[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2523, ``HELPING EXPEDITE
AND ADVANCE RESPONSIBLE
TRIBAL HOMEOWNERSHIP ACT
OR THE HEARTH ACT''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-39
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
52-940 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Jeff Flake, Arizona
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Grace F. Napolitano, California Carolina
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Louie Gohmert, Texas
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Rob Bishop, Utah
Jim Costa, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
George Miller, California Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts John Fleming, Louisiana
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Mike Coffman, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Islands Tom McClintock, California
Diana DeGette, Colorado Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Joe Baca, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, October 21, 2009...................... 1
Statement of Members:
Baca, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 5
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 2
Heinrich, Hon. Martin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Mexico........................................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Kildee, Hon. Dale, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 4
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 4
Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative in Congress from
the State of West Virginia................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Chavez, Hon. Everett, Governor, Pueblo of Santo Domingo, New
Mexico..................................................... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Gidner, Jerry, Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C................ 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Moses, Hon. Harvey, Jr., Second Vice-President, Affiliated
Tribes of Northwest Indians, Portland, Oregon.............. 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Parish, Cheryl A., Executive Director, Bay Mills Housing
Authority, Brimley, Michigan............................... 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Trujillo, Arvin, Executive Director, Division of Natural
Resources, Navajo Nation, Window Rock, Arizona............. 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2523, ``HELPING EXPEDITE AND ADVANCE
RESPONSIBLE TRIBAL HOMEOWNERSHIP ACT OR THE HEARTH ACT.''
----------
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:45 a.m. in Room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II,
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rahall, Kildee, Napolitano,
Heinrich, Inslee, Baca, Herseth Sandlin, Hastings, Lummis, and
McClintock.
STATEMENT OF HON. NICK J. RAHALL, II, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
The Chairman. The Committee on Natural Resources will come
to order.
The Committee is meeting today to receive testimony on H.R.
2523, the Helping Expedite Affordable Responsible Tribal
Homeownership Act, introduced by our colleague, Mr. Heinrich of
New Mexico. This bill has a bipartisan list of 25 co-sponsors,
including 13 members of this Committee.
H.R. 2523 would amend the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of
1955 to authorize Indian tribes to negotiate and execute
certain leases once tribal regulations have been approved by
the Secretary of the Interior. As tribal governments become
more and more sophisticated and business-savvy, it sometimes
becomes necessary to amend existing laws. Such is the case with
the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act, which authorizes tribes to
enter into 25-year leases.
Every year tribes come to our Committee seeking extended
leasing authority, and nearly every year we amend the Act to
assist the tribes. The Navajo Nation has long been a self-
governing entity, and I commend their ability to incorporate
traditional government structure into the modern-day
government.
In 2000, legislation was passed granting the Navajo Nation
the authority to negotiate and execute business, agriculture,
public use, religious, educational, recreational, or
residential leases as tribal trust land without additional
Secretarial approval, once tribal regulations had been approved
by the Secretary of the Interior. The measure that is the
subject of today's hearing would extend that authority to all
Federally recognized tribes.
I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr.
Heinrich, for his valued leadership on this issue, and for
bringing this important legislation to our Committee. The
number of colleagues that have co-sponsored, just from our
Committee alone, shows the respect with which we all hold him
and appreciate his leadership. And we do look forward to
hearing from the witnesses this morning.
I recognize the Ranking Minority Member.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Rahall follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, Ii, Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources
The Committee is meeting today to receive testimony on H.R. 2523,
``the Helping Expedite Affordable Responsible Tribal Homeownership
Act'' introduced by our colleague, Mr. Heinrich of New Mexico. This
bill has a bipartisan list of 25 cosponsors including 13 members of
this committee.
H.R. 2523 would amend the Indian Long Term Leasing Act of 1955 to
authorize, Indian tribes to negotiate and execute certain leases
without Secretarial approval, once tribal regulations have been
approved by the Secretary of Interior.
As tribal governments become more and more sophisticated and
business savvy, it sometimes becomes necessary to amend existing laws.
Such is the case with the Indian Long Term Leasing Act which authorizes
tribes to enter into 25 year leases. Every year tribes come to our
committee seeking extended leasing authority, and nearly every year we
amend the Act to assist the tribes.
The Navajo Nation has long been a self-governing entity and I
commend their ability to incorporate traditional governing structures
into their modern day government.
In 2000, legislation was passed that granted the Navajo Nation the
authority to negotiate and execute business, agricultural, public use,
religious, educational, recreational, or residential leases of tribal
trust land without additional Secretarial approval, once tribal
regulations have been approved by the Secretary of Interior. H.R. 2523
would extend that authority to all federally recognized tribes.
I thank Mr. Heinrich for bringing this important legislation to us
and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses here this morning.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for scheduling the hearing on H.R. 2523.
Although this bill is called the Helping Expedite and
Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act, or the HEARTH Act
for short, the legislation actually consumes more than just
leasing of tribal lands for housing purposes. It fundamentally
shifts Congressional policy over recognized Indian tribes in
what I consider, Mr. Chairman, to be the right direction.
From what I understand, the impetus of the bill originated
from certain tribes that want to reduce the kind of red tape
and inefficiency that is inherent within the Federal
bureaucracy. While the provisions of the bill are strictly
voluntary in nature, I firmly believe that tribes which do
choose to assume more control over leasing their land will find
that the long-term rewards outweigh the risk and responsibility
of requiring more autonomy from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
I would note that the bill does not pertain to mineral
leasing of tribal lands. Such leasing is generally governed by
separate Indian mineral leasing law, which was amended in 2005,
to give tribes control over energy development on their lands
through tribal energy resource agreements.
Mr. Chairman, I think it would be helpful for this
Committee in the near future to examine the status of energy
leasing on Indian lands, just as we are examining the status of
other types of leasing activities today.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this
hearing, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
The Chairman. OK. I will recognize the sponsor of the
legislation first, Mr. Heinrich.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing, and for your comments and those of the
Ranking Member, as well. And I want to thank all the witnesses
who are here this morning.
I introduced the HEARTH Act after meeting with several
housing directors from New Mexico's Pueblos, where I learned
about the owner's process for securing a long-term lease on
Indian Trust land. We all know how important homeownership is
to healthy communities, and I think the last thing that the
Federal government should do is to stand in the way of families
who are ready, willing, and able to buy a home.
Native families buying a home go through the same process
as anyone else. They find a house they like, they work with
their bank to gain approval for financing for a mortgage, and
they make an offer to the seller. However, before these
families can close on a sale, they need approval from the
Bureau of Indian Affairs to lease the land that the house is
built on. That approval can take anywhere between six months
and two years, which sometimes is an intolerable delay for most
buyers. A seller is rarely able to wait two years to sell their
home, and banks are often unable to hold a mortgage approval
for that long.
I know there are many families who would prefer to stay and
raise their children in the community where their families have
lived for generations, but instead have moved to nearby cities
because they want to own their own home. While we are happy to
welcome them to great cities like Albuquerque, families
shouldn't be forced to make such an important decision based on
how many months or years it will take the Federal bureaucracy
to approve a mortgage on tribal land.
Many tribes already have a lease approval process through
their tribal government that approves land sales, or land
leases, before they are sent to the BIA. For those tribes that
want the authority and the responsibility for making final
leasing decisions at the tribal level, the HEARTH Act would
give them the option of doing so.
Our nation is home to a vast diversity of tribes, and
Federal policy should reflect that diversity. The HEARTH Act
will allow tribes to exercise greater control over their land,
and eliminate the bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of
homeownership in tribal communities.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing,
and I would yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Heinrich follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Martin Heinrich, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New Mexico
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all the witnesses here
this morning.
I introduced the HEARTH ACT after meeting with several housing
directors from New Mexico's pueblos where I learned about the onerous
process for securing a long-term lease on trust land.
We all know how important homeownership is to healthy communities,
and the last thing the federal government should do is stand in the way
of families ready and willing to buy a house.
Native families buying a house go through the same process as
anyone else: they find a house they like, work with their bank to gain
approval for a mortgage, and make an offer to the seller.
But before these families can close on the sale, they need approval
from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to lease the land the house is built
on. That approval can take between six months and two years--an
intolerable delay for most buyers.
A seller is rarely able to wait two years to sell their house, and
banks are often unable to hold a mortgage approval for that long.
I know there are many families who would prefer to stay and raise
their children in the communities where their families have lived for
generations--but instead have moved to nearby cities because they want
to own a home.
While we're happy to welcome them to the great city of Albuquerque,
families shouldn't be forced to make such an important decision based
on how many months or years it will take a federal bureaucracy to
approve a mortgage on tribal land.
Many tribes already have a lease approval process through their
tribal government that approves land leases before they're sent to BIA.
For those tribes that want the authority and responsibility for
making final leasing decisions at the tribal level, the HEARTH Act
would give them the option of doing so.
Our nation is home to a vast diversity of tribes, and federal
policy should reflect that diversity.
The HEARTH Act will allow tribes to exercise greater control over
their lands and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of
homeownership in tribal communities.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and I
yield back my time
______
The Chairman. Congressman Kildee.
STATEMENT OF HON. DALE E. KILDEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Kildee. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for having
this hearing. Your abiding interest in justice for our Native
Americans certainly reaches back to at least the 33 years that
you have been in Congress, and the Indians have benefitted from
your sense of justice.
And I want to thank Mr. Heinrich, who, as soon as he became
a Member of Congress, joined the Native American Caucus,
expressing his concern for justice for our first Americans. I
thank both of you for your deep interest, and I am just proud
to be a co-sponsor of this bill.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from California, the Chairman
of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Mrs. Napolitano.
STATEMENT OF HON. GRACE NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I, too, am in
full support of H.R. 2523.
Fact-finding. Native Americans have been on the back of the
bus for a long, long time in being able to get heard in many
areas. We deal with it in water rights in my Subcommittee, and
this will deal with housing. I think it is long-coming, and I
think we ought to be able to move forward on being able to
allow what is fair to delete some of these lengthy processes,
delays, and this forcing some of the families to move out of
their areas to be able to purchase their residences.
And my hat is off to the Navajo Nation for being the first
one to do it. And I look forward to making sure that we work
with Mr. Heinrich in getting this bill passed.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. The gentleman from California, Mr. Baca.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BACA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Baca. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Minority
Ranking Member. And I thank you for bringing up H.R. 2523. As
Mr. Kildee said, it is not just about justice, but it is about
equality. Equality becomes very important as we have to treat
everybody with the same opportunities. And like most of us, the
American dream is to own a home, obtain a home, live in the
same area, take our kids to the surrounding areas without
having to move.
I know, for example, coming from a large family, we had to
move from one district to another district to another district,
and finally my parents were able to settle and buy a home. And
it was the dream that I finally had where I had my roots, it
was settled in one particular area, and not having to rent one
place or another and moving from one school to another. Because
it not only affects the quality of life for the individuals,
but for the children as well, that have to make any kind of
transition.
It is too bad that we are only talking about a 25-year
lease, because it means owning a home, but not the land. It
could be a combination of both owning the land and owning the
home at the same time, and hopefully we can work on the other
as well, sometime in the future.
I look forward to supporting this legislation, and I am
currently a co-sponsor. Again, thank you very much for bringing
it up and caring, because we should treat everybody with the
same rights, the same kind of equality. It doesn't matter who
we are or where we come from.
Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. The Chair will now recognize our first panel,
composed of one individual, Mr. Jerry Gidner, the Director of
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C. We welcome you, and we do have your prepared
testimony. It will be made part of the record as it is actually
read, and you may proceed with it now.
STATEMENT OF JERRY GIDNER, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Gidner. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member, members of the Committee. My name is Jerry
Gidner. I am the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs at
the Department of the Interior, and I am here to provide
testimony on H.R. 2523, otherwise known as the HEARTH Act,
which, as you mentioned, is a bill to amend the Act titled ``An
Act to authorize the leasing of restricted Indian lands for
public, religious, educational, recreational, residential,
business, and other purposes requiring the grant of long-term
leases.''
The Administration and this Department support tribal self-
determination and self-governance. We want to work closely with
tribes, this Committee, and Congress to address the lease
approval processes that will help not just to expedite housing
opportunities, but economic and other developmental
opportunities for tribes.
We share the Committee's desire to address these leasing
issues, and we could support this bill if it was amended to
address concerns that are laid out in the testimony. We look
forward to working with this Committee and the staff to address
these concerns.
As we understand it, the purpose of the HEARTH Act is to
amend certain sections of 25 USC 415 to allow tribes, at their
discretion, to approve and enter into certain leases without
the approval of the Secretary, if those tribes have regulations
that have been approved by the Secretary. Currently the bill
allows that for the Navajo Nation, with certain caveats.
