaned
up the data, turning the hard copies in to the automated
system, we, therefore, lack funding at that point to integrate
it fully, in addition to all the training that will be
necessary for those eight offices. So we cannot get to the 30
days that you estimate unless we have adequate funding to
integrate the system and to train people to clear the titles.
Mr. Wells. Correct. Two downfalls on this, and that is
that, one, as Congressman Frank noted, qualified staffing is a
problem. It takes time to train people and to get the corporate
memory instilled in them. Two, we need a central repository for
all of the information that is in all of these eight title
operations. At present, the title entities are
compartmentalized, and they need to be able to cross-speak, so
to speak, because Indian people have land all across the United
States. They do not have land just in one tribal base or one
region. It is all over the place. So we need that.
And quite frankly, we need to be able to combine TAAMS and
TFAS together in a meaningful way so that we get not only
correct information, but we also have the ability to collect
and invest and distribute the funding that is associated with a
correct title.
Ms. Herseth. Mr. Chairman, may I ask just a couple of
follow-ups?
I agree that we need that clearly. In your opinion, do we
also need a settlement in the Cobell litigation?
Mr. Wells. I am not going to speak on that.
Ms. Herseth. Let me spin this out a little bit then.
Mr. Wells. Okay.
Ms. Herseth. If we have hard copies, as you said earlier,
that date back centuries.
Mr. Wells. That is correct.
Ms. Herseth. And we all know that there have been problems
with historical accounting, according to other officials within
BIA about the adequacy of those records, the availability of
those records.
So as we are integrating into an automated system, yet
records sit and in some cases are incomplete, what do we do
then about moving to an automated system that is used not only
for the purpose of dealing with titles, but when you said in
part this automated system is driven by the Cobell litigation
and we are cleaning up this data, and perhaps you could explain
more about what cleaning up the data means.
Is this automated system going to be used in any other way?
Or does it have the capability to be used in any other way to
ensure better management of trust accounts?
Mr. Wells. Yes, it does. It is also title and leasing at
the present time. It also incorporates, as it was initially
designed several years ago, it incorporates a forestry entity
and a land grazing entity. It will allow you to be able to
manage most of the resources throughout Indian Country in an
automated fashion, hooking into the title hook. The title is
key. If you do not have correct title data, what do you have?
Ms. Herseth. That is a good question.
Mr. Wells. That is the reason why we are performing a
tremendous task right now of cleaning up data.
Ms. Herseth. So one last question because I have gone
overtime. In your opinion, in light of the questions Mr. Frank
posed earlier and the other questions of my colleagues about
the shortage of qualified people to be doing what needs to be
done within the next 8 months to automate the system, to clean
up the data, then the additional funds that will be necessary
to integrate that into the eight regions around the country, as
well as to tie it in with other systems.
Up to this date, does this constitute another example of
putting funding based on what you said earlier about, even
though it takes 6 hours to do the TSR, it is a matter of
getting to the TSR, that this is another example in which the
monies that have gone into the Cobell litigation have been
diverted away from other programs like probate and like the
TSRs?
Mr. Wells. Again, I am not going to comment on the Cobell
situation.
Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Renzi. The gentleman from California, who has been so
patient?
Mr. Baca. Thank you very much, Mr. Renzi, and thank you for
your leadership in this endeavor.
By the way, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Wells, I am a native of New
Mexico and was born in New Mexico, so when it comes to problems
in that area, all of us are very much concerned not only what
happens with New Mexico or South Dakota or Arizona or
California, but throughout our Nation, especially as it impacts
sovereignty and equal rights.
As we address homeownership and the American dream, you
have talked about a lot of the problems, but I know that the
Democrats were trying to increase the funding for the BIA. They
were actually denied the additional funding. It seems like it
boils down to a lot of the problems due to the lack of funding
to the BIA to implement some of these programs, especially if
you are talking about an automated system or streamlining part
of the process. Without the additional revenue, it seems like
we cannot apply the same kind of services.
So it seems like there are double standards. Off the
reservation, it seems like there is additional funding in the
area of housing to assure that the process is implemented in a
timely process, but yet within our reservations and sovereignty
country, we are not willing to provide the revenues. So it
seems to be a major problem. If we got over this hurdle, maybe
then we could solve some of the problems that currently exist
by implementing the kind of staff, to implement the kind of
processes, procedures, and guidelines and criteria that can be
expedited in assuring that everyone gets treated equally.
Let me ask my question. I have a series of nine questions.
I will submit the rest of them for the record, since I will not
have time.
One that I would like to address particularly, In 1986,
there was an unverified status report completed on all existing
properties in Southern California. Yet the land title and the
record office staff continually disregarded this report.
Instead of using this record and updating the records from the
1986 baseline, the land title and record office staff
reconstructed the entire record.
Why can't BIA have a convenient manager sign off an updated
status report from 1986 so we do not have to continue to
recreate the records and, thus, take even longer to process
this request?
Mr. Wells. That is for me, right?
Mr. Baca. That is for you, Mr. Wells.
Mr. Wells. Mr. Baca--a very familiar name from New Mexico,
by the way--I am not sure of the answer, going back to 1986,
why that was the situation. But my staff sitting behind me, I
am sure have duly noted that, and we will get a response to
you.
Mr. Baca. Right. And hopefully you guys can just sign off
instead.
My other question is, it is my understanding that many of
the records to complete a title status report are not
computerized and are not microfiched or even handwritten. Is
there a process in place to computerize these records? If so,
how long will it take? If not, why not?
Mr. Wells. There is a process in place, and that is the one
I have been referring to as TAAMS, the Trust Asset and
Accounting Management System. That is the data cleanup, part of
the data cleanup that I am referring to is getting that hard
copy stuff in whatever form it is in, and you have noted
several forms, into an automated system which will help to
streamline this thing once and for all. That is what we are all
about.
Mr. Baca. Okay. This question is for Mr. Boyd from HUD.
Because title status reports and processes are so time
consuming, tribes have started to contract with BIA to conduct
these functions themselves without the Department of Housing
and Urban Development. Would the Department of Housing and
Urban Development accept title status reports completed by
tribal land titles and record offices?
Mr. Boyd. Yes.
Mr. Baca. Remember, that is for the record. You are saying
yes, and it is noted here.
Mr. Boyd. Well, one of the things that we have been working
with the BIA on under the memorandum of understanding was to
look at the process in such a way that we might be able to
accept on a quicker basis their recording of different TSRs. So
once we know that they have submitted a TSR to a lender and the
actual mortgage takes place, then there is a time when that has
to go back to BIA to be approved again and to be recorded. At
that time, we will accept the soft, if you will, answer from
BIA with regard to that and turn the guarantee around on a very
quick basis. That is when we mentioned within 24 hours.
Mr. Baca. Okay. Next question. Native American housing is
overcrowded and substandard. Over 32 percent of the houses
located on tribal lands are overcrowded; 7.5 percent of the
Native Americans' homes lack safe water sewage systems; and
less than 50 percent of the homes on reservations are connected
to public sewer systems; and 16.5 percent of the homes on
tribal lands are without indoor plumbing.
These are serious issues. I am pleased with the strides
that Native Americans have made to begin to address these
problems when allowed to develop their own independent source
of revenue and autonomy. What can we do to continue to make
Native Americans more self-sufficient?
Mr. Boyd. What we have been doing over the past couple of
years, and I think that through the 184 program and the Title
VI program and through the participation of a number of tribes
throughout the country, the whole leveraging of public money
with private money has expanded tremendously. We know that
there are limited funds, but some tribes have really, I think,
set the record and set the mark for leveraging these funds.
I think it has only happened, with my knowledge, probably
within the last 6 or 7 years where the whole concept of
leveraging has really taken a foothold in Indian Country. That
has helped us with regard to expanding the coordination that we
have with tribes with State housing finance agencies, with
foundations. It is taking I think a lot of outreach. It has
taken a lot of education, both on our behalf as well as the
tribe's behalf in the art of leveraging. That has helped
tremendously.
Mr. Baca. Thank you. I know that my time has expired, but
one last question.
Much land has been taken away from Native Americans.
Approximately 90 million acres of land trusts have been removed
from Native American hands since the late 1800s, and they
continue to lose land through the process of condemnation,
eminent domain, foreclosures, and transfer of property to non-
Native Americans.
What can we do to compensate Native Americans for these
losses, and how can we ensure that they do not lose more land?
And then I will submit the rest of my questions for the
record.
Any one of you?