First, the leases must be executed under regs approved by
the Secretary. And there are time limits, as the Member just
stated, on the length of the leases that can be approved.
The HEARTH Act will provide those same authorities to any
Federally recognized Indian tribe at that tribe's discretion,
with the same restrictions. And we support the increase in
authority to the tribes, but we do need to point out the
impacts to the Department from that bill if it were passed.
For example, we would like to clarify the Secretary's trust
responsibilities for enforcing tribally-approved leases. We
would also like to study further whether the HEARTH Act should
clarify the language regarding the Federal government's
liability in situations where losses may occur in leases
approved by the tribe.
In addition, there are several impacts on our operations
that we would like to evaluate, including the process for the
Secretary to approve new Departmental regulations and the
Secretarial process for approving tribal regulations.
The HEARTH Act will also require BIA to prepare and submit
a report to Congress regarding the history and experience of
Indian tribes in consultation with the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, and Indian tribes that manage the land
title and record office functions. We agree with the factors to
be considered and reviewed as set forth in the Act.
We look forward to working through our concerns with the
Committee. And that concludes my testimony, and I would welcome
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gidner follows:]
Statement of Jerry Gidner, Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and Members of the
Committee. My name is Jerry Gidner and I am the Director for the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA) at the U.S. Department of the Interior
(Department). I am here today to provide the Department's testimony on
H.R. 2523, a bill to amend the Act titled ``An Act to authorize the
leasing of restricted Indian lands for public, religious, educational,
recreational, residential, business, and other purposes requiring the
grant of long-term leases'', approved August 9, 1955, also known as the
``Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act'',
or the ``HEARTH Act''.
The Administration and this Department support tribal self-
determination and self-government. We want to work closely with tribes,
this Committee and Congress to address the lease approval processes
that hinder not just housing opportunities in Indian Country, but also
economic and other development opportunities. Therefore, the Department
shares the Committee's desire to address leasing issues in Indian
Country and to improve leasing authority in Indian Country through H.R.
2523. The Department could support this bill if amended to address our
concerns outlined in this testimony. We look forward to working with
the Committee staff to address these concerns.
As we understand it, the purpose of the HEARTH Act is to amend
certain sections of 25 U.S.C. Sec. 415, the Indian Long-Term Leasing
Act to allow Indian tribes, at their discretion, to approve and enter
into certain leases without prior express approval from the Secretary
of the Interior. 25 U.S.C. Sec. 415(e), specifically addresses the
Navajo Nation's current ability to lease any restricted Navajo Nation
lands, with a few exceptions, for public, religious, educational,
recreational, residential, or business purposes without the requirement
of the Secretary of the Interior's approval of such leases. This
authority does contain certain provisos: 1) the Navajo Nation leases
must be executed under the Nation's regulations approved by the
Secretary of the Interior; 2) the lease cannot exceed 25 years for a
business or agricultural lease, which can be renewed twice but each
renewed term cannot exceed 25 years; and 3) the lease cannot exceed 75
years for public, religious, educational, recreational, or residential
purposes, if such a term is within the Navajo Nation's regulations.
The HEARTH ACT would provide the same authorities to any federally
recognized Indian Tribes, at that Indian tribe's discretion, to lease
its lands, with the same restrictions in 25 U.S.C. Sec. 415(e), without
the requirement of the Secretary of the Interior's approval of such
leases, so long as such leases are executed under the Indian tribe's
regulations that have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
Given this broad increase in authorities for Indian tribes, which is
consistent with this Administration's policy of supporting tribal self-
determination, the Department has identified several areas in the
legislation that will impact the Department.
The Department would like to clarify the Secretary's trust
responsibilities for enforcing tribally-approved leases. The Department
would also like to study further whether the HEARTH Act should include
language that clarifies the Federal government's liability in
situations where losses may occur in leases approved by the tribe. In
addition, the Department will need to evaluate the impacts on
operations, the Secretary's process for approving new Department
regulations, and a Secretarial process for approving tribal
regulations. For example, longer timelines will be necessary for
reviewing and approving tribal regulations.
The HEARTH Act would also require the BIA to prepare and submit a
report to Congress regarding the history and experience of Indian
tribes that have chosen to assume responsibility for operating certain
Indian Land Title and Records Office (LTRO) functions from the BIA.
Such review would include consultation with the Department of Housing
and Urban Development Office of Native American Programs and those
Indian tribes managing LTRO functions. The Department agrees with the
factors to be considered in the review.
We look forward to working through our concerns with the Committee
so that we can wholeheartedly support this bill. This concludes my
prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any questions the
Committee may have.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Gidner. I will ask a couple
quick questions, then turn to the Ranking Member.
How long did it take for the BIA to approve the Navajo
Nation leasing regulations promulgated pursuant to the Navajo
Nation Leasing Act? Was there a Senate approval process?
Mr. Gidner. I am not sure of the answer to that, Mr.
Chairman, I would have to find that time out for you.
The Chairman. Could you explain the process which was
traveled?
Mr. Gidner. Yes, certainly.
The Chairman. What is the role of the BIA now that the
Navajo Nation has the authority to issue leases without
Secretarial approval?
Mr. Gidner. Well, our role is to record the lease in our
system, and that is actually one of the issues I think we need
to examine. I am not sure how many leases have been approved by
the Navajo Nation under this authority, and exactly how the
lease income flows from that. I think those are things that we
need to examine, exactly what our role would be in those
leases.
The Chairman. Are you in the process of doing that now,
then?
Mr. Gidner. We will do that, yes.
The Chairman. What factors does the BIA take into
consideration when determining whether or not to approve a
tribal leasing application?
Mr. Gidner. That is a good question, Mr. Chairman. Right
now the statute says that they need to be, the tribal
regulations need to be consistent with the Department's
regulations. Right now, for example, we do not have specific
residential lease regulations. We are in the process of
developing those, so we would look to see if they are
consistent with the regulations that we have. But in that case,
on residential leases, we do not have regulations. So that is a
little bit more of a difficult question to answer.
The Chairman. Are you developing those regulations, then?
Mr. Gidner. We are in the process of developing and
revising a whole number of Trust regulations, that included.
Right now we use our general non-agricultural leasing
regulations for residential leases, but they are not specific
to residential leases, and in some ways are probably not a very
good fit for those leases.
The Chairman. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Heinrich.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you very much. And I want to thank you
for being here today, and for your testimony.
One of the issues I wanted to touch on is that for home
buyers on non-trust land, buyers can get their title and
mortgage documentation finalized oftentimes within about 48
hours. And obviously Trust land transactions are more
complicated, but borrowers still need to be able to get their
loans finalized within traditional banking timetables to be
able to access credit.
After discussions with experts in tribal housing, I
understand that the timeframe is in the 10-day to two-week
range for that. And because of the rapidity of interest rate
changes, largely because of the rapidity of interest rate
changes for bank mortgages, I was wondering what resources, in
terms of money, people, technology, would the BIA need to be
able to accomplish leasing decisions within that kind of a
timeframe? Within a 10-day turnaround, say. And how does that
compare with the current resources that are devoted to this
process today?
Mr. Gidner. Congressman, I would say we don't know the
answer to that question right now. We have already undertaken
an organizational assessment of all of our trust programs to
try to determine exactly what our need is, to provide all of
those services in a timely manner.
I would say in general, those programs, land title programs
and realty programs, are under-staffed. And of course, any
requests for budgetary resources would come through the
budgetary process. I think over the next few months we will
have a much better understanding of the resource gap there for
us to factor into the budget appropriation process.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Gidner. Also, how would you
characterize the quality of the Bureau of Indian Affairs data
on Indian Trust lands? And what action has the BIA taken in
recent years to improve data management, and to ensure that
land records are accurate and up to date?
Mr. Gidner. I would say right now our quality is pretty
good. As you probably know, we have adopted over the past
several years a land title and leasing system; it is called
TAMS. It is a system of record for all of our real estate
records. It is constantly being updated. I would say we are, it
is not entirely current at any given moment because of the
volume of their workload. The organizational assessment, well,
we will be looking at that to see what we would need to keep
that up to date and more current. But overall, I think the
quality of the data is pretty good, and much better than it has
ever been.
Mr. Heinrich. One other quick question. The BIA has
enforcement responsibility for leases, in addition to the
approval process itself. Can you characterize how often the
Bureau actually takes action to enforce leases that it has
approved, and kind of give us an overview of that system?
Mr. Gidner. I could not give you exact numbers, but we do
have a pretty active program in the field to examine land for
trespass, for example. And it is fairly standard. If we find
people trespassing on land without a lease, they send letters
telling them they have to cure that trespass, and working
toward eviction. I am not talking about residential so much as
the agriculture or grazing leases particularly. So we certainly
have that process. If there is non-payment of leases, we send
bills of collection and invoices. The process is generally
taking place on a daily basis throughout the Bureau.
Mr. Heinrich. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Gidner.
Thank you, Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from California, Mrs.
Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of
things that were talked about by Mr. Rahall. One of them
specifically hit a chord when you mentioned the nine
regulations for the leases. Can you enumerate what they are?
Mr. Gidner. I am sorry, nine regulations for leases?
Mrs. Napolitano. For leases.
Mr. Gidner. I am not sure that I can. We have agricultural
leases, lease regulations. I am not sure that I, that I can.
Mrs. Napolitano. But there are nine?
Mr. Gidner. I have not counted them. We have a whole
regulatory system that involves.
Mrs. Napolitano. Are they all separately done, differently
administered? They follow one guideline? I know you mentioned
just now that it is pretty much standard.
Mr. Gidner. Well, I would say the different leasing
regulations would be different based on what it is we are
leasing. You know, grazing leases are different than business
leasing.
So nationwide, if it is grazing leases, it should be
consistent nationwide. If it is business leases, it should be
consistent nationwide. But there are obviously huge differences
between those kind of leases. As I said, we do not have
specific residential lease regulations.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. One other question that I think the
author brought out was the ability to be able to do the work.
You indicate you have sometimes an overload, if I heard you
correctly.
Mr. Gidner. Yes.
Mrs. Napolitano. Currently, do you have enough, do you feel
there are enough personnel to be able to do what you have? Do
you have a backlog? How long is that backlog? Is the funding
adequate, funding needs? What is the volume of the workload?
Mr. Gidner. The volume of the workload for leasing is
pretty high across the country. We process a lot of leases.
Mrs. Napolitano. A lot being?
Mr. Gidner. I don't----
Mrs. Napolitano. Thousands? Hundreds?
Mr. Gidner. Thousands. I don't know the number off the top
of my head. Whether there is a backlog or not I guess is a
matter of opinion. I would say there is. The time lag between--
I don't think we can process them as fast as we ought to be
able to, but that would vary across the country.
And it is partly seasonal and partly business. In Palm
Springs you have complex businesses; in Standing Rock you have
grazing leases. So the kind of work is different, and the
volume of work and the time of work is different. So I can't
say we have, it takes us X amount of time to do leases
nationwide. You have to look at it on a much more local basis.
Mrs. Napolitano. And home leases?
Mr. Gidner. Home leases, I don't know if we have a backlog
in that or not. I know we have, the process takes us longer
than land that is not held in trust. And that I think is unfair
to the, to the tribal members.
Mrs. Napolitano. And the reason basically is what? That
there is this backlog, that there is this length of time.
Mr. Gidner. Length of time? Well, there are a number of
reasons. I suspect staff resources are one of them, and this
organizational assessment I hope will quantify, verify,
quantify that, so we can address that through the
appropriations process.
But when we approve a lease, it is a Federal action. And
that requires a NEPA review. Sometimes that can be a
categorical exclusion, and fairly quick; sometimes it can't.
But in any event, we have to do it. And that is something that
a homeowner on non-Federal land just does not have to go
through that step.
And I think that statute, putting that authority with the
tribes, may drastically reduce that step. That is something
that we would have to work out exactly how that would work, and
what the responsibility would be.
Mrs. Napolitano. In dealing with Native American tribal
water rights, there is a team that deals with each tribe. Is
there that kind of an effort put into it? That there are
several agencies working to be able to ensure that everything
is processed properly?
Mr. Gidner. No, not for leases generally. Leases would be
done at our agency, or sometimes at our regional offices. There
are, they would have to coordinate with our land title offices,
which we have six of those nationwide that cover our 12 BIA
regions, so not every region has a land title office. But that
is really the only coordination that would be needed.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from Wyoming, Mrs. Lummis.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Gidner. It is very nice to see you here today.
As you know, the HEARTH Act--and I am a co-sponsor, and I
want to compliment the prime sponsor for putting this bill
together--would allow tribes to execute their own leases, once
the overarching tribal regulations have been approved by the
Secretary.
Current law requires the Secretary's review and approval
process of proposed tribal regulations to occur within 120 days
of submittal by the tribe. What assurances can you give that
the Department can and will meet this deadline for any such
regulation submitted after enactment of H.R. 2523?
Mr. Gidner. I think the timeline is a difficult question.
And Mr. Chairman, I believe you asked about the timeline for
approving the Navajo Nation regs. I am informed that that took
approximately six years. I don't know why it took that amount
of time.
We would have to develop a process to ensure that we were
approving tribal regulations in a timely fashion. And that is
one of the issues we would have is, do we have the staff to
make that happen, how many tribes would be coming in, what our
workload would be for that. We would not want to trade a
backlog in processing leases for a backlog in approving
regulations.
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Chairman, doesn't the Solicitor's Office
do that, do those reviews of regulations?
Mr. Gidner. Oh, they are certainly involved in that, yes.
Mrs. Lummis. I understand that the BIA has twice now issued
guidance to its regional offices directing them to process
title status reports in no more than 30 days. And I also
understand that the process currently takes from six months to
two years to complete.
Why all these delays?
Mr. Gidner. I would say that is largely an issue of
staffing. And I mentioned before you joined us, we are right
now undertaking an organizational assessment of all the Trust
programs to see if we can understand what gaps exist, and
quantify them between the resources we have and the resources
we need to provide these services in a more timely fashion.
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Chairman, can you staff up temporarily to
do this kind of thing? I mean, if this bill passed, if you
would know that for a period of time there are going to be a
number of tribes that come in with regulations to take over
this function. And I am assuming that a lot of them would use
the Navajo model as their template for drafting their
regulations.
So I can't imagine that it would be that different from
each other. Once the Navajo regs have been approved, you know,
other tribes, it seems, would just adopt something very
similar.
Mr. Gidner. Well, you might be surprised. You may well be
right. Sometimes tribes like to do things their own way, which
is perfectly fine.
We would have to explore how to staff that process, and
whether we could use temporary staffing or put together teams.
Those are some of the options we would have to look at to make
those decisions in a timely manner.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you. And another question. Assuming a
tribe doesn't submit regulations, and its tribal members are
held to current law regarding lease approvals, what
improvements can you make to reduce the waiting period in which
a lease applicant can currently get approval?
Mr. Gidner. Well, we are currently looking at how we can
streamline the leasing process, and that actually has been more
driven by oil and gas leasing. And we are doing this
organizational assessment to look at staffing needs.
As I mentioned, we do have a different process, say, for
residential leases, that people getting a loan outside of
Indian country, outside of Federal land, this would not have.
We are bound, if we sign something it is a Federal action. We
are bound by NEPA, and that is just a step that we have to go
through that other people won't. And it is a disparity between
people in Indian country trying to get leases, and people in
our land trying to get a mortgage.
Mrs. Lummis. Well, Mr. Chairman, you illustrate a great
point. I mean, these are sovereign nations, and yet we are
layering extra hoops to jump through on them constantly.
And so again, I want to compliment Mr. Heinrich for putting
this bill together, and I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to pick up a very
important word which Mrs. Lummis used, sovereign nation. I
think we have to recognize that. We are not talking to some
corporation, or the Elks Club, or the Knights of Columbus, but
we are talking to sovereign nations and their rights under
their sovereignty. So I appreciate that you can't use that word
too often, because that underpins everything that we do here
when it comes to Indian nations, and I appreciate the use of
that word.
Let me ask Mr. Gidner, if H.R. 2523 is enacted, and several
tribes seek the authority grants, how long do you think it
would take to approve the application? And will this bill help
streamline, ultimately, the process?
Mr. Gidner. I am not sure how long it would take to approve
the regulations. Hopefully not six years. And I am not sure if
the bill puts a timeline for that or not. As I said, we would
have to staff up to make sure that did not take so long.
I think it would streamline the overall process. If we
don't have to approve the leases themselves after we approve
the regulations, I think that leasing process could happen much
quicker.
Mr. Kildee. I think that is very important to know, if you
are dealing with the private sector--now, we are in the
governmental sector here, two governments dealing with one
another. In the private sector, lost time can be very costly.
And it can be very costly for the tribe, also.
So I hope that your underlying attitude in implementing
this bill would be one of streamlining, so money would not be
lost. I mean, whether it be Chrysler Corporation, General
Motors Corporation, whatever, delay can be costly.
So I think your attitude should be use this bill to
streamline the process, so we can minimize the time between the
application and the execution. Because time, literally, is
money. So I hope you would take this bill, streamline it. I
think it is a very important bill. In your hands, the execution
would hopefully be streamlined.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman from California, Mr.
McClintock. Do you have a question?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Any other questions from Members? OK, Mr.
Gidner, thank you for being with us today.
Mr. Gidner. Thank you.
The Chairman. I am going to call the second panel to come
on up, and then recognize the gentleman from New Mexico to
introduce his constituents.
Panel number two will be composed of Governor Everett
Chavez, the Pueblo of Santo Domingo, New Mexico; The Honorable
Harvey Moses, Jr., Vice President of Affiliated Tribes of
Northwest Indians, Portland, Oregon; Mr. Arvin Trujillo, the
Executive Director, Division of Natural Resources, Navajo
Nation, Window Rock, Arizona; Ms. Cheryl A. Parish, the
Executive Director, Bay Mills Housing Authority, Brimley,
Michigan. And she will be testifying on behalf of the National
American Indian Housing Council.
The gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to
welcome representatives of two of New Mexico's tribes this
morning. Governor Everett Chavez is here to testify on behalf
of the Pueblo of Santo Domingo in northern New Mexico, and
welcome, Governor, to Washington. And I want to thank you very
much for making it out here to join us this morning.
And Mr. Arvin Trujillo, who is the Executive Director of
the Division of Natural Resources of the Navajo Nation. Mr.
Trujillo, I want to thank you very much for coming all the way
here to talk about the Navajo Nation's experiences with leasing
reform, and what we can learn from your experience. So thank
you both very much.
The Chairman. We welcome you to the Committee on Natural
Resources this morning. We do have all of your prepared
testimony, and it will be made part of the record as if
actually read. You may proceed as you desire, in the order in
which I introduced you. Governor.
STATEMENT OF GOV. EVERETT CHAVEZ, ALL-INDIAN PUEBLO COUNCIL,
PUEBLO OF SANTO DOMINGO, NEW MEXICO
Governor Chavez. Thank you, Member Hastings, distinguished
and honorable members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting
me to this testimony this morning for H.R. 2523. I would like
to also thank Congressman Heinrich for the invitation and
introducing this important legislation.
As was mentioned, my name is Everett Chavez. I am the
Governor for the Pueblo of Santo Domingo, a sovereign nation. I
have never had any problem being heard, but anyway, I am from
the Santo Domingo, and that is between Santa Fe and
Albuquerque, New Mexico, and our population there is about
5,000 strong. We are about 35 miles north.
We certainly feel that owning a home is a fundamental part
of the American dream. Santo Domingo Pueblo has long struggled
to provide adequate housing for our tribal members. We are
currently about 35 years behind in housing.
Our Pueblo people face barriers constantly trying to
attract private investments and banks that are normally
hesitant to provide mortgage financing for community members
because of the long delays that are involved once a lease
request is made. Typically this runs between six months to a
couple of years.
And so this lengthy process in this bill I think will
provide us the means for us to be able to move forward with our
housing shortage that we have. If you look at the size of
5,000, approximately 1,000 homes should be present to
adequately house our community members. We now have a count of
about 515 homes on the reservation, which leaves a huge number
of 400-plus-some homes that we need to come up with.
And unfortunately, HUD has been the primary answer for much
of our housing needs. And with the challenges that we have with
regard to funding, it has been quite difficult. If we had to
wait for HUD to come through to make up the 400 homes, it would
take a considerable amount of time.
And so this bill that is being presented really makes
available options for our tribal members that are ready to go
forth and build their own homes. And certainly the ability for
the tribe to enact its own ordinances that allows them to
secure loans in a much more timely manner certainly is a
desired outcome that we are looking forward to in this bill.
I know that similarly the other Pueblos, Isleta and Acoma,
are under the same kind of constraints, the same kinds of
difficulties that relate to leases. And I know that some of the
Pueblos in New Mexico have been looking at other ways that we
can be able to generate the kind of home housing activities in
the respect of Pueblos.
I know that many of us are certainly aware that the process
through the Bureau is quite cumbersome. We have had to deal
with it and live with it. But if there is an opportunity for us
to amend these things so that tribes can be more sovereign in
being able to act, enacting the ordinances that will guide
housing activities, and including leasing of the lands that
must be secured for houses.
This does not necessarily relieve the Federal government of
its trust responsibility. We certainly will continue to hold
them to that. But I think in terms of opportunity, I believe
the HEARTH Act--again, I want to commend Congressman Heinrich
for introducing this, and certainly we are looking forward to
the successful passage of this bill.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Governor Chavez follows:]
Statement of Governor Everett Chavez, Pueblo of Santo Domingo
Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Hastings, distinguished members of
the committee, thank you for inviting me here this morning to testify
in support of H.R. 2523. I would also like to thank Representative
Martin Heinrich of my home state of New Mexico for introducing this
important legislation. My name is Everett Chavez, and I am honored to
serve as Governor of the Pueblo of Santo Domingo. Santo Domingo Pueblo
is a community of more than 5,000, located just 35 miles north of
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Owning a home is a fundamental part of the American Dream. Santo
Domingo Pueblo has long struggled to provide adequate housing to our
tribal members. Presently, we are thirty-five years behind in our
housing; however, we've made progress in recent years thanks to federal
policies like NAHASDA (the Native American Housing Assistance and Self
Determination Act) and the HUD 184 Program. The Pueblo we still faces
barriers in attracting private investment--banks are still hesitant to
grant mortgages for houses on our reservation. One reason for that is
the long process of receiving approval for long-term leases and
leasehold mortgages from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Once a tribe
approves a lease and it is submitted to BIA for federal approval, the
wait time is typically between six months and two years. Once a lease
is approved, the leasehold mortgage goes through the same federal
approval process, taking another two to six months. Banks are simply
unwilling to wait this long to close a loan or finalize a sale. As a
result, many of Santo Domingo's families choose to move to neighboring
cities like Albuquerque because it is the only way they can
realistically buy a home.
At Isleta Pueblo, the typical wait time for approval of a lease is
six months and another two months for approval of the leasehold
mortgage. At Laguna Pueblo, even though the BIA office is on the
Pueblo, BIA delays in approving residential leases is over one year. It
is not uncommon for the housing entity to have to submit a lease more
than once to BIA as a result of misplacement of paperwork within BIA.
In Ohkay Owingeh and Nambe Pueblo, the housing entities have waited
longer than six months, and in Nambe's case, three years to obtain an
approved residential lease.
At Acoma Pueblo, no home mortgaging occurs due to the traditional
leaders' belief that the federal government should not set the rules
for residential leasing by tribal members on tribal lands because those
decisions are an internal matter. This decision has resulted in the
middle class moving away from Acoma to buy homes in Albuquerque. In
fact, even many Acoma tribal leaders who desperately want to live at
the pueblo, where their families have lived for generations, choose to
move to Albuquerque because they want the benefits of homeownership.
Most tribes, after realizing that they have to go through the BIA
approval process twice to close one loan, are dissuaded from
encouraging home mortgaging.
The federal government has important trust responsibilities to
ensure that tribal land is protected and used for the benefit of
tribes. Unfortunately, the current BIA leasing process is failing in
that responsibility. The HEARTH Act would allow tribes like mine to
make our own decisions about how our land is used. Within regulations
crafted by our tribal government and approved by the Secretary of the
Interior, the pueblo could complete the leasing process much more
quickly than BIA can, allowing greater investment in our community and
allowing more Santo Domingo families to become homeowners.
The current leasing system is broken. This bill will allow my
pueblo, and others like us, to build leasing systems that work for our
people. On behalf of Santo Domingo Pueblo, I ask your support of H.R.
2523.
Thank you again for holding this hearing today, and I would be
happy to answer any questions.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Governor. Vice President Moses.
STATEMENT OF HON. HARVEY MOSES, JR., VICE PRESIDENT, AFFILIATED
TRIBES OF NORTHWEST INDIANS, PORTLAND, OREGON
Mr. Moses. Good morning, Chairman Rahall and members of the
Committee. My name is Harvey Moses, Jr. I am Executive Vice
President of Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, comprised
of 57 tribes in the Pacific Northwest, including Washington,
Idaho, Oregon, Alaska, Montana, Nevada, and some in California.
Affiliated Tribes was established in 1953, and is one of
the frontrunners in trust reform for Indian country. And I
believe we are one of the leaders, we are the leader in Indian
country in that aspect.