Mr. Boyd. I would like to defer that to Mr. Wells since the
whole land aspect of trust land is really under his
jurisdiction and not HUD's.
Mr. Wells. What we have attempted to do is stem that tide
dramatically by taking more fee land into trust. We have a
fairly good track record of that over the last 10 years. Rather
than have it go out of trust along the lines you are talking
about, condemnation, being sold off, and so forth, have it
pulled into the reservation level, those lands that are within
the exterior boundaries of the reservation or closely
associated therewith. That is what we have attempted to do.
As far as compensation, other than what the Bureau of
Indian Affairs is attempting to do right now, I have no other
answer.
Mr. Baca. Then we continue to steal from them.
Thank you.
Mr. Wells. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Renzi. I thank the gentleman from California.
Mr. Cardoza from California?
Mr. Cardoza. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am interested in asking a couple of questions on this
Cobell case. We all want a fair and thoughtful and equitable
settlement that all parties can agree on. I am sure, Mr. Wells,
you agree with that so that we can move on, the bureau can move
on, the Department of Interior and Congress can concentrate its
efforts on other issues important to Indian Country. Given that
the Indian-proposed settlement in June was rejected, what would
the bureau and the Department of Interior be willing to accept
in terms of a settlement?
Mr. Wells. Again, I am not going to respond on Cobell. That
is open litigation with the Department of Justice and not me.
Mr. Cardoza. Well, maybe you can answer this question,
which relates, but is not specific to the case. If there was a
settlement or if Congress decided to intercede and force a
settlement, where would the funds come? Certainly, we have a
limited amount of money. It would have to come from some other
place within your department under the current rules. Do you
have any suggestions where we could find the critically needed
funds? You say that in order to staff up and reposition and
provide enough, we are going to need additional funding. Do you
have any ideas where that funding could come from?
Mr. Wells. The soft answer is no, I do not.
Mr. Cardoza. Well, it has been a number of years since we
have been trying to solve these issues. It really seems to me
that it is time for someone to step in and solve the problem.
Do you think it is appropriate for Congress to take action at
this time?
Mr. Wells. Again, I am not going to comment on it. That is
for the Department of Justice. I am sorry.
Mr. Cardoza. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Renzi. I thank the gentleman.
We will move to the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson.
Mr. Matheson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It seems to me that this is a problem that has been going
on for a long time. I would share some of the frustrations of
some of my other colleagues, but I am not hearing very many
alternatives expressed. I am hearing we need to clean up data,
and it all sounds fine and well, but I am not sure that that is
going to solve the problem. I do not think you have made a
compelling case. I do not think you have offered solutions for
us to consider up here about how we can fix this problem.
I think that in your written responses to some questions
that are going to be given to you and you can compile after the
hearing, maybe you can give a little more thought to coming up
with constructive solutions, because in my opinion I have not
heard it today. This is an ongoing problem, and we are not
getting the right answer.
A couple of thoughts I wanted to throw out that I would
like your response to. First of all, has there been any
initiative or is there thought given to the notion of giving
tribal members more of a participatory role in this process? I
have heard that within the Navajo reservation there is a desire
to work more with local county recorders' offices and help
solve this problem. I am wondering if there has been thought or
effort to try to engage a program like that. These counties
have the ability to process title reports. They probably are
suffering from the same data problems you all are. I am
wondering if that has been considered.
Mr. Wells. It has been considered, but the fact that it is
a trust responsibility, it has not been allowed to be an
option. The closest that I can get to that is, again, the
example that I used before, and that is the Flathead
reservation where they have compacted the LTRO operation and
they perform their own title operations as a tribe. They do
very well.
Mr. Matheson. Let me follow up. Chairman Ney asked this
question at the start. What are the impediments to having these
title searches conducted by outside title companies?
Mr. Wells. The outside title company is not a trust entity,
and that is a major impediment in that it is a trust
responsibility, thus, restricted to the Federal Government.
Mr. Matheson. So it would require a legislative change to
allow that to happen.
Mr. Wells. I would say that is an accurate read.
Mr. Matheson. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Renzi. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlelady from Florida?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wells, you have indicated in your testimony, and during
the course of this back and forth discussion, that staffing was
one of your significant problems. Yet, and I checked to make
sure that I was correct in this assumption, you did not ask for
funding for additional staffing in your budget request. I am
wondering, if that is such a significant problem and one of the
major obstacles to you solving the problems that exist with
this title issue, why you would not have asked for more money
for staff?