I am also a councilmember from the Confederated Tribes of
the Colville Indian Reservation. My duties there include
chairman of our management and budget committee and chairman of
our culture committee.
ATNI's views of H.R. 2523, ``Helping Expedite and Advance
Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act,'' or HEARTH Act, the
Committee has my prepared statement. And I would like to
briefly highlight three points.
One, ATNI supports the HEARTH Act because it supports
voluntary mechanisms to enable tribal, Indian tribes to assume
greater controls over Indian Trust lands. It allows tribes to
avoid the lengthy BIA approval process for leasing of our Trust
lands. It encourages economic development and self-
determination on our Trust lands.
Two, ATNI strongly supports the requirements that the BIA
prepare a report on tribes that have contracted or compacted
the LTRO function, Land Title Records Office. The Colville
Tribe is one of the six tribes that has done this. Although
contracting LTRO has been largely successful in expediting
preparation of the title status reports at the Colville Tribes,
staffing and funding challenges that persist constantly, we
have one individual who performs our leasing and this LTRO
function. And it slows things down quite a bit.
A report to Congress would develop this record and provide
a justification of why additional resources are needed for the
LTRO function.
And finally, ATNI encourages the Committee to consider
other trust-related initiatives in the coming year, including
comprehensive trust reform. Several tribes and tribal
organizations, including ATNI and NTIA have done significant
work in this area. ATNI appreciates the Committee's interest in
the issue, and stands ready to assist in developing future
trust-related initiatives.
This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer
any questions that you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moses follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Harvey Moses, Jr., Second Vice-President,
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
Good morning Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Hastings, and
distinguished members of the Committee. My name is Harvey Moses, Jr.,
and I am the Second Vice-President for the Affiliated Tribes of
Northwest Indians (``ATNI'') and a councilmember for Confederated
Tribes of the Colville Reservation. Today, I am pleased to provide
ATNI's views on H.R. 2523, the ``Helping Expedite and Advance
Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act,'' or the ``HEARTH Act.''
ATNI is gratified that the Committee is considering initiatives
such as the HEARTH Act that would provide Indian tribes authority to
assume more control over management of their trust resources on a
voluntary basis. Because of the potential for this expanded authority
to immediately benefit Indian tribes with the requisite capacity and
the fact that Indian tribes would be able to decide for themselves
whether or not to take advantage of this expanded authority, ATNI
supports the legislation.
Background on ATNI
Founded in 1953, ATNI represents 57 tribal governments from Oregon,
Idaho, Washington, Montana, Alaska, California and Nevada. As the
Committee may be aware, ATNI and its member tribes in the Pacific
Northwest have been outspoken supporters of efforts to reform the
manner in which the federal government administers trust resources.
ATNI has established a trust reform workgroup of tribal leaders and
technical staff to comment and provide recommendations on initiatives
that affect the trust relationship, including initiatives to streamline
federal approvals. ATNI's support for these initiatives is grounded in
its commitment to maintaining the integrity of the federal trust
responsibility that is based upon the historical cession of millions of
acres of ancestral lands by the tribes. Against this backdrop, ATNI
appreciates the opportunity to provide its views on the HEARTH Act,
which is one of the first bills considered by this Committee in this
Congress that would provide Indian tribes a more direct role in
managing trust resources.
Current Requirement for Secretarial Approval of Leases of Indian Trust
Land
The Act of August 9, 1955 (``1955 Act''), codified at 25 U.S.C.
Sec. 415, allows the Secretary of the Interior (``Secretary'') to
approve leases of Indian trust land for up to 25 years, with one
additional extension of up to 25 years. Since the enactment of the 1955
Act, a number of Indian tribes have successfully secured amendments to
the 1955 Act that authorizes the Secretary to approve leases of up to
99 years for those particular tribes. The 1955 Act and its implementing
regulations make clear that leases of Indian trust land that are not
approved by the Secretary are invalid.
In the 106th Congress, Congress amended the 1955 Act by enacting
the Navajo Nation Trust Land Leasing Act of 2000 (``Navajo Leasing
Act''). The Navajo Leasing Act added a new subsection (e) that allows
the Navajo Nation to promulgate its own leasing regulations that, once
approved by the Secretary, allows the Navajo Nation to enter into
leases of tribal trust land without the requirement of Secretarial
approval. The Navajo Leasing Act allows the Navajo Nation to enter into
business or agricultural leases for terms of up to 25 years with an
option to renew for up to two additional terms up to 25 years. The
Navajo Leasing Act allows for the Navajo Nation to enter into leases
for public, religious, educational, recreational, or residential
purposes for a term of up to 75 years. The Navajo Leasing Act does not
apply to leases for the exploration, development, or extraction of any
mineral resources.
The Navajo Leasing Act limits the liability of the United States
for losses sustained by any party to a lease approved pursuant to the
Navajo Nation's leasing regulations. It also provides that interested
parties may, after exhausting tribal court remedies, petition the
Secretary to review the Navajo Nation's compliance with its tribal
leasing regulations.
On its face, the Navajo Leasing Act is voluntary and, within the
parameters of the act itself, the scope and term of the tribal
regulations that implement the act is determined by the Navajo Nation.
Presumably, these tribal regulations are not set in stone and can be
amended by the Navajo Nation as the need arises.
The HEARTH Act
Section 2 of the HEARTH Act would amend the Navajo Leasing Act to
expand its potential application to all other Indian tribes. Section 3
of the HEARTH Act would require the Bureau of Indian Affairs (``BIA'')
to prepare and submit to the House and Senate committees of
jurisdiction a report on the history and experience of Indian tribes
that have chosen to assume responsibility for operation of Land Title
Record Office (``LTRO'') functions.
ATNI Supports Voluntary Mechanisms to Enable Indian Tribes to Assume
Greater Control over Trust Assets
The ability of Indian tribes to enter into leases of Indian trust
lands in an expeditious manner is a key component of enhancing economic
development in Indian country. One of Congress's stated purposes in
enacting the Navajo Leasing Act was to ``revitalize the distressed
Navajo Reservation by promoting political self-determination, and
encouraging economic self-sufficiency, including economic development
that increases productivity and the standard of living for members of
the Navajo Nation.'' This statement applies with equal force to many,
if not most, Indian tribes throughout the United States. Expanding the
already existing mechanism in the Navajo Leasing Act to other Indian
tribes would provide those tribes that so desire an alternative to the
current BIA approval process.
ATNI's support for expanding the Navajo Leasing Act to other Indian
tribes is conditioned in the voluntarily nature of tribal participation
and on the tribes' own ability, present in the existing law, to shape
the contents of the leasing regulations. ATNI recognizes that the
limitation of the United States' liability for losses by parties to
leases executed under tribal regulations may be an issue for some
Indian tribes. Similarly, other tribes may have special circumstances
that do not make tribal approval of leases feasible or desirable.
Because the HEARTH Act is voluntary, ATNI supports the bill because
we believe that individual Indian tribes are in the best position to
determine whether these considerations outweigh the potential benefits
of the act. The flexibility of the tribal regulations is another
consideration. For example, a tribe that may wish to avail itself of
the HEARTH Act's expanded authority only for certain leases or projects
could draft its tribal regulations accordingly. Should the tribe at a
later date desire to expand the scope to include other leases, it could
do so by amending its regulations.
If the Committee were considering an entirely new leasing regime
for Indian trust lands, ATNI and likely other tribal organizations
might have different ideas on how this might be accomplished. Because
the HEARTH Act, however, is simply an extension of already existing law
and at least some tribes could benefit immediately by the expanded
authority it allows, ATNI supports the Act.
Tribal Assumption of LTRO Functions
ATNI strongly supports the requirement in Section 2 of the HEARTH
Act that the BIA prepare and submit to the congressional committees of
jurisdiction a report on the history and experience of Indian tribes
that have chosen to assume responsibility for operation of LTRO
functions.
As the Committee is aware, LTROs are responsible for preparing
Title Status Reports (``TSRs''). A TSR is a report that provides a
legal description of a parcel of Indian land and current ownership
information such as easements, mortgages or other encumbrances. For
most lenders, a BIA-certified TSR is a prerequisite to begin processing
an application for a home loan.
ATNI understands that, to date, six Indian tribes nationwide have
contracted or compacted the LTRO function from the BIA. The Colville
Confederated Tribes is one of those tribes. Based on the Colville
Tribes' experience, the reporting requirement in Section 3 of the
HEARTH Act would provide a valuable record for the Department, the
Congress, and for tribes that are considering contracting or compacting
LTRO functions.
Before the Colville Tribes contracted LTRO functions, obtaining a
TSR took from 60 to 90 days, sometimes longer, and required the BIA
Regional Office staff to manually search through piles of recorded
documents. Now that the Colville Tribe performs these services locally
and has access to its own records, the Tribe's staff can generate, on
an expedited basis, a TSR in one business day. When adequately staffed,
the Colville Tribes' LTRO can complete most TSRs within five business
days.
Although this increased control has, at least in the Colville
Tribes' case, led to increased flexibility for generating TSRs by
moving control of the process from the Regional Office level to the
tribal level, challenges remain. Like many BIA programs, lack of
funding hampers the ability of tribal staff to fully utilize this
newfound authority.
Similarly, tribes that wish to contract or compact LTRO functions
from the BIA may face significant obstacles on the front end if the
BIA's administration of the program has not gone smoothly. In the
Colville Tribes' case, when our local agency staff visited the BIA
Regional LTRO to assess the work that would be required to assume
control of the program, they observed piles of recorded documents that
had yet to be inputted into the applicable databases. The staff also
discovered that the history or chain of title on the majority of the
Indian lands within the Colville Reservation had not been updated for
nearly eight years. This translated into a significant upfront
expenditure of staff time to prepare the LTRO program for assumption by
the Tribe. ATNI suspects that at least some of the five other tribes
that have assumed control of LTRO functions have had similar
experiences.
A comprehensive BIA report to Congress that fully explains the
benefits and challenges for tribes in contracting or compacting LTRO
would shed additional light on these issues. ATNI hopes that such a
report would lead to administrative reform to make this process easier
for tribes that wish to do so in the future and may lay the foundation
for additional funding for LTRO activities in future fiscal years.
Future Initiatives Related to Expediting Administrative Approvals and
Trust Resource Management
ATNI believes that the HEARTH Act will provide a ``turn key''
approach to allow those Indian tribes that wish to do so the
opportunity to expedite the process of entering into leases of tribal
trust land utilizing the existing Navajo Leasing Act framework. For
those Indian tribes that have the infrastructure, capability, and
desire to undertake their own lease approvals, they should be
encouraged, not hindered.
Going forward, ATNI hopes that this will not be the last
opportunity for the Committee to explore issues related to expediting
administrative approvals and the administration of trust assets. ATNI
believes strongly that a comprehensive approach to trust management
should be considered. ATNI, NCAI, and other tribal organizations spent
significant time and energy in working with both this Committee and the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to develop Title III of the Indian
Trust Reform Act of 2005 (introduced as H.R. 4322 in the 109th
Congress). Title III approached these issues from a standpoint of
tribes and the federal government working together to develop
comprehensive trust management plans to accommodate a range of tribal
needs on a resource-by-resource level.
Both ATNI and NCAI recently enacted resolutions at their annual
conferences reaffirming their desire for the reintroduction of reform
legislation similar to H.R. 4322. Looking ahead to 2010 and beyond, we
hope that the Committee will consider these views as it considers other
bills and initiatives relating to administration of Indian trust
assets.
ATNI greatly appreciates the opportunity to testify at this hearing
and looks forward to assisting the Committee in any way it can in
exploring and developing these issues. At this time, I would be pleased
to answer any questions that the Committee might have.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Trujillo.
STATEMENT OF ARVIN TRUJILLO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF
NATURAL RESOURCES, NAVAJO NATION, WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA
Mr. Trujillo. Good morning, Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member
Hastings, and members of the Committee on Natural Resources. My
name is Arvin Trujillo, and I am the Executive Director for the
Navajo Division of Natural Resources.
Mr. Chairman, President Shirley also sends his greetings to
you and your Committee. I also want to thank you for the
opportunity to come before you today to testify concerning H.R.
2523, the HEARTH Act.
This legislation is similar to the Navajo Leasing Act of
2000, that gave the Navajo Nation and the Department of the
Interior the authorization to develop regulations to take the
Federal government out of the surface leasing process on Navajo
land.
As an initial matter, the Navajo Nation supports the
passage of H.R. 2523 as a major step toward tribal sovereignty
for all the native nations. However, based on experience
implementing the Navajo Nation Leasing Act, the Navajo Nation
has several recommendations that would help realize the full
implementation of both the Navajo Leasing Act and the HEARTH
Act.
The Navajo Nation is the first tribal nation to be
authorized to fund business and residential leases without
prior approval of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the
corresponding Tribal Self-Determination Contract or a compact
with the Department of the Interior.
In July of 2006, President Shirley said no longer will the
Navajo Nation be required to seek final approval from the
Bureau of Indian Affairs to develop its own lands, nor will it
be required to wait years for the Federal government to conduct
appraisals.
While this was a major step forward for the tribal
sovereignty, the Navajo Nation discovered many roadblocks in
implementing the Navajo Leasing Act.
First, the implementation of the Act spans three
administrations, each with differing views of the rights and
responsibilities declared in the purpose of the Act. A
streamlined process for guiding tribes through this Federal
bureaucracy is essential to the successful implementation of
the Act.
Second, the cost of implementation has been fully borne by
the Navajo Nation. The Congressional Budget Office has
inexplicably determined that the Navajo Nation, when assuming
several separate functions, would not require money for direct
services, data cleanup, or revising tribal procedures, the Act
perceived the CBO ruling has been called into question by later
Federal reports, statutes, and funding formulas for self-
determination contracts performing similar work. And the Office
of Special Trustee, Bureau of Indian Affairs budget
specifications for current Federal trust realty records and IT
Department budgets.
While accounting for approximately one third of all Federal
Indian Trust land, the Navajo Nation has been chronically
underserved since 2000 in relation to other Federal tribes.
Billions have been transmitted to the Office of Special Trustee
during the same period. The As-Is Study produced by the Office
of Special Trustee estimates tens of thousands of Navajo
business site recorded leases in 2001. However, no funding
formula for the portion of the tax the Navajo Nation assumed
were awarded for the inherited historical DOI backlogs of
pending transactions or data cleanup conveyed to the Navajo
Nation.
To properly implement the HEARTH Act and the Navajo Leasing
Act, and for other tribes to implement the HEARTH Act, the
Congress needs to approve provisions that allow for proper
funding for tribes to assume this responsibility.
Third, the passage of the Navajo Leasing Act assumed that
there were existing capacity surveys available to identify land
plots for leases. The Bureau of Land Management has not lived
up to its responsibility to provide capacity surveys for the
Navajo Nation, even though the Nation had funded 50 percent of
the survey team. The existing surveys used by BLM and BIA were
conducted in the mid-1900s, and are tied to points such as
rocks, trees, and natural landmarks. These existing surveys are
insufficient to properly assess and approve loan applications.
The Navajo Nation currently only has 25 percent of our land
confirmed by an instrument survey for a public lands survey
system. To address this problem, in 2004 the Navajo Nation
began developing a land title status search capacity for the
Nation. After assessing our needs and existing leasing
procedures, the Navajo Nation Land Title Records Office soon
emerged as the most feasible course of action.
The Navajo Nation developed the Navajo Land Title Data
System, using our own funds. In 2007, the initial design for a
title plan for the Navajo Nation was completed. The NLTDS meets
the American National Standards Institute and the International
Standards Organization Document Control requirements. These
voluntary standards are approved by Federal regulation to meet
requirements for privacy, document control, digital records,
and tribal trust documentation.
The Navajo Nation, through the Division of Natural
Resources, has moved forward implementing this data system
within the Navajo Land Department to support records of
activities or document control required by regulations.
The system is designed to expand services to other Navajo
divisions and departments, including the Navajo Government. The
system is used to establish these processes. However, there is
a costly amount, because we are still bearing that cost to
implement this through the Navajo Leasing Act.
Finally, the Navajo Leasing Act, yes, is a major step
forward, and we are looking at significant hurdles. Once the
Navajo completes the survey work and piles of documentation
necessary for a lease packet, we still have to submit the lease
to the Navajo Regional BIA Office for conveyance. This process
takes from two months to a year. The Navajo Nation Leasing Act
has so far only transferred the cost and burdens of compiling
and approving the lease information, without benefits of
allowing final conveyance. Both the HEARTH Act and Navajo
Leasing Act must improve a real commitment to transfer complete
responsibility to the tribe, not just the cost.
So again, this will help enhance some of the areas. There
are other areas that I am willing to answer questions to. But
in closing, I would like to thank Representative Heinrich for
his efforts with the HEARTH Act.
Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Trujillo follows:]
Statement of Arvin Trujillo, Executive Director,
Navajo Nation Division of Natural Resources
Good morning Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Hastings, and members
of the Committee on Natural Resources, thank you for the opportunity to
come before you today to testify concerning H.R. 2523, the Helping
Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership or HEARTH Act.
This legislation is similar to the Navajo Nation Leasing Act of 2000
that gave the Navajo Nation and the Department of Interior the
authorization to develop regulations to take the federal government out
of the surface leasing process on the Navajoland. As an initial matter,
the Navajo Nation supports the passage of H.R. 2353 as a major step
towards tribal sovereignty for all the Native Nations. However, based
on our experience implementing the Navajo Nation Leasing Act, the
Navajo Nation has several recommendations that would help realize the
full implementation of both the Navajo Leasing Act and the HEARTH Act.
The Navajo Nation is the first tribal nation to be authorized to
sign business and residential leases without prior approval of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, a corresponding Tribal Self-determination
contract, or a compact with the Department of the Interior. In July of
2006, President Shirley said, ``No longer will the Navajo Nation be
required to seek final approval from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to
develop its own lands, nor will it be required to wait years for the
federal government to conduct appraisals.'' While this was a major step
forward for tribal sovereignty, the Navajo Nation discovered many
roadblocks to implementing the Navajo Leasing Act. First, the
implementation of the Act spans three administrations, each with
differing views of the rights and responsibilities declared in the
purposes of the Act. A streamlined process for guiding tribes through
the federal bureaucracy is essential to the successful implementation
of the Act.
Second, the cost of implementation has been fully born by the
Navajo Nation. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has inexplicably
determined that the Navajo Nation, when assuming federal trust
functions, would not require money for direct services, data clean up,
or revising tribal procedures. The accuracy of the CBO ruling has been
called into question by later federal reports, statutes and funding
formulas for self-determination contracts performing similar work, and
the Office of Special Trustee/Bureau of Indian Affairs budget
justifications for current federal Trust, Realty, Records and IT
departments budgets. While accounting for approximately one-third of
all federal Indian trust land, the Navajo Nation has been chronically
underserved since 2000 in relation to other federal tribes. Billions
have been transmitted to the Office of Special Trustee during the same
period. The ``AS-IS'' study produced for the Office of Special Trustee
estimates ``tens of thousands'' of Navajo Business-site recorded leases
lapsed in 2001. However, no funding formulas for the portion of the
task the Navajo Nation assumed were awarded for the inherited historic
DOI backlogs of pending transactions or data cleanup conveyed to the
Navajo Nation. To properly implement the Navajo Nation Leasing Act, and
for other tribes to implement the HEARTH act, the Congress needs to
include provisions that allow for proper funding for tribes to assume
this responsibility.
Third, the passage of the Navajo Nation Leasing Act assumed that
there were existing cadastral surveys required to identify land plots
for leases. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has not lived up to its
responsibility to provide cadastral surveys for the Navajo Nation even
though the Navajo Nation has funded fifty percent of the survey team.
The existing surveys used by BLM and BIA were conducted in the mid
1900's, and tied to points such as rocks and trees. These exiting
surveys were insufficient to properly assess and approve loan
applications. The Navajo Nation currently only has twenty-five percent
(25%) of our land confirmed by an instrument survey for a Public Land
Survey system.
To address this problem, in 2004, the Navajo Nation began
developing a Land Title Status search capacity for the Navajo Nation.
After assessing our needs and existing leasing procedures, a Navajo
Nation Land Title Records Office soon emerged as the most feasible
course. The Navajo Nation developed the Navajo Land Title Data System
(NLTDS) using our own funds. In 2007, the initial design for a title
plant for the Navajo Nation was completed. The NLTDS meets the American
National Standard Institute (ANSI) and International Standards
Organization (ISO) document control requirements. These voluntary
standards are approved by federal regulation to meet requirements for:
privacy, document control, digital records and tribal trust documents.
The Navajo Nation, Division of Natural Resources (DNR) has moved
forward with implementation of a Navajo Land Title Data System Plan
within the Navajo Land Department to support the ``Records of
Activities'' or document control required by the regulation. The system
is designed to expand service to other Divisions and Departments,
including local Navajo units of government. The NLTDS is a system that
can be used by other tribes to establish and process leases. However,
the development of this system requires a significant cost outlay on
the part of the Navajo Nation that we have so far born ourselves but is
essential to implementing the Navajo Nation Leasing Act. Funding from
the federal government is essential to allow the Navajo Nation to
complete development of this system. To properly implement both acts,
Congress will either have to provide money to tribes to develop their
own systems, or encourage the adoption of a system similar to what we
have developed.
Finally, while the Navajo Nation Leasing Act has been a major step
forward for the Navajo Nation, we are still faced with a significant
hurdle from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Once the Navajo Nation
completes the survey work and compiles the documentation necessary for
a lease packet we still have to submit the lease to the Navajo Regional
BIA office for conveyance. This process can take from two months to a
year. The Navajo Nation Leasing Act has so far only transferred the
costs and burdens of compiling and approving the lease information
without the benefits of allowing final conveyance. Both the HEARTH Act
and Navajo Nation Leasing Acts must involve a real commitment to
transfer complete responsibility to the tribes and not just the costs.
Tribal sovereignty is an essential component of the right ability
of the Native nations to govern ourselves. Both the Navajo Nation
Leasing Act and the HEARTH Act represent a significant step forward in
providing greater self-determination to tribes. The Committee and
Congressman Heinrich should be commended for moving forward to provide
us with greater sovereignty. However, in order to implement the Acts
the federal government must provide funding for the costs associated
with transferring the responsibility to tribes, and the transfer of
responsibility must be complete to allow tribes to convey the leases.
Thank you.
______
The Chairman. Ms. Parish.
STATEMENT OF CHERYL A. PARISH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BAY MILLS
HOUSING AUTHORITY, BRIMLEY, MICHIGAN
Ms. Parish. Good morning, Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member
Hastings, Congressman Heinrich, The Honorable Congressman
Kildee, and members of the Committee. My name is Cheryl Parish;
I am from the Bay Mills Tribe of Chippewa Indians in upper
Michigan.
I appear before you in dual roles. I have served as the
Executive Director of my Housing Authority for almost 20 years.
I also serve as the Vice Chair of the National American Indian
Housing Council. Thank you for inviting me to testify on the
HEARTH Act.
Before I discuss the provisions of H.R. 2523, please allow
me to take you back nearly two decades, when Indian tribes,
tribal housing authorities, and others came together to
articulate a new vision for housing and housing-related
community development that was rooted in the firm foundation of
Indian self-determination. These efforts culminated into what
became the Native American Housing Assistance for Self-
Determination Act of 1996.
The primary objective of NAHASDA is to consolidated
standard Federal housing programs into one block grant, to
promote affordable and safe housing in native communities.
With the delivery of housing, it has improved, and it has
increased basically since 1936. But we have many, many
challenges that remain, including working with the Tribal Trust
lands, which are held in a common, in common, and cannot be
collateralized. The lack of private capital, dire economic
conditions, these factors require vigorous Federal investment
in housing and community development. And without a doubt,
NAHASDA is the single biggest source of housing capital for
Indian people.
Most Indian tribal land is held in trust or restricted
status by the United States for the beneficial ownership of
Indian tribes or individual Indians. Trust lands may not be
sold, but may be leased for a variety of purposes, under
Federal law.
The Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955 requires the
approval of the Secretary of the Interior for certain types of
leases on Indian Trust and restricted Indian lands. Any lease
that is not approved by the Secretary is invalid.
Timely processing of these lease documents is critical, not
only for housing, but also for our Federal Loan Guarantee
Program. One program, the Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program,
also known as Section 184, addresses the lack of mortgage
lending on our reservations in our native communities. They
offer mortgage financing to eligible Native American
individuals, families, housing authorities, tribally designated
housing entities.
The 184 program through HUD guarantees these loans made by
private sector lenders. This program requires the borrower to
have a valid lease-hold subject to the approval of the
Secretary. Upon default, the structure and the lease hold
interest are subject to foreclosure.
The requirement of the Secretarial approval in this
instance is time-consuming, and is the contributing factor to
low homeownership rates in native communities.
Current law authorizes leases up to 25 years, with an
option for a 25-year renewal, for public, religious,
educational, recreational, residential, or business purposes.
NAHASDA increases lease terms for housing development and
residential purposes for 50 years, but keeps the requirement
for Secretarial approval.
The Secretary, acting through the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
administers the land leasing program, which can become lengthy,
taking months and sometimes years, hindering housing,
infrastructure, and related economic development on Trust
lands. Because of these delays and the desire by individual
Indian tribes for more authority and tribal control of the
leasing of their own lands, 45 Indian tribes have sought
release from the 1955 Act, petitioning Congress specific,
tribe-by-tribe legislation.