Mr. Wells. One of the reasons why I did not ask for
additional money is because, one, I have been here for about a
year now; and two, it takes time to pull the matrix together.
It cannot be anecdotal anymore, like I need a whole lot more
staff. Well, everybody wants to know how much more; what are
they going to do; is your staff working at the full potential;
and we are all about putting that matrix together right now.
What we did do, though, was carve out of the realty
component as a specific entity 144 people just to take care of
the backlog in probate. It affects everything else we are
talking about here. We have to get that taken care of.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. At what point in the year that you
have been here did you determine that you needed more staff?
Because a year is not a short period of time. I mean, you were
aware and were brought in with these problems existing. So I
hate to tell you, but that is not really a short period of time
in which you could have determined and then asked for funding
for additional staff.
Mr. Wells. Understood. Right after I came here, I noted
that where I come from there is a lack of staff to be able to
take care of these situations and take care of these operations
to the degree that we would hope to be able to do this, thus
eliminating the backlog and getting things taken care of, as in
someone comes in the door and you deal with it, and it is done
within a reasonable amount of time.
But to make the case for a budget increase, I was told that
I needed to produce the matrix and measures, and that is what I
am doing right now.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You know, maybe it is that I am a
freshman, and I am not familiar with the Washington window, but
I was in the legislature for 12 years before coming here. I
thought that bureaucracy in State government was significant.
It is amazing that the Federal Government even functions at
all. I can understand now why my constituents, who include the
Seminole tribe, just want to throw up their hands and turn
around and walk away from the whole ball of wax.
Native Americans are being treated like second-class
citizens when it comes to their being able to access affordable
housing or housing at all. And you all are not doing very much
of anything to show them that you are trying, up until this
conversation and being asked questions that you admitted you
wished you were not asked or that you had not revealed your
hand on. It is difficult for me to understand why it should
have taken this long for someone to come in and even recognize
that there was a problem and that it needed to be unraveled.
I will be honest with you. All I have heard from you is
excuses. It is unacceptable. I came to this hearing expecting
to hear your proposal for a solution and you are talking about
matrix's and jargon that just makes no sense to the average
person. I really think you need to do a quite a bit better job
at unraveling the problem and proposing a solution because we
are out of patience and so are the Native American tribes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Renzi. Mr. Wells, Mr. Boyd, I just have a couple more
questions, if you don't mind. I do appreciate your coming over.
I want to ask, in the testimony that I read, there is a
hint of the lenders being able to do a little more. I do not
doubt that. Can you go ahead and drill into that a little bit
for me? Mr. Wells?
Mr. Wells. The need for the lenders to do some more is to
understand, and this is just a common man's parlance here, that
there is a backlog that I have been talking about, that there
is a need to get in front of the Bureau of Indian Affairs
immediately when they know there is a need for a loan, to
trigger that switch and say we are going to need a TSR as soon
as possible.
Mr. Renzi. Mr. Wells, let me ask you, and forgive me for my
ignorance. Loan origination documents are done; It looks like
there is going to be approval. Is that when you are notified?
Do you want them to back up a little bit earlier and give you a
little bit of notice, knowing that they are dealing with a
different entity than the commercial world?
Mr. Wells. Exactly.
Mr. Renzi. And ideally how would you see that, sir? What
process?
Mr. Wells. I would like to see--
Mr. Renzi. Preliminary underwriting acceptance?
Mr. Wells. Something along those lines. I would like to
have that. That is along the lines that I believe that Mr. Boyd
is talking about. I believe you call it a soft document. I
would love to entertain that idea.
Mr. Renzi. And that would give you maybe another 30 days
possibly?
Mr. Wells. Sure. And that would be able to begin to bridge
the gap that we have been talking about here.
Mr. Renzi. Mr. Boyd, any thoughts on lender participation,
lender improvement for the system, other than what Mr. Wells
talked about?
Mr. Boyd. Well, throughout the course of the year, we do
184 lending training sessions. We probably spend about 30
percent of our time in those sessions with the lenders,
educating them, introducing them to not only the 184 process,
but also as it includes what they have to do working with the
borrower to get the TSRs cleared. I think that that has helped
tremendously, and I think it has also given them a window, if
you will, into the entire process. I do know that that has
helped them.
Mr. Renzi. I appreciate that. Do you in your seminars
explore at all the fact that we are having monies rescinded
each year out of NAHASDA? Last year, $33 million were rescinded
back, unused monies that the Government is actually putting out
there for Native Americans to achieve homeownership, and yet we
are not using it. Any thoughts in both your experiences on how
we can buy down, use that money, get it down to zero, and why
we are not?
Mr. Boyd. As I mentioned before, I think what we have begun
to do a better job of being more proactive. Under the Office of
Native American Programs, we have six area offices throughout
the country. We have designated staff in those area offices to
go out and be more aggressive not only in marketing, but
working with tribes, TDHEs, tribal entities and the borrowers.
Mr. Renzi. Are these circuit riders or are these actual
locations?
Mr. Boyd. Within their respective regions.
Mr. Renzi. Have you thought about maybe doing more offices,
actual permanent locations? Maybe Congress needs to plus-up and
provide better money so that you can actually have more
locations spread out in Indian Country where you have a
permanent office where people are going and the local community
is seeing successes being made, and then their word-of-mouth is
getting around, well, even more than that, advertising,
marketing, but word-of-mouth of success stories. You know, you
can go up here to a local office and they will find a way for
you to own a home.
Mr. Boyd. I think that would be helpful. I know, and as I
mentioned earlier, there are a number of tribes that are doing
a great job out there and are great success stories on
leveraging both public and private, and in some cases tribal
money, to do very good housing not only for rental, but for
homeownership.
Mr. Renzi. Mr. Wells, you came out of Albuquerque, and I
appreciate having you back here. I do believe that just a year
is not enough. I lend myself to the comments earlier. I do
believe that your intention is honest. I want to ask you, the
Navajo Nation paid for a staffer to be out there and
participate in the Albuquerque office to try and help process
quicker internally. How did that turn out?
Mr. Wells. My understanding is, yes they did pay for a
staffer out there and that turned out well. Anytime that we can
get additional qualified staff to help, and key to this is that
they are a tribal member. They know the nuances. As you are
talking, word-of-mouth is the way to go on the reservation.
Now, you can do all the advertisement and emails or whatever it
is.
Mr. Renzi. Success stories up there on the reservation are
like wildfire. It spreads.
Mr. Wells. It is the key.
Mr. Renzi. So, Mr. Wells, the Navajo Nation sends an
individual, well-trained, qualified as you have been talking
about, embedded in your system in Albuquerque and they are able
to work through the nuances and help speed up the system a
little bit. We could do a curtain call maybe to some of the
tribes and ask them to come back to be part of your new system
here in Washington, or you would rather have them out there in
the field?
Mr. Wells. I would rather have them in the field any day.
Mr. Renzi. Okay.
Mr. Wells. That is where the action is, and that is where
the rubber meets the road.
Mr. Renzi. Okay. Mr. Wells, last question. I do appreciate
both you guys coming over here and taking some hits. At the
same time, you can see that we are trying to keep pushing you a
little bit and let you know that we are on this issue. How long
do you want me to give you before we do this again, before we
come back and dance with each other?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Renzi. Honest. Reasonable, because Mr. Wells, I am
going to request you. I realize you were like a last-minute
replacement from what I hear, but you did a hell of a job. I am
going to request you next time, though. How long do you want
before you come back and face the music again?
Mr. Wells. I would like 8 months.
Mr. Renzi. Eight months. I will see you in 8 months.
Mr. Wells. I would like to see 8 months and see what type
of progress we have made.
Mr. Renzi. Especially with the TAAMS system and the
database. We could look at how the database is actually
fleshing out.
Mr. Wells. There is an activity. There you go. Exactly.
That is what I would like.
Mr. Renzi. Okay. And then maybe during budget season, will
you guys come over and visit me in my office, okay, and we will
talk, particularly some of the people have good points on
budget. Okay?
Thank you all.
Mr. Kildee, anything else in closing comments?
Mr. Kildee. No.
Mr. Renzi. The Chair notes that some members may have
additional questions for this panel which they wish to submit
in writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain
open for 30 days for members to submit written questions to
these witnesses and to place their responses in the record.
I want to thank both witnesses today. I appreciate it very
much.
The hearing is dismissed.
[Whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
July 19, 2005
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]