Most recently, one tribe, the Navajo Nation, sought to
liberalize the 1955 Act for its own Trust lands. In 2000,
Congress responded favorably by enacting the law to authorize
the Navajo Nation to enter into these lease agreements, and
renewals of the leases without the Secretary's approval. The
Navajo Nation was required to develop its own tribal leasing
regulations before instituting its land-leasing regime, which
was approved by the Secretary in July of 2006.
In 2009, Mr. Heinrich introduced the HEARTH Act, which will
offer willing Indian tribes the authority to enact their own
tribal leasing regulations, and to negotiate and enter into
certain leases without the approval of the Secretary.
It is crucial that any such proposal be entirely optional
to Indian tribes, and to determine whether they wish to
participate in such an initiative. The HEARTH Act would also
require the BIA to prepare and submit to the Congress a report
detailing the history and the experience of the Indian tribes
that have chosen to assume the responsibility for operating the
Indian Land Titles and Records Office functions from the BIA.
The National American Indian Housing Council supports
efforts like the HEARTH Act because they respect tribal
decision-making. It expedites what can often be a lengthy
Federal process, and will serve to improve the delivery of
Federal housing assistance, and expand economic opportunities
to Indian country.
On behalf of NIHC and its membership, I am here today to
strongly support the Heinrich bill.
Thank you, and if you have any questions, I would be happy
to answer them. And Mr. Chairman, we also have three studies
that we would like to submit, if possible, that were not
available electronically, as requested by the Committee. Would
you allow us to submit those?
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Parish follows:]
Statement of Cheryl Parish, Executive Director, Bay Mills Housing
Authority, on Behalf of the National American Indian Housing Council
Introduction
Good Morning, Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Hastings and Members
of the Committee. My name is Cheryl Parish and I am the Executive
Director of the Bay Mills Housing Authority in Brimley, Michigan. I am
a member of the Bay Mills Tribe of Chippewa Indians in Michigan and I
also serve as the Vice Chair of the National American Indian Housing
Council (``NAIHC''). Thank you for inviting me to testify today to
present our views on the ``Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible
Tribal Homeownership Act'' or the HEARTH bill. This legislation is
another important step in respecting tribal sovereignty and encouraging
the development of tribal economies.
The National American Indian Housing Council
The NAIHC was founded in 1974 to support and advocate for tribes
and tribally designated housing entities (``TDHEs''). For more than 35
years, the NAIHC has assisted tribes achieve their primary goal of
providing housing and community development for American Indians,
Alaska Natives and native Hawaiians. The NAIHC consists of 266 members
representing 463 tribes across the U.S., and is the only national
Indian organization whose sole mission is to represent Native American
housing interests throughout the Nation and provide its members with
training, technical assistance, research, communications and advocacy.
As its core mission, the NAIHC provides invaluable capacity-
building services to tribes, their Indian housing authorities and
TDHEs. These training and technical assistance services include on-site
technical assistance, tuition-free training classes, and scholarship
programs that help offset the cost of attending specific training
sessions, such as the Leadership Institute, a low cost professional
certification course for Indian housing professionals.
The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act
Before I address the HEARTH bill specifically, please allow me to
take you back more than two decades in Indian housing when beginning in
the early 1990s, Indian tribes, tribal housing authorities, and others,
came together to craft a new vision of how housing and housing related
community development programs and services should be administered in
the era of Indian Self-Determination. The NAIHC was instrumental in
shaping the debate and in drafting what became the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (``NAHASDA,'' as
amended, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 4101 et seq).
Over the past 40 years, tribes have assumed ever-greater
responsibility for the design, development and delivery of programs and
services that were once exclusively the domain of the Federal
government. Starting with the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act of 1975 (``ISDEAA,'' as amended, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 450),
Indian Self-Determination is the hallmark of all successful initiatives
aimed at improving the lives of Native people including health care,
education, law enforcement and others. In attempting to repeat these
successes in the realm of housing, in 1996, Congress determined that in
providing Federal housing services to Indian communities, the U.S.
should ``recognize the right of Indian self-determination and tribal
self-governance by making such assistance available [...] directly to
the Indian tribes or tribally designated entities.''
NAHASDA is well-rooted in the time-tested principles of local
decision-making and self-sufficiency. The primary objective of NAHASDA
is to promote affordable housing that is decent, safe and healthy.
Since its enactment, NAHASDA has enhanced Indian tribal capacity to
address the substandard housing and related physical infrastructure
conditions by encouraging greater self-management of housing programs,
greater leveraging of scarce Indian Housing Block Grant (``IHBG'')
dollars, and greater access to private capital through Federal loan
guarantee mechanisms.
Housing activities that may be funded with NAHASDA assistance
include new home construction, rehabilitation, acquisition, physical
infrastructure, and various support services. Housing assisted with
these funds may be either for rental or for homeownership. NAHASDA
funds can also be used for certain types of community facilities if the
facilities serve eligible, low-income residents.
NAHASDA is not just about constructing buildings--it is about
building communities. Historically, the lack of significant private
investment, well-functioning housing markets and dire economic
conditions in most Indian communities have all contributed to require a
vigorous Federal investment in housing and community development in
tribal communities. Since Fiscal Year 1998, more than $8 billion in
Federal housing assistance has been invested in Indian Country and has
helped Indian families make down payments on homes, make monthly rents,
helped with home rehabilitation and build new housing units. Without a
doubt, NAHASDA is the single-most important housing tool for Indian
people.
Indian Trust Lands and the Indian Long-term Leasing Act of 1955
As successful as NAHASDA has been in the 13 years since enactment,
it is not an island unto itself in the world of Federal Indian laws and
policies. Housing and community development is inextricably linked to
tribal landholdings and their unique legal status. Most Indian tribal
land is held in trust or restricted status by the United States for the
beneficial ownership of Indian tribes or individual Indians. While
trust lands may not be sold, they may be leased to Indians or non-
Indians for a variety of purposes under applicable law.
The Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955 (the ``1955 Act,'' 25
U.S.C. Sec. 415) requires the approval of the Secretary of the Interior
(``Secretary'') for the leasing of Indian trust and restricted Indian
lands for a variety of purposes. The regulations implementing the 1955
Act indicate that they apply to ``Indian land,'' which is defined as
``any tract in which an interest is owned by an individual Indian or
tribe in trust or restricted status.'' 25 C.F.R. Sec. 162.102.
The 1955 Act authorizes leases of Indian land for up to 25 years
with an option for one additional 25-year term--for a total 50-year
term. These leases may be for ``public, religious, educational,
recreational, residential, or business purposes...'' As an aside,
NAHASDA authorizes leases of trust or restricted Indian lands for
``housing development and residential purposes'' for 50-year terms but
retains the requirement of Secretarial approval to render the lease
valid.
Under the 1955 Act, the Secretary, through the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (``BIA''), is responsible for administering the land leasing
process and any lease that is not approved by the Secretary is invalid.
Before approving a lease, the Secretary must consider certain factors
such as:
The proposed use of leased lands with the use of
neighboring lands;
The height, quality and safety of structures or
facilities to be constructed on leased lands;
The availability of police, fire protection and other
services;
The availability of judicial venues for criminal and
civil causes arising on leased lands; and
The environmental effects of the proposed uses of the
leased lands.
Leases negotiated by an Indian tribe or an individual Indian may
include remedies agreed upon by the parties including, for instance, a
requirement that disputes be heard in tribal court. Leases may also be
advertised or negotiated by the Secretary through the BIA and the
applicable regulation provides that in reviewing a negotiated lease for
approval, the BIA ``will defer to the landowners' determination the
lease is in their best interest, to the maximum extent possible.'' 25
CFR Sec. 162.107. Under the 1955 Act, the Secretary has authority to
cancel leases if there are violations of lease terms, and remains
responsible for ensuring tenants meet their payment obligations to
landowners and for ensuring tenant compliance with any operating
requirements contained in the lease agreement. The Secretary may also
take ``immediate action'' to recover possession from trespassers
operating without a lease, and may take ``emergency action'' to
preserve the value of the land. 25 CFR Sec. 162.108.
The Indian land leasing approval process can be lengthy, taking
months and sometimes years, which can hinder housing, infrastructure,
and related economic development on Indian lands. Because of these
delays, and the desire by individual Indian tribes for more authority
and latitude in the leasing of their own lands, some 45 Indian tribes
have sought relief from Congress for amendments to the law through
specific, tribe-by-tribe Federal legislation. As you can imagine,
winning enactment of specific Federal legislation to acquire authority
to enter 99-year lease terms is an unwieldy, lengthy, and expensive
proposition. As laid out below, the HEARTH bill provides an optional
and, we believe, an expedited way for tribes to assume greater control
over their lands and encourage tribal economic development.
Tulalip Tribes
For instance, the Tulalip Tribes of Washington State can lease
trust lands, for most purposes described in the 1955 Act without
securing the approval of the Secretary. Leases can be for up to 15
years if there is no option to renew; for up to 30 years if there is no
option to renew and the lease is issued pursuant to tribal regulations
approved by the Secretary; and for up to 75 years including any period
of renewal if the lease is issued pursuant to tribal regulations
approved by the Secretary. In 1981, the Secretary approved the Tulalip
Tribes' regulations.
Navajo Nation
In 2000, the Navajo Nation in Arizona sought greater authority
under the 1955 Act and Congress responded by enacting the Navajo Nation
Trust Land Leasing Act (25 U.S.C. Sec. 415(e). Under this law, the
Navajo Nation can enter into lease agreements and renewals of leases of
trust lands without the requirement that the Secretary review and
approve such leases. The Navajo Nation was required to develop
regulations governing leases including an environmental review process,
before it could institute its own land leasing regime. In July 2006,
the Secretary approved the Navajo Nation's leasing regulations.
Under the 2000 law, the Secretary maintains authority to take
appropriate actions, including cancellation of the lease, in
furtherance of the Federal trust obligation. The United States,
however, is not liable for losses sustained by any party to a lease
(including the Navajo Nation) entered into under the Navajo Nation's
regulations. Interested parties may, after exhausting tribal remedies,
submit a petition to the Secretary to review the compliance of the
Navajo Nation with the regulations approved by the Secretary. The
Secretary may take actions deemed necessary to remedy the violation
complained of, including rescinding the tribal regulations and re-
assuming responsibility for approving leases for Navajo Nation trust
lands.
Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program
An efficient and effective Indian land leasing framework is
essential to housing delivery and development, but also to Federal loan
guarantee programs. I want to touch on one program--the Indian Home
Loan Guarantee Program--also known as the Section 184 Program. The
Section 184 loan is a mortgage product, specifically geared for the
unique circumstances of Native communities, to facilitate homeownership
in Indian lands and within an approved Indian area.
In order to address the lack of private mortgage lending in Native
communities, Congress established the Section 184 Program to offer
mortgage financing to eligible Native American individuals, families,
tribes and TDHEs. Notably, the default rate for the Section 184 Program
remains at less than 1 percent.
The Section 184 Program involves the issuance of a Federal
guarantee by HUD on loans made by private lenders. Because tribal trust
lands may not be foreclosed on in the case of a default, the Section
184 Program requires that the borrower have a valid leasehold in place
and demonstrate as much on the application. The borrower and the Indian
tribe would negotiate a lease agreement covering the relevant land and
the lease would be subject to the approval of the Secretary. In the
event of a default, the structure and leasehold interest (and not the
underlying land) are subject to foreclosure. The requirement of
Secretarial approval in this instance, as in the others described
above, can be time-consuming and contribute to low homeownership rates
in Native communities.
HEARTH Act
Under current law, Indian tribes (except the Tulalip Tribes and the
Navajo Nation) are presented with two options: they may choose to
operate under the strictures of the 1955 Act, complete with the
requirement of Secretarial approval or, alternatively, they may secure
99-year lease authority through the enactment of tribe-specific Federal
legislation.
In May 2009, Congressman Heinrich introduced the HEARTH Act, which
will offer willing Indian tribes the authority to enact their own
tribal leasing regulations and to negotiate and enter into certain
leases without review or approval of the Secretary. The HEARTH Act
would also require the BIA to prepare and submit to the Congress a
report detailing the history and experience of Indian tribes that have
chosen to assume responsibility for operating the Indian Land Title and
Records Office (``LTRO'') functions from the BIA. Before Indian lands
may be encumbered with a home mortgage, the BIA must prepare and issue
a Title Status Report (``TSR'') to HUD. In 1999 and again in 2005, the
BIA issued aspirational guidance to its Regional Offices that this
process should not, to the extent possible, exceed 30 days. Despite BIA
aspirations that the TSR issuance should take no more than 30 days,
Congress in 2005 determined that a more realistic timeline for TSR
issuance is 6 months to 2 years. This is clearly unacceptable
especially when compared to the title status checks for all other
Americans that take no longer than 24 to 48 hours.
In 2000, Congress enacted legislation to establish the Indian Lands
Title Report Commission to make recommendations to the BIA on ways to
improve the TSR process. To-date, the Commission has never met due to
the failure of the Bush Administration to nominate commissioners.
The study and report mandated by the Heinrich legislation will
include a review of how the tribal management of the LTRO functions has
fared and determine the challenges these tribes face in managing these
functions.
Conclusion
The NAHASDA has been a welcome shift in Federal Indian Policy,
which Congress continues to evolve with further refinements and
amendments. Experience has shown that successful initiatives respect
tribal involvement and authority, rather than Federal domination. The
ISDEAA and NAHASDA are based on these fundamental principles and
confirmed what has been made clear through research undertaken by the
Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development: ``When tribes
make their own decisions about what approaches to take and what
resources to develop, they consistently out-perform non-tribal
decision-makers.''
On behalf of the NAIHC and its membership, we strongly support H.R.
2523 and urge the Committee to move it swiftly through the legislative
process. Your continued support of Native communities is greatly
appreciated, and the NAIHC stands ready to work with you and your staff
on these and any other issues to improve Indian housing programs and
living conditions for America's first people.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Let me ask the Governor
two quick questions, if I might.
How long does it generally take your Pueblo to approve a
lease?
Governor Chavez. You know, we also have partaken in the HUD
184 program. That in itself is probably about a year's process
for us. Because the Council has actually expedited our portion
of it, and normally for them, when it goes back to the Bureau
is when it is the lengthiest piece. So in a case like that, it
is about a year.
The Chairman. What are some of the criteria that your
Pueblo considers when it comes to approving a lease on
sovereign lands?
Governor Chavez. Well, you know, it is very evident, as I
mentioned in my statement, that if we had to just depend on
NAHASDA for meeting our housing shortages, we would have a
long, long wait. So that is something that the tribe has
deliberately said we are going to, anyone that is interested in
trying to secure any other kinds of outside mortgage financing,
that the Council has stood in the affirmative to expedite that
as much as possible.
So we are doing what we can internally to expedite that.
But again, this law would allow us to, once we put in, I mean,
we are probably right at the front steps of instituting the
ordinances that we need to accommodate this. And if this Act
would go through, I think it would allow us to move it even
faster.
The Chairman. Vice President Moses, let me ask you what, if
any, concerns do you have with the current language of the
Navajo Provision of the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act?
Mr. Moses. A couple of concerns. One, defunding, lack of
funding. Two, the kind of vagueness the liability, liability of
the government. It varies data on what, on what they can be
held liable for. In my mind, it is trying to back out of the
trust responsibilities.
The Chairman. OK. Mr. Trujillo, let me ask you how many
leases have been approved by the Navajo Nation pursuant to
their authority granted under the Leasing Act?
Mr. Trujillo. As of this point in time, I believe we have
approved a little over 112, I believe. One big issue still
comes back to conveyance. Let us take housing, for instance, or
even business sites. We have been able to streamline the
process within the Nation. We have worked with our governmental
entities to delegate that to the administrative process.
But when it comes to conveyance, we send the final packet
over to the BIA to get that final conveyance, again we run into
that problem of two months to up to two years to get that
information back.
And we made great strides within the Nation. I mean, I have
people now who can get mortgages; we have developed a process
to do that. We have recently got a couple homeowners now who
have been able to pull equity out of their homes now on Trust
land.
But again, people can't do that until they get the title.
And so that has been a real issue with the Nation at this
point.
The Chairman. OK. Ms. Parish, to your knowledge, what is
the on-reservation versus off-reservation population of
American Indians?
Ms. Parish. Generally, census data shows around half of
Native Americans and Alaskan natives live on reservations. The
other half are within urban settings.
The Chairman. In your opinion, is this in part due to the
problems associated with owning a home on tribal land?
Ms. Parish. Yes, very much so.
The Chairman. OK, that concludes my questions. The
gentleman from Washington.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, at the
outset, even though this is a very narrowly focused bill, I had
mentioned that I thought it was a step in the right direction.
Because it certainly would give a bit more autonomy to all the
tribes, and I think that is a step in the right direction.
And that was confirmed by listening to all of your
testimony. If there was one common thread, at least in what I
heard, was a bit of frustration in dealing with the Federal
bureaucracy.
So on that line, I want to ask a question not associated
with this legislation, to Mr. Trujillo. And I would like to ask
you what is the status of your Desert Rock project coal plant.
And also, how important is that project to the Navajo Nation?
Mr. Trujillo. Right now, Congressman, the Desert Rock
project is awaiting an air permit from the U.S. EPA. We are
also finalizing the EIS for final determination on that piece.
As far as the importance that we see with this project, we
see a tremendous economic benefit, not only in the aspects of
royalties coming back to the Nation, but also in job creation
and community development within that given area. And again, to
add to that, the Nation is also embarking on a new renewable
effort. We are in the processes before Council now of approving
a lease for 85 megawatts at the Big Boquitas Ranch. We are
looking in northern Arizona, looking anywhere between 1300 to
1800 megawatts of wind power within the next few years.
So the Desert Rock project is very important to us. It will
bring additional capital to the Nation, that we can then expand
not only on economic development, but looking at renewable
development within the Nation.
Mr. Hastings. Did you have the clean air permit on that
plant?
Mr. Trujillo. We, as of yet, do not.
Mr. Hastings. Did you have, or has this always been in the
process?
Mr. Trujillo. We thought we did, but it has been remanded
back to EPA for their consideration.
Mr. Hastings. Did EPA consult with you on that process? Or
was that done, that remanding back done unilaterally?
Mr. Trujillo. Right now they have not consulted us on the
second phase, and I am not sure if we have that ability to
consult during this period.
Mr. Hastings. OK. Have they given you a timeframe on this?
Mr. Trujillo. No, sir.
Mr. Hastings. OK. Is there any experiences that you can
draw from your experience with Desert Rock that relates to
energy, or utilizing your resources? I also, in my opening
remarks, suggested that maybe we ought to look at this process
as far as mineral leases. Does this bring any thoughts to your
mind in that regard?
Mr. Trujillo. It does. Let us take, for instance, the
recently completed negotiations with El Paso Natural Gas on
their pipeline. The Navajo Nation completed those negotiations.
The agreements have been done and are in place.
We are fortunately we put in our legislation that the
company would begin compensating the Nation once the Tribal
Council approved that lease. As of yet, that lease has not been
approved by the BIA.
Mr. Hastings. How long has that been?
Mr. Trujillo. It is going on a year and a half now.
Mr. Hastings. OK. Well, thank you very much. And thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for indulging in these questions that aren't
directly related to this legislation. But I certainly see a
common thread here, and I think these sort of issues ought to
be explored. So thank you all very much.
The Chairman. The gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Heinrich.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor Chavez, I
want to thank you once again for joining us today to offer your
testimony.
In speaking with tribal housing officials from across New
Mexico, one concern that they shared with me is that families
are having to move off reservations if they want to buy a home
because of the difficulty of the process.
Can you talk about why it is important to your community
for families to be able to continue to live at the Pueblo?
Governor Chavez. I can probably speak to this from a
personal standpoint. I have two daughters that are living in
Albuquerque because there is no place for them to live. I mean,
I am having to put an expansion on my house to bring them home,
because I want my grandchildren home. And that is the reality
of it. Our families are having to move away from our homelands
because of that very fact.
And that is an important case, because when you are
certainly a firm believer in cultural preservation, how you do
it is engage them in the language that we still speak. And that
can't be done when your family is separated and split up like
that. But I am one of many that has experienced it.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you, Governor. I think that really gets
to the heart of why this issue is important.
Mr. Moses, I wanted to ask you if you think that the
current leasing process, as it stands today from the 1955 Long-
Term Leasing Act, is consistent with the principle of self-
determination.
Mr. Moses. To a small degree it allows the tribes to get
into that. But the BIA is still involved, and it slows the
process down to a great degree.
Mr. Heinrich. Would you say that amending how we deal with
long-term leasing, particularly with respect to this
legislation, would be much more consistent with self-
determination as a policy?
Mr. Moses. Yes, it would.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you. Ms. Parish, I wanted to thank you
as well for being here today, and to ask you, I know there is
an enormous variation among tribes. But generally, can you
describe the kind of administrative capacity that currently
exists? And answer the question, are there a number of tribes
who are already, have a leasing approval process in place that
would be able to utilize that experience through this process.
Ms. Parish. Tribes have a varying capacity to enable to
conduct these activities. My particular tribe, the land office
is within the Housing Authority, we have a, what appears to be
a very, very uncommon relationship with the BIA office, and we
are very, very lucky. And it is two to three weeks to get a
lease. But they are primarily residential. I don't deal with,
you know, some of the things these gentlemen fight with.
Kootenai has a very, very successful program. It would
depend on the administrative capacity of the particular tribe,
that they would be willing to put forth teachings or rules that
would allow us to gain the capacity. I believe there are
several tribes that could do it right now, and do it quicker
and more efficiently than it is being done.
Mr. Heinrich. I am really pleased to hear you say that,
that you are able to turn some of those around in two to three
weeks. I think that, you know, when that is going well, I think
BIA deserves credit for making that a priority.
Could you tell me a little bit about what role today
private equity and private investment plays in being able to
provide affordable tribal housing? And if this leasing process
were to be streamlined under the HEARTH Act, do you think that
private capital could play a larger role in providing housing,
as we have heard so much housing is dependent today on HUD
funding, obviously.
Ms. Parish. Until we can straighten out the problem with
the leasing, nobody wants to play that game. They do not have
the time available to sit there and wait, and be dependent upon
that lease process.
With the 184, there are some that are still two and three
years out there. We have a very successful relationship with
outlying banks and use of the 184 and private lending where we
are. But we have somebody come in, and that is a 6 percent
rate. And when it doesn't go well, it can jump points, and it
is financially penalizing my tribal members and tribal members
throughout the country.
I mean, we can go through there and get all the documents
in place, and the whole thing is useless by the time they get
the approval.
Mr. Heinrich. And Mr. Chairman, I think that is an
incredibly important point. If you enter into trying to
establish a mortgage for a house, and you can secure financing
that is, you know 5 percent or 5.5, and by the time everything
has its I's dotted and its T's crossed mortgages are 8.25
percent, that is prohibitive for a lot of families. So you
know, you lose out on the ability to take advantage of
financing at a time when it could really help address the
housing shortage in many of these tribal communities.
So with that, I would yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentlelady from Wyoming, Mrs.
Lummis.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Parish, could you
tell me if your organization, or if there is some other group
out there that could provide tribes with technical assistance
if this law becomes law?
Ms. Parish. Yes. One of the main reasons for the National
American Indian Housing Council is to ensure that our members
and to any tribe that receives HUD funds, to build the capacity
in those tribes, and to expedite building homes in Indian
country.
And this is, besides tax, our biggest barrier in Indian
country to building homes. We would most definitely be there to
assist them, and I actually would foresee that that would be
the main focus of our training.
Mrs. Lummis. That is fantastic, thank you. And a question
for Mr. Moses.
In your testimony you reference ATNI, and said that they
had established a trust reform work group of tribal leaders to
provide recommendations on initiatives that affect the trust
relationship.
What recommendations can you provide regarding how the BIA
can streamline the lease approval process in the future for
those tribes lacking the capacity to pursue the new regulatory
framework in this proposed law?
Mr. Moses. I don't want to sound too radical, but if the
Colville tribal instances, if we were allowed, if we were given
the funding, if we were allowed to take the leasing from step
one to the Nth degree, we wouldn't have people waiting years to
get the leases done. We wouldn't have the problems of lack of
housing on a reservation, or lack of leasing on a reservation.
I think if we were to put our heads together in Affiliated
Tribes, we could create a group within our own organization to
where the tribes with the capabilities, like I think the
Colvilles have, to assist other tribes in becoming independent
in that fashion.
So I think we would be willing to help each other. And I
think that is what Affiliated Tribes is all about.
Mrs. Lummis. I don't see that as the least bit radical.
That sounds really practical to me, so good for you.
My next question is actually for the Chairman and the
Ranking Member. In your experience here in Congress, has there
been talk about how to rationalize BIA's activities in relation
to the other agencies that tribes have to work with? They have
to work with the BIA and EPA, they have to work with the BIA
and HUD, they have to work with the BIA and Health. And then
they are embedded in the Department of the Interior with regard
to the trust obligations.
Has there ever been talk about removing the BIA from
Interior, and creating like a stand-alone agency where tribes
can go to so they don't have to have these layers of the
Federal government they are dealing with?
The Chairman. If the gentlelady would yield her time, there
have certainly been discussions and a concern about
coordinating all the various agencies to which you refer. I
don't know about eliminating BIA as such has been a concrete
proposal, but certainly we recognize the myriad of other
agencies with whom the Indian tribes have to deal. And there
needs to be streamlining. There needs to be better
coordination, cooperation, consultation, all of the above. And
that is something we have been plugging away at for a number of
years, but we are not there yet, obviously.
Mr. Hastings. If the gentlelady would yield, as you know I
am just coming back as the Ranking Member this year. However,
my experience representing my district--and I used to represent
part of the Colville, for example, prior to the 1990
reapportionment, and so I am familiar with some of the
frustrations that go on. But I personally have not pursued
that, simply because I haven't been directly on the committee.
But I think it is something that ought to be pursued.
Because I hear that, as you do, anybody that has tribes in
their district, they know the frustration that is going on. And
they overlap, and sometimes, frankly, the slowness of one
agency to deal with that. And that is frustrating to our
constituents.
Mrs. Lummis. Well, I appreciate the panelists and also the
Chairman and Ranking Member for their comments. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Lummis, I have
been on this Committee for 30 years. One of the jokes we always
hear, it is a terrible joke, is that when General Custer went
to his last battle, he turned to the BIA Director and said
don't do anything until I get back.
I don't really believe that, but that is the joke that the
BIA has to live with. I have great respect for them, and have
worked with them for my 33 years here in Congress.
Ms. Parish, it is great to see you. I spent some good times
up at Bay Mills and Brimley, Michigan. I can remember one time
I went up there, and probably in the same hour, I met probably
the oldest person there, and one of the youngest. Mr. LeBlanc,
deceased since then, and Brian Newland, who now is an attorney,
and he was probably a 14-year-old boy at that time.
But I can recall you have really defended your sovereignty
well up there. And sovereignty is not just a theoretical thing,
it is a practical thing. And the Treaty of Detroit guaranteed
you the right to fish in perpetuity, and perpetuity means
perpetuity.
But the Department of Environmental Quality ruled that that
treaty was not valid, and that they could not fish. But the
people of Bay Mills knew they could.
Mr. LeBlanc tells the story that one night he was out
fishing, and the DEQ appeared to arrest him. He hid out in the
reeds and the weeds, hiding out from the DEQ. And he said,
Congressman Kildee, the mosquitoes were biting me fiercely, it
was terrible. The only thing that gave me consolation, I knew
the mosquitoes were also biting the DEQ. So he gave himself a
declaration of independence there.
And in every instance you have to really keep fighting for
your sovereignty. In every instance. They will never come by
with a meat axe and take a huge chunk, they will take a scalpel
and cut a slice, a little bit here, slice a little bit here,
slice a little bit here. And you have to be very careful of
that slicing. And when they treat you less than a government,
you have to stand up and defend yourself on that.
I was chief sponsor last year of the reauthorization of
NAHASDA. I think this bill will give you some more authority
under NAHASDA. The bill actually was handled by Barney Frank's
committee last year, but I think this bill certainly
complements the NAHASDA reauthorization of last year. And I
commend Mr. Heinrich for his introducing that, and I wish you
well.
Ms. Parish. Thank you very much. The natives across the
Nation would like to thank you for all of your hard work. We
have some pretty cold winters up there. We are still fighting.
My fiance fishes with Mr. LeBlanc's son, and still fights to
this day.
Mr. Kildee. Very good.
Ms. Parish. We will continue to do so. And thank you again
for your assistance. We have a lot of people out there who
still need all of your help.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. God bless you.
Ms. Parish. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from California, Mrs.
Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I guess I
have, like an old dog, I go back to the same bond: funding. As
whether or not, in the last Administration, there was a cut in
some funding.
However, when you are talking about the waiting time, do
you have any idea how many are waiting? How many for business,
for the housing, for grazing, for whatever, that you may have
waiting--to any of you--that might give us concern that we are
not helping funding, or should be looking at extension of
assistance.
Ms. Parish. We know at the National American Indian Housing
Council right now, the estimate is a minimum of 200,000 housing
units are needed in Indian country. So that our houses at least
have water, and are not overcrowded.
Mrs. Napolitano. Now, that is needed housing. What about
those that are waiting for leases?
Mr. Trujillo. Congresswoman, with the Navajo Nation right
now, I don't have the leases, but those that are looking at
equity and mortgaging we have about 75 people who are ready to
do that right now. But we can't do it because we can't get the
title conveyed over from the BIA back to those individuals.
Mrs. Napolitano. And the reason?
Mr. Trujillo. We are not sure. It is like it goes into a
black hole, and we just wait for it to pop back out. So we have
gotten the documentation put together, and we are just awaiting
the conveyance of that.
In some instances it does come back that they have issues
with the historic data, which means we have to go back and fix
all of that. And so that is at our cost. And so that was one of
the areas that I was noting. We have the data system in place,
we have the process in place; we can do that work. But again,
it takes that funding, and the CBO indicated there was no cost
to us. There is a cost to us, because you have to clean that
historical data.
And just to add to what this would mean to us is, as
Congressman Heinrich noted, bringing our younger people back.
Because I would like to remind members of the Committee, who
are the movers and shakers of your community, it is that 25, I
call them the soccer moms and the basketball dads, they are the
ones with the energy. They are the ones on the school council.
They are the ones on the city council. They are the movers and
shakers of a community.
That is who the Navajo Nation is missing, because they all
live in Albuquerque, Paige, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles. And
they are the movers and shakers in these communities, whereas
they should be back in Chinle, Tuba City, Kayenta, Shiprock,
making those communities viable communities.
And so again, that is why it is important for us to get
this in place, so our younger people can stay home and actively
participate in our communities, and be an active part in
developing our nations.
Mrs. Napolitano. Great point. And you are very right; our
youngsters, they are our future leaders. And if we don't get
them where we need them, then we are not helping ourselves.
You referred to the data costs and CBO says there is no
cost. That was my next question, what is your cost, and how are
you paying for it? And is there any way of being able to
determine what it really will help expedite? You said they are
waiting, maybe, Mr. Chair, we need to find out from BIA why the
delay on these specific cases, if nothing else, to begin with.
But also, why are they saying there is no cost when they have
to go back and scrub? And are they using or developing a
template to be able to use and say before those applications go
in, these are the requirements that you will have to meet
before we accept these applications, for whatever it is.
Mr. Trujillo. Well, again, Congressman, Mr. Chair, right
now, looking at the exact waiting aspects of that, the costs in
terms of the cleanup, right now we are looking at phases at
this point as far as the Nation is concerned.
At this point, we are estimating about--well, we are
looking for between $8 to $10 million to get some of these
initial steps going.
I heard mentioned the TAMS system. We are not even touching
the TAMS system, because again, there is a lot of concern about
that whole system. The Nation has developed its own system that
has, we are getting that before the ISO and ANCI to make sure
it qualifies for those areas in terms of record management and
record-keeping and security.
So we are looking at that process, too, to begin to develop
that full process. We have been doing this piecemeal. I have
been pulling nickels and dimes out wherever I can in order to
get this thing going. Because we finally came to the
determination in 2007, we can't wait, let us just go do it. And
so that is what we have been doing.
So again, looking at the development of that, getting the
necessary personnel to follow through on that, and because
these records are so sensitive, there has to be training and
there has to be security involved in this, too. So all of this
costs money. And right now, like I said, we are looking at $8
to $10 million to get ourselves up to speed in terms of the
initial personnel, and then also getting the data system in
place so that we can convey that.
Now, we have done that within the Division of Natural
Resources. We are also conveying this over land parcel status,
so we can have not only surface information and description,
but also subsurface. Because within my division, I have all
those areas, as well as cultural, mineral rights, water rights,
all those ties to the parcels of land.
But again, it starts from the very basics. We only have 25
percent of our land under the National Survey right now. The
other pieces are still tied to roads, trees, rocks, hills. And
so when we convey that information to get a title, it is shot
back to us. And so again, we have to go and clean that historic
information up so that there is a clear title, or a chain of
title, so that the financial institutions can look at that both
for mortgaging aspects, as well as, like I said right now, we
are looking at equity.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Chair, I would like to ask one more
question, and it has to do with TAMS. Is it something that is
advantageous to any of the tribes? Were you consulted in being
able to set it up? Is BIA aware of all the work that you are
doing? Are they helping you add to your information to be able
to add to the historic value?
Mr. Trujillo. We are in the processes of working with our
regional office. We went ahead and basically took the bull by
the horns, and are developing this on our own, looking at what
is needed in terms of record-keeping and what kind of security
efforts we would need within the Nation.
We have done a lot of modifications on our leasing aspects.
We are now going to home-site leasing. We have an eminent
domain process in place. So the idea here is not how to build a
system in order to make sure all of that is recorded, and we
have access to that information on all the parcels of land.
And so basically what we are looking at, Congresswoman, is
eventually coming to the point where we take over the title
plan. And we have that under our jurisdiction for Navajo land.
By that means we obtain not only then to put these packets
together, but we will also convey it and get those issues out
to our people.
On the local side, we have also gone to what is known as
local governance, meaning now we are beginning, as was noted
before. On tribal lands you have to, because it is designated
as Federal land, whenever you do anything, even up to a home-
site lease, that is a Federal action. Meaning we have to follow
through with NEPA. We have to do an environmental assessment,
we have to do an archaeological clearance, we have to do all
those things.
What we have now designated is to have chapters go out and
develop land use plans by which they are now going on larger
tracts of land to do this clearancing. So in essence, we are
beginning to look at zoning for our local areas. So that when a
person wants a home-site lease in an area, and it is designated
as a residential area, they don't have to go through NEPA or
archaeological work. They already have that done.
But again, all of this has to be recorded, and it has to be
applied to the parcels of land that we have out there. So that
is the system that we are putting together, with the idea that,
based off of the Navajo Leasing Act, if other tribes wish to
utilize the system that we have developed, we are open to that.
Because again, we are building this with the idea of looking at
Trust land and keep simple lands in mind. Which is different
than lands that are outside the reservation.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, and thanks for the Colville leader
for coming. I appreciate it.
I want to note that Mr. Hastings is proud of having
representing the Colville Nation. And I just wanted to point
out that I represented it before Mr. Hastings, so I just want
to make sure that I have seniority in regard to the Colville. I
am sure he respects that.
Council member Moses, I read your testimony. I didn't get
to listen to it, but I read it. But you talked in there about
the sort of procedural aspects of being able to handle the
leaseholds to a system that would be faster to the current
system. You alluded to the delays and just the procedural
aspects of that. Could you talk about how you think this
legislation could help or hurt in that regard?
Mr. Moses. Just by getting the BIA to begin recognizing
their trust responsibilities, and to--the only way they can
actually get things going is to get a new system, new computer
system altogether. I think they got a new computer system about
four or five years ago, and it was antiquated then. Nobody
wanted it except the BIA.
If they went to a system, an automated system that was
comparable to IBM or something like that, then they wouldn't
have the problems of not being able to update their hardware in
a timely fashion. And that would be comparable to the tribe
system, you know.
We are probably in the 21st Century; the BIA is still in
the 19th Century. You know, we have the laptop computers or
Blackberries, and they still have the big, huge, antiquated
systems. If they were able to update their automated systems,
then that would go a long way to getting rid of some of the
backlogs that they have.
Funding, again--everything I think points to funding. The
Congresswoman asked the question about getting us out from
under the BIA. I am not a real supporter of the Bureau, but I
am not a supporter of BLM or any of those other agencies.
Because they are worse on Indian affairs than you would have
thought. They split the BIA in half and created an Office of
Special Trust. Now, that really did nothing to enhance the
dealings with Indians in the government.
In fact, it slowed everything down more so, because they
took away the funding that the BIA had, which was woefully
underfunded to begin with. And now they have the Office of
Special Trust, which has a lot of funding, but they don't do
much for Indian country.
So if they were to automate themselves, get the BIA
automated, get them comparable with the Indian tribes that they
are supposedly over, then I think we would have a lot of these
problems solved.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, that is helpful. I appreciate it.
Say hello to our friends at home.
Mr. Moses. Will do.
The Chairman. Any other Members with questions? If not, the
Committee wishes to thank each of the panelists for taking the
time and the travel and effort to be with us today. The
testimony has been very helpful to us.
And again, the Chair wishes to commend the gentleman from
New Mexico, Mr. Heinrich, for his tremendous leadership and
introduction of this legislation. And we look forward to
working and continuing to work with all the parties.
Thank you. The Committee on Natural Resources stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]